------- Index of Articles
NUCLEAR
Blair Urges Determined Global Response to Attacks
Shield Plan Buoyed by a Bipartisan Mood
Russia Condemns Attacks on the U.S. and Vows to Aid NATO
U.S. edging closer to nuclear disarmament
Time to use the nuclear option
MILITARY
UN Sees Crisis in Afghanistan as U.S. Weighs Attacks
U.S. Calls Iran's Response to Attacks 'Positive'
Israeli Army Raids Draw Little Notice
White House, Air Force One were targets
Bush Signs Order to Activate 50,000 Reserve Troops
U.S. plans war on terrorists, not infrastructure
CIA's Covert War on Bin Laden
U.S. Force vs. Terrorists: From Reactive to Active
OTHER
U.S. Supports Postponing IMF-World Bank Meetings
Lawmakers seek shake-up at CIA
Spying on Terrorists and Thwarting Them Gains New Urgency
Powell names bin Laden as suspect
U.S. Identifies 19 Men It Says Hijacked 4 Terror Jetliners
TERRORISM AND NONVIOLENCE
ACTIVISTS
Prayers for peace from many traditions
Aftershocks
Hold the Vision
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- britain
Blair Urges Determined Global Response to Attacks
September 14, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-attack-britain-parliament.html
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair called on Friday for a global alliance to support a determined and lengthy campaign against the perpetrators of the ``hideous and foul'' suicide attacks against the United States.
Addressing an emergency session of parliament, Blair said Tuesday's attacks which killed thousands of people in New York and Washington were not aimed at the United States alone.
``This is a moment when every difference between nations...is put to one side in one common endeavor. The world should stand together against this outrage,'' he told parliament.
Blair said the United States, together with its allies, was working to identify who was behind the strikes on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington in which around 5,000 people are believed to have died.
``Once that judgement is made, the appropriate action can be taken. It will be determined, it will take time, it will continue over time until the menace is properly dealt with and its machinery of terror destroyed,'' Blair said.
He said ``every single corner of the world,'' from Russia, China, Europe and the Arab nations, was united in condemnation.
``This solidarity should be maintained and translated into support for action,'' he said.
Blair said Britain, one of Washington's staunchest allies with particularly close military and intelligence ties, would not flinch in the face of violence.
``Our beliefs are the very opposite of the fanatics. We believe in reason, democracy and tolerance,'' he said. ``...But the fanatics should know: we hold these beliefs every bit as strongly as they hold theirs. Now is the time to show it.''
``EPOCH MAKING TRAGEDY''
Friday's emergency debate in the ``mother of parliaments'' coincided with a day of mourning across the European Union.
The last time British parliament was recalled from a summer break was in 1998, when 29 people were killed in a bomb blast in Omagh, Northern Ireland -- the worst single attack in 30 years of violence in the British-ruled province.
Blair said this week's death toll was on a whole new scale.
``In this case, we are talking about a tragedy of epoch making proportions,'' he said, adding that Britain had lost at least 100 and ``maybe many more'' people in the attacks.
``Murder of British people in New York is no different in nature from their murder here in the heart of Britain itself. In the most direct sense therefore, we have not just an interest but an obligation to bring those responsible to account.''
The newly elected leader of the opposition Conservative Party, Iain Duncan Smith, pledged unswerving support.
``Today, somber yet determined, we affirm our solidarity and unity of purpose,'' he said.
Blair said the devastating attacks using hijacked planes showed that militant groups could, if they had the chance, go even further and use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
Some groups, even some states, were trading technology in such weapons of mass destruction.
``It is time this trade was exposed, disrupted and stamped out. We have been warned by the events of 11 September. We should act on the warning,'' he said.
-------- missile defense
THE MISSILE DEBATE
Shield Plan Buoyed by a Bipartisan Mood
New York Times
September 14, 2001
By ADAM CLYMER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/international/14DEFE.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - The suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon appear to have strengthened, not weakened, the prospects for Congressional support of President Bush's missile defense plan.
Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said that even though the attacks showed that the biggest threat to the nation was from terrorism, Congressional reluctance to oppose the president at this time seemed likely to overwhelm that circumstance.
One Democratic senator after another, while stopping short of Mr. Obey's blunt prediction, said they felt that this was no time for partisanship - and the ballistic missile issue is inevitably partisan.
Moreover, the money issue has all but disappeared, swept away by Congress's sudden post-attack willingness to tap the Social Security surplus for all forms of defense. That has weakened the argument that the president's request for $8.3 billion for an antimissile system would divert needed money from more pressing dangers like terrorism, critics of the plan concede.
"We have enough resources to do both," said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.
Before the attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee had recommended cutting $1.3 billion from Mr. Bush's request of $8.3 billion for all forms of missile defense, including the uncontroversial shield for troops in the field with weapons like Patriot missiles. The cut in the antiballistic missile program would amount to $510 million out of a requested $3.94 billion. Committee aides said the administration request was for more than it could realistically spend in the year beginning Oct. 1.
But the committee's more serious challenge to the administration was an effort to ban any testing that would violate the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which Mr. Bush wants to abandon.
That prohibition led Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, to say that he would urge a Bush veto if the language survived on the Senate floor and in a Senate-House conference.
It is now singularly at risk because of Congress's readiness to rally behind Mr. Bush in the wake of the attacks.
Tom C. Collina, director of global security for the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the leading foes of the antimissile plan, said, "There's a real danger because of this crisis that the Democrats will give up this fight, which would be a real shame."
The subject is not being openly debated. Instead, lawmakers, eager to present a united front, are trying to avoid contentious issues in the wake of Tuesday's attacks. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, who has argued in the past that terrorism was a bigger threat than a rogue missile, said, "Nobody wants to say `I told you so.' "
But a few Democratic critics said the devastation caused by hijacked airliners showed the administration was focusing on the wrong threat. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said: "I think we probably will not argue about it now. But eventually there will come a realization that these planes were missiles a defense shield could not defend against."
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee, said: "What we see here is that we are much more vulnerable" to terrorism than to missiles. "We've got to use our resources to defend against this sort of attack."
Republican supporters of the president drew a different lesson. "What Tuesday showed is that attacks can come in many different forms," said Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi said: "We can't predict what our enemies are going to use as a way to intimidate or harm us or our country. We can't just single out one or two things to work on."
Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee said, "To say that because yesterday's attack came from this direction, then tomorrow's can't come from another direction is foolish."
At the White House today, Ari Fleischer, the press secretary, insisted that there was no question of balancing threats from terrorism and from missiles. He said: "The two are not connected. The United States still faces risks of many natures. This was a terrorist risk that was carried out in a different form of delivery, within our borders. But that does not mean there are not other threats out there that also need to be addressed, per missile defense." And he observed that the government was spending much more money on terrorism, "lopsidedly, overwhelmingly," than on missile defense.
In the House, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the minority leader, said "we will continue to see if we can divert some of this money" from missile defense to antiterrorism activities.
But Mr. Obey, who was hopeful before the attacks that the administration's request would be trimmed, said he had no idea now whether that could be done. "It is times like this when the political system produces some of the craziest results and some of the biggest mistakes."
And an aide to a House Democrat who opposes missile defense explained, "What happened Tuesday was just so terrible that people are rallying round, saying we have to let the president lead us. So we're going to give him a lot of leeway."
-------- russia
THE ALLIANCE
Russia Condemns Attacks on the U.S. and Vows to Aid NATO
New York Times
September 14, 2001
By SUZANNE DALEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/international/14NATO.html
BRUSSELS, Sept. 13 - President Bush's call for a global coalition against terrorism continued to gain support overseas today as Russia, in a rare joint statement with NATO, expressed its anger over Tuesday's attacks in New York and Washington and called for a worldwide effort to combat such acts.
After a special meeting here, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council issued a statement saying that while NATO allies and Russia "have suffered from terrorist attacks against civilians, the horrific scale of the attacks of 11 September is without precedent in modern history."
The council, which oversees relations between the two former cold war enemies, said NATO and Russia would "intensify" their cooperation to fight the scourge of terrorism.
"NATO and Russia call on the entire international community to unite in the struggle against terrorism," the statement said.
Russia's support for the United States and the alliance as a whole has been unusually forthright, rooted in what Moscow perceives as a common cause: the fight against Islamic radicalism. Russia has portrayed the war in Chechnya as a struggle against Islamic fanatics and has blamed the same forces for the instability on its southern borders.
The Russian government has consistently asserted that the Islamic terrorism it is fighting has its roots in Afghanistan.
A senior NATO official said that Russia had offered the statement, without being asked by either alliance or American officials.
As shock seemed to give way to anger throughout Europe, some allies were forthright in supporting military action.
In Britain, where Home Secretary Jack Straw said he had received reports that "hundreds" of British citizens had been killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, the government announced that its forces were already on alert.
France's president, Jacques Chirac, did not specifically mention military action, but he said that polls showed that 96 percent of the French were "in solidarity with the U.S.," a level of support he said he had never seen before.
"France, I would like to repeat, will be totally supportive," he said. "We will show solidarity."
On Wednesday, the 19 members of NATO took the unprecedented step of invoking a mutual defense clause. NATO officials denied a report in the British newspaper The Guardian saying that the alliance had already drawn up a plan to invade Afghanistan, the refuge of Osama bin Laden, an exiled Saudi suspected of having planned Tuesday's attacks.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
U.S. edging closer to nuclear disarmament
The Bergen Record
Friday, September 14, 2001
By SCOTT CANON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.bergen.com/morenews/nuke14200109149.htm
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- To reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, it would help first to count them.
Take Missouri's B-2 stealth bombers. Each can stuff 16 nuclear bombs into its belly.
Under one arms-cutting deal, each bomber counted as just one bomb. Under terms of the next treaty, 16. Now, a third pact might return to counting each B-2 as one weapon.
Such is the curious calculus of nuclear disarmament more than a half-century after the blinding dawn of the atomic age.
Now President Bush has called for scrapping more warheads, even unilaterally, largely to calm Russian nerves jangled by his dreams of a missile shield.
He must win over the Pentagon and Capitol Hill first.
Still, even as it concedes the complications, America's small fraternity of nuclear strategists sees a real chance for a radical shift in the way the country arms itself.
The Bush administration, in fact, has voiced an attitude about nuclear weapons that would have been unthinkable not so long ago.
"Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney are essentially anti-nuclear people. They're pro-high-tech and pro-Star Wars people," said Ray Kidder, a retired physicist who designed nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif.
"We're getting away from nuclear weapons and pretty much agreeing that they're not usable," he said. "Instead, we're going toward precision weapons and high-tech. The only unknown is how quickly the new will replace the old."
"A lot of people have reasons to make changes," said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research institute that focuses on defense planning and investment.
Start with the president.
Bush ran for office pledging to shrink U.S. nuclear forces. Once he was in office, over the protests of congressional Republicans, he quickly slated the silo-based MX missile for the junk pile.
Money saved could free dollars for the national missile defense, which carries a price tag estimated to be between $35 billion and $100 billion.
Think next of the Russians.
They loathe Bush's national missile defense. Even though it is sold as a backstop against lesser powers tossing missiles at the United States, Moscow sees it as a step toward a larger shield that could neutralize its weapons.
The Kremlin also has bills it cannot pay, aircraft it cannot afford to build, submarines it no longer can safely keep at sea. The White House is banking that in the end, President Vladimir Putin will excuse Bush his missile shield -- and its snubbing of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty -- in return for a deal to thin both countries' arsenals significantly.
Finally come America's generals and politicians.
Already pained by cutbacks, the Air Force is reluctant to give up its nuclear bomber and missile crews, and the Navy treasures its strategic submarine forces. A nuclear assignment brings status to a military branch.
But if Bush orders the target list shaved, it would mean the military could carry on with fewer nuclear weapons. That, in turn, could free money to update the military inventory with such items as new destroyers and fighter jets.
The savings are only a slight incentive, however. Experts say that even drastic warhead cuts might save only $1 billion to $2 billion out of a defense budget topping $300 billion.
Congress only grudgingly gives up even the oldest Navy bases or defense assembly lines. And Capitol Hill remains a roost for defense hawks who say stability comes from convincing enemies that they can be wiped off the map.
"It's easier for a Republican president to make those deep cuts," said Jim Wurst, program director for the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, which promotes peace and disarmament through the use of law. "He isn't going to get the criticism from other Republicans the way a Democrat would."
Wurst is fond of saying "the first President Bush did more for arms control in one year than [former President Bill] Clinton did in eight." Now, he said, it's up to the second President Bush to follow through on campaign promises to slash the nuclear arsenal and to take thousands of weapons off quick-launch alert.
Early analyses suggest Bush has taken vital steps toward moving in that direction.
The administration has sent key diplomatic signals to the Russians and the Chinese. Bush even suggested that he would not crab at Beijing for mustering more missiles that can reach U.S. soil -- as long as Beijing stops carping about his missile defense.
In Donald Rumsfeld, he chose a defense secretary determined to reform the military and deploy a missile defense. And, in contrast to Clinton, Bush put the task of studying the country's nuclear war plan into the hands of a relatively small group of influential advisers.
The nuclear arms race peaked in 1986, when an estimated 70,000 nuclear warheads worldwide were loaded in submarines, silos, or aircraft.
Their targets included not only enemies' nuclear weapons, army bases, and the bunkers of political leaders, but also small machine shops that supplied steel plants that fed tank assembly plants. And so on.
Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and its corroding nuclear forces retreated into Russia. So scores of targets in the Ukraine, for instance, were targets no more.
Then-President George Bush, with Cheney as his defense secretary, made several moves. Bush halted the constant cruising of nuke-loaded bombers. He killed missile development programs and a plan to put the multiwarhead MX into a game of rail-based hide-and-seek. He ordered nuclear warheads off surface ships and out of artillery units.
In 1993, he inked a START II deal with then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to bring both sides down to 3,500 warheads by 2007. Clinton followed by teaming with Yeltsin for START III talks, with a goal of lowering the stakes to 2,500 nuclear weapons per side.
Both nations remain on course to meet by Dec. 5 the final stages of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- first negotiated during the Reagan years, signed by then-President George Bush and taking effect in the Clinton administration. In the mid-1990s that same treaty yanked Minuteman missiles from the silos that pockmarked Missouri and South Dakota.
-------- us nuc politics
(Military Extremism)
Time to use the nuclear option
September 14, 2001
Thomas Woodrow
The time has come for the United States to make good on its past pledges that it will use all military capabilities at its disposal to defend U.S. soil by delivering nuclear strikes against the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks against the nation's political capital and the nation's financial capital.
At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration.
To consider use of the nation's nuclear forces, in the present circumstances, cannot be brushed aside as an overly emotional response to the unknown face of terrorism. To begin with, we know who that face belongs to, and we know where a goodly portion of his logistical and training capabilities are located. A series of low-level, tactical nuclear strikes in the Afghanistan desert would pose no risk to large population centers and would carry little risk of fallout spreading to populated areas.
Also, our nuclear capabilities were designed to include just such a mission, and they are capable of fulfilling such a mission.
Lastly, the use of nuclear weapons against the bin Laden groups and his supporters will rightly shock the world, but it will also shock those nations that have been disposed for a variety of reasons to back the terrorist groups with economic and political support. The United States will, in effect, have raised the bar against future such acts from occurring. If we, as a nation, show the willingness to use the ultimate weapon in the current situation, there can be no doubt anywhere in the globe that the United States will make good on its past pledges to defend its sovereign territory with such weapons.
The attacks that occurred this week have been classified both as acts of war and as a second Pearl Harbor, but these designations ennoble the acts in Washington and New York. An act of war is constituted when one nation-state uses military force against another. Pearl Harbor was used by Japan to attack U.S. military targets to begin such an act of war. The bin Laden groups are not nations or states, and they have primarily targeted civilian populations. In fact, the use of so-called Islamic fundamentalist terrorism on a global scale is a new phenomena, a product of the modern age. In centuries past, civilized nations would conduct "punitive" expeditions against pirate regimes, but those actions were strictly local in scope and the protagonists could not approach the sophistication shown by the bin Laden groups. As we have seen from such "punitive" actions by the previous administration, those actions achieved next to nothing.
The fight against the bin Laden groups will be a fight to the death, and this is another valid reason to make use of our nation's nuclear forces. Unlike the more limited goals of wars between nations -- territory, formal surrender, etc. -- bin Laden's goals are the elimination of the United States as the global leader for progressive political, economic and cultural change. Should, God forbid, the United States withdraw from the Middle East and Persian Gulf, the terrorists will raise their sights to eliminate our influence elswhere in the world. For a vision of what these groups see as their ultimate objective, we need look no further than the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where women are beaten in the street for walking in public, owners of television sets are sent to prison or shot and ancient Buddhist monuments to universal peace and understanding are reduced to rubble.
No, the bin Laden groups must be exterminated completely before they become more powerful in their efforts to exterminate us. We should use our nuclear capabilities to help achieve this. We must, as a nation, take the firmest action possible against this growing evil in the world, before its poison spreads even further. If not the United States, who? If not now, under these circumstances, when?
Thomas Woodrow, a 22-year veteran intelligence officer, resigned from the Defense Intelligence Agency in May.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
UN Sees Crisis in Afghanistan as U.S. Weighs Attacks
September 14, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-afghan-un.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - As the United States weighs retaliation against Afghanistan for Tuesday's terror attacks, the United Nations warned on Friday that millions of Afghanis faced starvation or homelessness.
Fearing U.S. military action against Afghanistan's Taliban rulers, who are accused by Washington of harboring Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden, hundreds of international relief workers have fled Afghanistan, leaving humanitarian programs there crippled just as winter nears, the U.N. humanitarian office for Afghanistan said.
Among those leaving the country were all 75 U.N. international staffers in Afghanistan although Afghan nationals remained behind to try to keep humanitarian aid programs running.
The office said it believed there were nearly six million ''vulnerable people'' in Afghanistan, about 25 percent of the total population.
Some three million of these are currently being fed by the U.N.'s World Food Program, and if this assistance cannot be maintained, ``massive displacement cannot be ruled out,'' the U.N. office said in a printed statement.
``At least half may be forced to leave their homes to avert starvation, seeking survival either within or outside Afghanistan's borders,'' it said.
Washington officials say bin Laden is a top suspect in Tuesday's attacks, in which hundreds died and thousands are still missing after hijacked planes crashed into the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon in Washington and a field in Pennsylvania.
The United Nations said it planned to do its best to carry on essential assistance to Afghanistan's civilian population but ``national staff have never been called upon to carry out their duties in a crisis of this magnitude.''
``There is greatest need to try to continue food aid, shelter and clothing so that people can survive the advancing winter,'' it said.
-------- iran
U.S. Calls Iran's Response to Attacks 'Positive'
September 14, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-iran-usa.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States would like to build on Iran's sympathetic response to the attacks in New York and Washington, a U.S. official said on Friday.
Iranian leaders from reformists to conservatives have strongly condemned the attacks in an unprecedented show of sympathy for the United States, their enemy for the past 20 years.
On Friday, a conservative Iranian cleric said he was ''heart-broken'' over the attacks, while the Iranian and Bahraini soccer teams observed a minute's silence before the start of a World Cup qualifier match in Tehran.
The State Department official, who asked not to be named, said: ''We have seen a surprisingly positive response from Iran. As we go forward this could be built on.''
Asked if the United States might go as far as inviting Iran into an alliance against the perpetrators, he said: ``Very few countries would be 'redlined out' of a coalition. But a framework of agreement? I don't think we're there yet.''
On Friday, Secretary of State Colin Powell asked for support from Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara of Syria, one of the seven countries, along with Iran, on the State Department list of ``state sponsors of terrorism''.
Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic relations since soon after the 1979 revolution which toppled the Shah, a U.S. ally. Iranian conservatives staunchly oppose a rapprochement with the United States, which they still regard as the ``Great Oppressor''.
SHARED DISLIKE OF TALIBAN
The United States has tried for several years to coax Iran into an official dialogue but Iran has repeatedly rebuffed its overtures, at least until Washington meets conditions such as an end to economic sanctions and the release of assets.
Iran and the United States share a deep dislike for the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who have sheltered the prime suspect in the attacks, Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden.
Asked if this could form the basis for a new relationship, the official said: ``We could build on common points of agreement. We will see as we go forward.''
The United States has had only occasional exchanges with the Iranian government, either through the Swiss embassy in Tehran or through other Europeans who do have relations.
However, Iranian support for the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah and Palestinian Islamist groups is likely to be a serious obstacle to any cooperation.
The official said he doubted the Bush administration would be willing to turn a blind eye to that support, even for the sake of strengthening the alliance which Powell is trying to create against ''terrorists.''
Iran says all the groups it supports are fighting a legitimate campaign against Israeli occupation.
When President Bush's father formed an alliance against Iraq in 1990, he did not invite Iran to join. Iran stayed neutral in the Gulf War which followed in 1991.
Syria, in contrast, joined the alliance and fought alongside U.S. forces for the liberation of Kuwait.
-------- israel
Israeli Army Raids Draw Little Notice
Tank Column Enters Jericho Before Dawn
By Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A32
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28612-2001Sep14?language=printer
JERICHO, West Bank, Sept. 13 -- With the world's attention diverted by terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Israel has launched a military offensive in Palestinian-controlled territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that has killed a dozen Palestinians in the last three days.
A spokesman for the Israeli army said the operations, including deep incursions by columns of tanks, were intended to "eliminate terrorist activities," including drive-by shootings of the sort that killed two Israelis in a van carrying teachers to work in the Jordan Valley earlier this week. But independent Israeli analysts and Palestinians said Israel is taking advantage of the terror attacks in the United States to carry out raids that might otherwise have attracted criticism from abroad.
Not only was there practically no condemnation from Europe or the United States, but the raids received little attention in the Israeli media as well.
"These actions couldn't have gone on for so long if it weren't for the attack at the World Trade Center," said Roni Daniel, military correspondent for Israel's Channel 2 television station. "This is a window of opportunity that the Israeli army will use to push [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat into a corner."
In the latest operation, a column of Israeli tanks accompanied by infantry roared into the sleepy Jordan Valley town of Jericho before dawn today, triggering a smattering of opposition by Palestinian gunmen. The forces destroyed a small Palestinian barracks and badly damaged two houses. By the time the forces had withdrawn this morning, 13 Palestinians were wounded, including one woman who was hit by shrapnel in her bed. There were no Israeli casualties.
The two houses in Jericho hit by Israeli tank shells are around the corner from the home of Saeb Erekat, a top Palestinian peace negotiator. Erekat, a moderate who maintains close relations with a wide variety of high-ranking Israeli officials, said the Israeli attack was unprovoked.
He said Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, is taking advantage of Washington's focus on the aftermath of the murderous attacks in America. "He's using this for two things," Erekat said. "First, to do whatever he wants without anybody watching him. Second, he's trying to package this for the world as if he is fighting terrorism."
Israeli officials said Palestinian gunmen who shoot at Israeli cars have operated from Jericho. However, it was unclear whether there was any direct connection between the attack on Jericho and those gunmen.
Before dawn Wednesday and t, the army unleashed even more devastating raids on the northern West Bank city of Jenin, which Israeli officials have called a "hornet's nest." A number of suicide bombers have staged their attacks from Jenin, including an Arab citizen of Israel who killed himself and three Israeli Jews earlier this week in the Israeli coastal town of Nahariya.
In the tank thrusts into Jenin, the army destroyed a Palestinian Authority building and killed at least 11 Palestinians in the two days of clashes, including a 9-year-old girl. Another Palestinian man died blowing himself up with a bomb next to an Israeli tank, according to Palestinians.
By midday today, the army had withdrawn its forces from the centers of Jenin and Jericho but remained in positions on Palestinian territory at the perimeters.
-------- u.s.
White House, Air Force One were targets
From AP
13sep01
Australian News Network
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2852135%5E2%5E%5Enbv,00.html
THE White House and Air Force One were targets of the terrorist strikes on America, a US administration spokesman said.
"We had specific credible information that both were intended terrorist targets, and that the plane that hit the Pentagon may have been headed for the White House," said Sean McCormack, spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council.
The White House confirmed reports that the executive mansion and presidential jet had been threatened.
----
THE MILITARY
Bush Signs Order to Activate 50,000 Reserve Troops
September 14, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Military.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the Pentagon pored over options for war against terrorism, President Bush on Friday gave the military authority to call 50,000 reservists to active duty for homeland defense and recovery missions.
The signed order was made public after the president attended a prayer service at National Cathedral.
According to a brief Pentagon announcement, the military services have so far identified requirements for 35,500 reservists: 13,000 in the Air Force, 10,000 in the Army, 3,000 in the Navy, 7,500 in the Marine Corps and 2,000 in the Coast Guard.
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said the first reservists would be called up within days, but was not more specific. Other officials said the first calls could come this weekend.
Two government officials familiar with the president's plans stressed that the call-up was not part of a military mobilization aimed at the terrorists who struck Washington and New York on Tuesday. Instead, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wants the troops to support air patrols over New York and Washington and remain alert elsewhere in the country.
The reservists will be assigned to the following recovery and security missions: port operations, medical support, engineering support, general civil support and homeland defense.
``This partial mobilization demonstrates the vital role of reserve forces in our national military strategy,'' the Pentagon announcement said.
Air National Guard reserve pilots are needed to man fighter jets that are on 15-minute alert at 26 bases across the country to protect commercial planes.
Rumsfeld said combat planes are flying over the New York-Washington corridor to protect flights. He has not decided when those flights should stop.
The Defense Department is making some moves to return the nation to normal. The military's fleet of sophisticated radar planes -- called AWACS -- have been ordered to stop flying missions over the nation's airspace, Rumsfeld said Thursday night on CNN's ``Larry King Live.''
The decision coincided with the resumption of commercial airline flights.
The call-up of reservists comes under the president's authority to order a ``partial mobilization'' of the nation's military reserves, which allows him to activate as many as 1 million troops. A partial mobilization requires the president to declare a national emergency. When that authority was last used, on Jan. 18, 1991 at the outset of the Persian Gulf War, more than 265,322 members of the National Guard and Reserve were activated.
The United States has 1.3 million people in the reserves.
Bush approved the order on Rumsfeld's recommendation, presented during a Cabinet meeting at the White House Friday. Bush had planned to announce the move after the Cabinet meeting, but the photo opportunity was canceled at the last minute.
Meanwhile, Bush and the Pentagon were weighing how to eradicate the terrorists involved in Tuesday's attacks and the states and organizations that support them.
The military strike options go far beyond the short-term cruise missile assaults of years past in Afghanistan and Sudan and isolated airstrikes against sites in Iraq.
Instead, they involve the potentially lengthy use of military forces on the land, at sea and in the air. Options include the covert insertion of elite special forces and long-range bomb strikes from manned aircraft, said senior military and administration officials, all speaking on condition of anonymity.
In the most explicit description yet of the Bush administration's intentions, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday the retaliation would be continued until the roots of terrorism are destroyed.
``These people try to hide. They won't be able to hide forever,'' Wolfowitz said. ``They think their harbors are safe, but they won't be safe forever. One has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism.''
Said Navy Secretary Gordon England: ``This is not going to be a short program.''
The huge number of dead and the vast destruction wrought by Tuesday's strikes has caused a different mindset to take hold among senior Defense Department officials, a ranking military official said.
``If you are really going to do war, you do it with all assets -- political, economic and military, and that's what they want to do,'' the officer said.
In comments at the White House earlier Thursday, Bush repeated his assertion that the attacks with hijacked jetliners on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of war.
``Now that war has been declared, we will lead the world to victory,'' Bush said.
Appearing with England in a Pentagon briefing room still reeking of smoke, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark pointed out that the Navy already has two aircraft carrier battle groups, each with 75 warplanes, near the Arabian Sea.
That is twice the usual number for that part of the world. The USS Enterprise had been due to return home after being relieved this month by the USS Carl Vinson, but it was ordered to remain in the area indefinitely.
Such battle groups normally include cruisers and submarines, which can be launch pads for long-range cruise missile strikes, perhaps a prelude to attacks by manned aircraft such as B-2 stealth bombers or B-1 Lancers.
There were no other indications Thursday of a buildup of American forces in the Middle East or elsewhere.
-------
U.S. plans war on terrorists, not infrastructure
September 14, 2001
BY Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010914-82108418.htm
The Pentagon yesterday announced it is planning a lengthy war against international terrorists, and officials said all options, from air strikes to commando raids, are open.
Military officials said the campaign must concentrate on eliminating perpetrators as opposed to bombing rebuildable infrastructure, as was done in the first missile strike on terrorist Osama bin Laden's camps in 1998.
"We are entering into a campaign against terrorism that has to be sustained and broad and effective," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.
"You don't do it with just a single military strike, no matter how dramatic. You don't do it with just military forces alone, you do it with the full resources of the U.S. government. It will be a campaign, not a single action."
U.S. officials familiar with some of the options discussed inside the Pentagon said Army officers are suggesting that ground operations must be used if the objective is to eliminate the people who orchestrate attacks on Americans.
"I don't think we talk about damaging infrastructure at this point," said a Senate defense aide. "I think they have to go after people. You can't be cute about it. America now has the will to go after these people."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said for the first time that the administration will target terrorists who have killed Americans in previous assaults as well as the participants in Tuesday's attacks in New York and Washington.
This opens the door for striking targets in Iran. The Justice Department has accused Iranians of aiding fanatics who bombed the Khobar Towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 19 American service members. Mr. Powell's declaration means that the United States plans to pressure Saudi Arabia to target terrorist cells there, such as the Saudi Hezbollah, which the United States says carried out the bombing.
Mr. Powell also for the first time identified Saudi exile bin Laden as a prime suspect in planning the hijackings of four commercial airlines on Tuesday. Two of the planes smashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers, another hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania en route to Washington.
A key player in this newly declared war is Pakistan, whose border is used by bin Laden operatives to leave and enter Afghanistan. Pakistan's proximity to Afghanistan would make it prime ground for the United States to target bin Laden.
Military officers said options being prepared for President Bush include the use of special operations forces that would enter Afghanistan, or another terrorist-harboring country, armed with intelligence information on bin Laden's whereabouts.
Satellites would be used to intercept communications, and locate and photograph the targets.
"It's all a question of speed and execution," said the Senate aide. Operational security would be a tantamount importance. This perhaps explains Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's admonishment on Wednesday for personnel not to disclose classified information.
Introducing ground troops would be a defining moment in Mr. Bush's presidency. If successful, the operation could stamp him as a victor over terrorism.
If it failed, it could label him as the commander in chief of another Desert One -- the disastrous attempt by President Carter to free hostages in Iran.
As the Pentagon worked on military options, the armed forces were making the first preparations for an attack. Two Navy carriers, the USS Enterprise and the USS Carl Vinson, remain on station in the Persian Gulf.
U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the region, normally keeps one carrier in the Gulf. The two battle groups carry more than 120 warplanes. Surface ships and attack submarines are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Meanwhile, Air Force jets continued to fly protective "caps" over major population centers, including Washington. Their presence raised the distasteful scenario of a presidential decision to shoot down an airliner and its terrorists' captives in order to save thousands of lives on the ground.
The war planning announced yesterday by the Pentagon will require new thinking, several officials said. The administration must figure out how to use the military to punish scores of terrorists around the globe. Bin Laden's organization alone operates cells in 27 countries, including the United States.
Said a military officer, "This is the opportunity to end this stuff, for us to stop all of these terrorists."
-------
CIA's Covert War on Bin Laden
Agency Has Had Green Light Since 1998, but Terrorist Proves Elusive
By Bob Woodward and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28094-2001Sep13?language=printer
The CIA has been authorized since 1998 to use covert means to disrupt and preempt terrorist operations planned abroad by Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden under a directive signed by President Bill Clinton and reaffirmed by President Bush this year, according to government sources.
U.S. intelligence has observed the elusive multimillionaire, thought to be hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, several times this year, one source said, adding that this holds out the prospect that military strikes could be directed against him.
But reliable intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden, who was fingered yesterday by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as a prime suspect in Tuesday's suicide attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been rare, despite what one source called a "rich and active" surveillance program.
"We have a hell of a targeting problem," the source said, noting that Pentagon analysts are attempting to match current intelligence with military capabilities contained in contingency plans for striking terrorist groups. Those analysts, the source said, are trying to determine whether to attempt to strike bin Laden directly, or to target military action against his aides, training camps, or the broader global network known as al Qaeda, which has connections to other Middle East terrorist groups.
One well-placed source said last night that intelligence gathered since Tuesday's attacks indicates that bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, and his other training centers throughout the Middle East, are now virtually empty. In addition, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has moved military equipment this week, as he frequently does when he anticipates U.S. military action, the source said.
The new information on bin Laden comes as the Pentagon reviews plans for what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz described yesterday as a "broad and sustained" campaign against those responsible for Tuesday's attacks and any government found to have provided them sanctuary.
"I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism," Wolfowitz said. "And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. I think one thing is clear -- you don't do it with just a single military strike, no matter how dramatic. You don't do it with just military forces alone, you do it with the full resources of the U.S. government."
The 1998 intelligence directives, known formally as presidential findings, were issued after terrorists linked by U.S. officials to bin Laden bombed U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. They were designed to give CIA agents maximum capability to stop attacks planned by bin Laden's al Qaeda network against additional American targets, which agency officers succeeded in doing several times, the sources said.
The highly classified directives adhered to a legal ban on the assassination of foreign leaders but authorized lethal force for self-defense, which was used by the CIA in several cases when armed terrorists were stopped moments before they initiated attacks, sources said. Since 1998, CIA counterterrorist officers, working with "liaison" partners from foreign intelligence organizations, have succeeded in preempting al Qaeda attacks in Jordan, Egypt, Kenya and the Balkans, sources said.
CIA spokesman Bill Harlow declined comment yesterday on any aspect of the agency's counterterrorist operations.
Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz said that military forces would receive a "significant" portion of a $40 billion supplemental appropriation now before Congress to pay for "some huge requirements to build up our military for the next year, maybe longer." Much of the supplemental funds, he said, are necessary "to prepare our armed forces for whatever the president may ask them to do. The costs mount rapidly, and they will mount more rapidly as this campaign develops."
Some of that funding could be used to call up more than 40,000 reservists to active duty, a proposal under consideration, according to a senior military official. Several thousand reservists with "specialized skills" could be called up in the next few days, the official said.
Many of the extra personnel are necessary to support combat air patrols over major metropolitan areas instituted this week by filling out the ranks of pilots, aviation maintenance crews and military air traffic controllers, the official said.
State authorities have enlisted about 10,000 National Guard troops to assist in civil recovery efforts in Washington and New York. But the Pentagon move represents the first significant federal call-up. Major U.S. military actions almost invariably require reservists to supplement regular troops.
Pentagon planners are focusing on starting any military campaign with sustained bombing raids, first against bin Laden sites in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said yesterday. If that proves ineffective, the plan would call for the bombing of targets associated with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, which has harbored bin Laden for the past five years, the official said.
"That was what the president meant when he said the U.S. was prepared to retaliate against both those responsible for terrorism and those who harbor them," the official said.
U.S. attempts to negotiate with the Taliban earlier this year to have it expel bin Laden failed, another official said, adding: "We have moved past there. Now we are trying to affect their intentions."
Several military officers said the Pentagon is also considering an array of special forces operations aimed at suspected terrorist redoubts in Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan and Algeria. The Pentagon also is considering flying unmanned drones capable of lingering over terrorist camps for extended periods to provide almost continuous surveillance, one officer said.
"Things are different this time," another senior officer added. "I don't think the American people expect a light response."
One factor restraining previous military action was an emphasis on zero casualties, which has tended to constrain the Pentagon from employing ground troops and has led to a reliance on sea- or air-launched cruise missiles. Following the embassy bombings in 1998, the United States launched cruise missiles against sites in Afghanistan and Sudan thought to have ties to bin Laden. The attacks were criticized as largely ineffectual.
Bush and his advisers appear ready to consider the use of ground troops, particularly special forces, military officers said. "If you regard what happened as an act of war, as the president has said, your standard of application for what you do about it is different," said a four-star officer.
At the same time, military officials knowledgeable about the extent of Pentagon preparations characterized the planning as still in the early stage. They said no specific targets had been selected and no forces yet earmarked for action.
"It's really embryonic at this point," the four-star officer said.
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey said that Iraq would have multiple targets for military planners if it is conclusively demonstrated that Iraq "had a substantial hand" in Tuesday's attacks.
Should such evidence materialize, Woolsey said, "all instruments of power to the Iraqi state should be destroyed: the Republican Guard, everything associated with Saddam Hussein, everything associated with their weapons of mass destruction program."
Woolsey said he believes there is evidence suggesting that Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. "If Iraq is behind the '93 attack, it's never really paid any price for that -- and we can start right there," he said. "But if it's behind the '93 attack, there's a good chance it's behind this one."
--------
MILITARY ANALYSIS
U.S. Force vs. Terrorists: From Reactive to Active
New York Times
September 14, 2001
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/international/14STRA.html
LONDON, Sept. 13 - If the terrorist attacks this week, as George W. Bush says, mark the first war of the 21st century, waging that fight will require new military thinking and bolder tactics, allied experts say.
For the last decade, the use of American might has been shaped by several principles: emphasizing air power and long-range precision arms, avoiding ground combat whenever possible and using overwhelming ground forces when it is not.
The use of American military force has also been reactive. Pre-emptive action was ruled out, partly because American law prohibits assassination as state policy. The United States waited to be hit before striking back, and American casualties were to be avoided at all costs.
All of those principles were at work when the Clinton administration struck at Osama bin Laden, the architect of the 1998 bombing of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the suspected sponsor of the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The United States fired several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at his training camps in Afghanistan. There was no risk to American personnel; unfortunately for the Pentagon, there was little risk to the terrorist leadership either.
That approach is now clearly in the process of being abandoned. The analogy between this week's terrorist attacks and Pearl Harbor is apt in one sense. The attacks have shaken the American public and the Pentagon leadership. Strategies and tactics that seemed unthinkable just weeks ago are thinkable now.
"Forget about the cruise missiles," said Francois Heisbourg, a French military expert and the incoming chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "The only thing that is worth thinking about now is how to dismantle and eradicate the organization that brought the terrorism about. You can use air power in support of joint military operations. But the coalition that takes on the terrorists has to actually send in people with guns and that means taking high risks."
For the better part of a year Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has been overseeing one review after another as the Pentagon struggled to define a compelling post-cold-war mission and force structure for the American military. Now the devastating attacks this week have given it a mission: stopping terrorist attacks and eliminating terrorist cells around the world. The Pentagon will likely have most of the resources it wants. Congress seems certain to give the Pentagon the money it wants to update its conventional forces, at the very least.
It is certainly wrong to think that the threat of terrorism can be addressed through military force alone. There is a role for diplomacy in marshaling international pressure against regimes that shelter terrorists. There is also a need for improved security at home. But it seems certain that the Pentagon will develop plans to punish state sponsors of terrorism with air strikes, air and sea embargoes and, in extreme cases, the use of ground troops.
Punishing terrorist groups in the remote terrain of distant countries like Afghanistan will require rapid military operations to maintain some element of surprise. It may require repeated raids as they move from country to country.
Conventional bombing of military headquarters and forces - the strategy the United States employed with considerable success during the Kosovo campaign - may not work because terrorist cells often have no permanent headquarters or armor and their forces can easily disperse. So taking on the terrorists may mean the use of ground troops supported by air power.
Because speed may be crucial and infrastructure may be sparse, those ground forces will need to be more mobile than the heavy armor divisions that took months to deploy for the 1991 war with Iraq.
Paratroopers, helicopter assault units and special forces could have a critical role. Their aim would be strike fast and then withdraw, not to seize and hold territory.
Such attacks could well mean casualties. "Forget about avoiding casualties," said John Keegan, the British military historian. "Air power can play its part, but this is not a conventional enemy."
There has been a long-standing assumption at the Pentagon that the American public would not tolerate significant casualties. The Pentagon boasted that it did not lose a single soldier in combat during the Kosovo campaign as if that was as important as the mission of evicting Yugoslav troops from the province.
The loss of just 18 United States soldiers during an ill-planned operation to capture clansmen in Somalia led the United States to abandon its mission in that East African nation. But the casualties seemed high because the mission seemed to be unclear and perhaps even unnecessary.
Now that terrorism has reached the American political and economic centers, inhabiting the minds of Americans in a way that is altogether new, the stakes have soared. Terrorism is no longer a foreign policy issue; it is central domestic issue.
With the political stakes so high, the United States may be obliged to seek unconventional partners. Afghanistan is remote from NATO's bases. Access to bases or airfields in Russia, once unthinkable, or Pakistan, problematic because of its relations with the Taliban, could be important if the United States decided to take the fight to the terrorist cells in Afghanistan.
Military raids might not succeed in capturing a terrorist like Mr. bin Laden. But they would show that there are few sanctuaries and would disrupt his terrorist network, at least for a while. In that sense, the advocates of using force acknowledge that the military option is also a test of wills.
"The terrorists think democracies are soft," Mr. Keegan said. "And of course they are soft most of the time. But when they get aroused they are far more resolute and harsher than an authoritarian system."
-------- OTHER
-------- imf / world bank
U.S. Supports Postponing IMF-World Bank Meetings
By Manny Fernandez and Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28142-2001Sep13?language=printer
The Bush administration agrees with top officials of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that the two institutions' annual meetings planned for downtown Washington later this month should not take place as scheduled, a U.S. government source said yesterday. A formal decision has not been made.
Because the United States is the host of the meetings, the administration is viewed as having the final say on the matter. IMF and World Bank officials, who strongly prefer putting off the meetings because of the strain they would impose on police in the aftermath of this week's terrorist attacks, had been awaiting the return to Washington of Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill. O'Neill, who returned from a trip to Asia on Wednesday, did not comment yesterday on the meetings.
"We are still pressing Treasury extremely vigorously to postpone," said a World Bank source who asked not to be named. "The bank and the fund want to come out with this decision as soon as possible."
Police have said the gathering of the world's finance ministers and central bankers -- scheduled for Sept. 29 and 30 -- could draw up to 100,000 protesters to the capital. Law enforcement authorities have planned unprecedented security precautions, including recruiting out-of-town police officers and possibly installing a two-mile fence around parts of downtown. Activists from a variety of causes -- from anti-capitalist to pro-environment -- planned to use the meetings as a backdrop to voice grievances over corporate control of the world's economic system and the stifling debt of the world's poor countries.
The meetings were thrown into doubt after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, with the D.C. police chief, city officials and sources at the two economic bodies saying that canceling or postponing the sessions is inevitable. It remains unclear whether the meetings would be held a few weeks later, or possibly under other auspices, such as a computerized hookup.
The World Bank source said that no legal obstacles prevent the two institutions from postponing or canceling the sessions, adding that the formal business to be conducted -- such as electing the chairman and deputy chairman of the Board of Governors -- does not have to be completed until the next fiscal year, which ends in June 2002.
The developments pose new problems for the anti-globalization movement, the informal worldwide network of activists and radical progressives who gained momentum in the United States after street protests in Seattle in 1999 that shut down a summit of the World Trade Organization.
Demonstrations that have been months in the making now might be scrapped, as many activists worry that protesting the IMF and World Bank as the nation reels from the worst terrorist attack in its history would yield more opponents than converts. Some organizers, however, said they still plan to protest in Washington whether the meetings are held or not, refocusing their message with a more pro-peace, antiwar tone.
Added one organizer: "The pain and suffering those institutions caused have not changed. The organizing has already taken place for months . . . so why stop the organizing just because the meetings are called off?"
Protesters with the Mobilization for Global Justice, one of the main D.C.-based coalitions planning demonstrations, said the group has not come to a decision about what to do if the meetings are not held. Other groups echoed those sentiments. A meeting for activists to voice their thoughts on the attacks and the possible impact on protests was held last night at a Mount Pleasant church.
On the Mobilization for Global Justice's Web site, www.globalizethis.org, visitors posted a range of thoughts and emotions, with some arguing that the anti-globalization protest should be turned into a peace march and others advocating for no demonstrations. One D.C. resident wrote to protesters: "Come back in six months, a year, but not now. Leave us be for a while."
-------- spying
Lawmakers seek shake-up at CIA
September 14, 2001
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010914-59952250.htm
Pressure mounted yesterday to fix intelligence shortfalls in the battle against terrorism after what is being termed one of the nation's worst intelligence failures.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment directly when asked if CIA Director George J. Tenet is to blame for what he called "a gigantic failure of intelligence."
"When you have an operation this big, this well-planned and executed that goes undetected and, of course, unstopped, that is a failure of intelligence," Mr. Shelby said.
"We have to do better," he said, noting that funds must be added to "rebuild the human intelligence element of the intelligence community."
Sen. Pat Roberts, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called for reforming weak U.S. intelligence analysis.
"I must tell you, I think in terms of the analytical side of the intelligence community we need a shake-up," Mr. Roberts, Kansas Republican, said in an interview.
The CIA and numerous other U.S. spy agencies had no warning that as many as 50 terrorists were planning the sophisticated operation to hijack four airliners and crash them into buildings in suicide attacks.
The CIA has said it had no warning of Tuesday's attacks and only vague indications that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden was planning a major attack on U.S. soil. Bin Laden and his Islamic extremist group, al-Qeada, are the intelligence community's chief suspects.
Groups such as al-Qeada often avoid electronic communications such as telephones to prevent eavesdropping, according to intelligence specialists. They also maintain tight security for their groups by requiring members to commit crimes to prove they are not intelligence agents. There are also indications that terrorists use the Internet to communicate.
Mr. Roberts said he expected to carefully question Mr. Tenet when he appears before the committee to brief senators on the twin attacks in the coming days.
Asked if Mr. Tenet should be held accountable, Mr. Roberts said: "I think it's too early.
"There's going be a lot of speculation [about his future]," Mr. Roberts said. "He does have the ear of the president and he does have the trust of the president, so it's going to be pretty hard for people in Congress to do anything."
Mr. Roberts said the problem with U.S. intelligence analysts is that "they concentrate on the probable and what happened in the past instead of thinking out of the box and about the improbable."
Mr. Shelby said one key improvement would be the appointment of a Cabinet-level intelligence "czar" who could direct disparate U.S. intelligence agencies.
Former President George Bush said on CNN yesterday that U.S. intelligence agencies currently face too many restrictions.
"We have to free up the intelligence system from some of its constraints," Mr. Bush, a former CIA director, said. "I think we ought to take a hard look at whether we've gone too far in denying the intelligence community human intelligence capabilities."
Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, said the surprise attacks are a "total indictment of our intelligence capabilities" against terrorism.
Mr. Weldon declined to point the finger of blame directly at Mr. Tenet. But he said there needs to be "a complete top-to-bottom review of our intelligence capabilities as it relates to terrorism."
"How can you not have any intercept; how can you not have any data that show that this plot was occurring?" Mr. Weldon said.
Mr. Weldon is proposing an intelligence-reform effort that would create a joint intelligence center combining the data and networks of some 32 U.S. intelligence agencies. The creation of a National Operations and Analysis Hub has been resisted by the CIA and FBI because they fear losing bureaucratic power, he said.
Mr. Tenet said in a statement to CIA employees on Wednesday that while U.S. intelligence failed to stop the latest mass attacks, "CIA and our intelligence community have done much to combat terrorism in the past."
--------
INTELLIGENCE
Spying on Terrorists and Thwarting Them Gains New Urgency
New York Times
September 14, 2001
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14INTE.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 - Hoping to prevent future terrorist attacks, House and Senate lawmakers expressed broad support today for funneling more money to intelligence operations, beefing up spy networks and creating one agency to handle terrorism.
The nation spends an estimated $10 billion a year to fight terrorism, a sum that many lawmakers from both parties called inadequate and that is likely to be increased this session. But instead of using the money to upgrade traditional satellite capabilities and telephone surveillance, many urged that the money be spent on old-fashioned human spying and more advanced computer tracking, the kind of intelligence that may have been able to prevent Tuesday's attacks.
"We need to re-emphasize the importance of getting a human being who can get inside those cells and learn what their intentions and capabilities are," said Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "We have also seen a reduction in the ability to eavesdrop on terrorists and others who might threaten the United States as the technology has changed. It was easier when they were communicating by telephone. It is more difficult when they are using computer communication."
Mr. Graham and other lawmakers, speaking at news conferences and in interviews, said that just as important was the need to consolidate power to combat terrorism in one central agency or individual, a step that could alleviate dozens of existing jurisdictional battles.
"We need to have within our intelligence agency somebody specifically in charge of our counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Graham added. "Today that responsibility is spread among a number of agencies and we spend too much time trying to decide just who is in charge."
Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Tuesday's terrorist attacks required a long-term commitment. "The world is different," he said. "Technology is different. The nature of the threat is different. The response must be different."
The lawmakers' statements followed an acknowledgment by officials at the government's intelligence agencies - the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency - that they were surprised by Tuesday's attacks. While the agencies have been criticized for what some have called an egregious lapse, many lawmakers believe that the agencies have been hamstrung by increasing restraints.
The issue over how to beef up intelligence is likely to begin in earnest over the next few weeks, when Congress votes on a bill to finance the Justice Department and grapples with military spending.
The ideas for revamping the intelligence agencies are wide-ranging. Some lawmakers, like Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who is on the intelligence panel, suggested that the C.I.A. should be given freer rein to stop terrorism, including reinstating its power to assassinate.
"It's not possible to seize him and bring him to trial," Mr. Bayh said, referring to Osama bin Laden if he turns out to be culpable. "You can argue that a more targeted approach may be in order."
Others talked of expanding domestic eavesdropping, an idea that makes those concerned about civil liberties uncomfortable.
Late tonight, the Senate approved an amendment as part of a spending bill to finance the Justice Department that would make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap computers and combat cyberterrorism. Supporters of the bipartisan amendment said law enforcement officials must go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to obtain a court order since computer communication crosses state boundaries. The amendment would streamline the process by allowing a federal judge to issue an order.
After the vote, the Senate passed the larger bill to finance the departments of Commerce, State, Justice and the judiciary.
"You cannot tap the lines of a terrorist," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "This corrects that."
The amendment caused concern among some senators who felt it was being rushed to the floor with little concern about giving the government new power to pry into someone's computer.
Congress is also expected to act to enhance airport security. For years, the House and the Senate have been reluctant to increase spending on better baggage inspections and X- ray machines, among other things, despite the advice of the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Now some lawmakers are urging the government to handle some portions of airport security, rather than permitting airports to hire private contractors.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, said the federal government should operate airport security scanners.
Unless that is federalized, he said, the government cannot expect to improve its current results.
One intelligence analyst who works for the government but asked to remain anonymous said none of these suggestions were new. The government has been aware of its intelligence gaps, he said; many became obvious during the bombing of two United States embassies in Africa and of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.
"People know what the solution is," the expert said. "We haven't had leadership from either inside or outside to do it. It's a bureaucracy that won't get out of its own way."
-------- terrorism
Powell names bin Laden as suspect
September 14, 2001
By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010914-543722.htm
The United States yesterday named Osama bin Laden for the first time as a prime suspect in Tuesday's terror attacks and turned up the pressure on Pakistan to help it pursue the Saudi fugitive in his Afghan hideout.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also laid out a three-step approach for exacting justice for the attacks that killed thousands of people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
The United States will present the world with clear evidence of who was responsible, Mr. Powell said. It will then "rip up" the terror network responsible and finally it will lead a "global assault" against terrorism generally.
In Afghanistan, foreign diplomats and aid workers fled the capital Kabul and residents began to dig trenches for fear of a U.S. bombardment.
Arabs, many of them engaged in anti-Western training groups, also left the city and dispersed to the countryside, reports said.
A senior State Department official yesterday handed Pakistani Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi a list of items calling for help to crush the terrorist networks believed operating across its northern border in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell said at a State Department briefing.
Asked why the United States was focused on Pakistan, Mr. Powell said, "When you look at the list of candidates [for blame in Tuesday's attacks], one resides in that region."
Asked whether that "candidate" was bin Laden, he confirmed that it was. It was the first time a senior U.S. official has publicly named the Saudi militant as a likely perpetrator.
"We are assembling the evidence that will tell us, in a way that the world will fully concur with us, who is responsible for this," Mr. Powell said. "And when we have done that, we will announce it.
"And at that point, we will go after that group, that network, and those who have harbored, supported and aided that network, to rip the network up.
"And when we're through with that network, we will continue with a global assault against terrorism in general," he said.
The secretary also said U.S. officials will fly to Moscow next week to seek support from Russia, which controls a second approach through Central Asia to Afghanistan, where bin Laden remains an honored guest.
Russian troops already patrol the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan.
"I'm sure they will be helpful on many things," Mr. Powell said of the Russians. "It's their neighborhood. They do have a great deal of experience in Afghanistan, and we will draw on all of that experience."
Mr. Powell dismissed a report early yesterday that Afghanistan's radical Islamic Taliban government had placed bin Laden under house arrest.
Afghan officials also denied any change in his status as guest. One said the Saudi was innocent and that Jews had caused the terrorist acts to divide America from Muslims.
"The incidents which took place in America are testimony to Osama bin Laden's innocence because where are Osama's pilots and where were they trained?" said the Afghan leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
"Blaming Osama without any rhyme or reason is a separate thing and a move by the [Western] intelligence agencies to escape their own failure."
Mr. Powell said the United States has ways of contacting the Taliban but has not yet done so because "we also want to make sure exactly what it is we wish to present to them as items of discussion and not just general conversations."
Pakistan, which has been accused by the State Department of allowing terrorist groups to recruit and train on its territory, is becoming a front-line state in what the Bush administration says will be a long campaign to uproot terrorism around the world.
"We have provided to the Pakistani government a specific list of things that we think would be useful for them to work on with us," Mr. Powell said.
The list includes requests for help on "information, networks [of terrorists] and support," a State Department official said.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Mr. Powell later spoke for about 10 minutes with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and "received once again a commitment from Musharraf to work with us."
"Right now, we have friendly relations with Pakistan," Mr. Powell said. "And so I will approach this as if I'm talking to a friend, and let a friend know what we would like to see happen in order to improve the situation in the region and the situation in the world. And I hope that the president will respond as a friend. Our initial indications are that he will."
Pakistan's ambassador, Mrs. Lodhi, on Wednesday conveyed to the State Department Gen. Musharraf's message that Pakistan "strongly condemns the barbaric act of terrorism against the U.S. and shares the grief of the American people."
An embassy statement said she also "reiterated President Musharraf's assurance to President Bush of Pakistan's unstinted cooperation in the fight against terrorism."
--------
THE SUSPECTS
U.S. Identifies 19 Men It Says Hijacked 4 Terror Jetliners
The New York Times
September 14, 2001
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14WIRE-SUSPECTS.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 - The Justice Department today released the names of 19 individuals it said had been identified as the hijackers aboard the four airliners that crashed on Tuesday into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in southeast Pennsylvania.
Collectively, the list provides tantalizing new information. It also raises questions that, for the moment, are unanswerable.
One new fact is that there were believed to be 19 hijackers, not 18 as the authorities had previously thought. The additional suspected hijacker was traced to American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon.
Some of the names are accompanied by other information, like age, residence and the fact that an individual is believed to have been a pilot. Some names are accompanied by virtually no information. And some are accompanied by what appears to be misinformation: one individual used eight different birth dates spanning 17 years, for example.
In several instances there are identical last names among the 19, suggesting a relationship. Several are believed to have lived in northern New Jersey and New York City; others lived in California, Florida, Arizona and, in one case, Hamburg, Germany.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation asked anyone who may have information about the individuals, all of whom are presumed dead, to contact an F.B.I. field office or call a toll-free hotline: 1-866-483-5137.
The list is as follows:
From American Airlines Flight 77, which left Washington's Dulles Airport and crashed into the Pentagon:
Khalid Al-Midhar, possible residences in Los Angeles and New York City.
Majed Moqed, no further information available.
Nawaq Alhamzi, possible residences in Fort Lee and Wayne, N.J., and Los Angeles.
Salem Alhamzi, possible residences in Fort Lee and Wayne.
Hani Hanjour, possible residences in Phoenix and San Diego; believed to have been a pilot.
From American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the Trade Center's North Tower:
Satam Al-Suqami, date of birth used, June 28, 1976; last known residence, United Arab Emirates.
Waleed M. Alshehri, eight dates of birth used, spanning Sept. 13, 1974, to Oct. 2, 1991; possible residences in Hollywood, Fla., and Orlando and Daytona Beach, Fla.; believed to have been a pilot.
Wail Alshehri, date of birth used, July 31, 1973; possible residences in Hollywood, Fla., and Newton, Mass.; believed to have been a pilot.
Mohamed Atta, date of birth used, Sept. 1, 1968; possible residences in Hollywood and Coral Springs, Fla., and Hamburg, Germany; believed to have been a pilot.
Abdulaziz Alomari, dates of birth used, Dec. 24, 1972, and May 28, 1979; possible residence in Hollywood, Fla.; believed to have been a pilot.
From United Airlines Flight 175, which left Boston and crashed into the Trade Center's South Tower:
Marwan Al-Shehhi, date of birth used, May 9, 1978. Possible residence Hollywood, Fla.; believed to have been a pilot.
Fayez Ahmed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi and Mohald Alshehri, all with possible residences in Delray Beach, Fla.
From United Airlines Flight 93, which left Newark and crashed in Pennsylvania:
Saeed Alghamdi, possible residence in Delray Beach.
Ahmed Alhaznawi, date of birth used, October 11, 1980. Possible residence, Delray Beach.
Ahmed Alnami, possible residence, Delray Beach.
Ziad Jarrahi, believed to have been a pilot.
--------
TERRORISM AND NONVIOLENCE
BY Arun Gandhi
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001
being_peace@yahoogroups.com
Understandably, after the tragedy in New York and Washington DC on September 11 many have written or called the office to find out what would be an appropriate nonviolent response to such an unbelievably inhuman act of violence.
First, we must understand that nonviolence is not a strategy that we can use in a moment of crisis and discarded in times of peace. Nonviolence is about personal attitudes, about becoming the change we
wish to see in the world. Because, a nation's collective attitude is based on the attitude of the individual. Nonviolence is about building positive
relationships with all human beings - relationships that are based on love, compassion, respect, understanding and appreciation.
Nonviolence is also about not judging people as we perceive them to be - that is, a murderer is not born a murderer; a terrorist is not born a terrorist. People become murderers, robbers and terrorists because of circumstances and experiences in life. Killing or confining murders, robbers, terrorists, or the like is not going to rid this world of them. For every one we kill or confine we create another hundred to take their place. What we need to do is to analyze dispassionately what are those circumstances that create such monsters and how can we
help eliminate those circumstances, not the monsters. Justice should mean reformation and not revenge.
We saw some people in Iraq and Palestine and I dare say many other countries rejoice the blowing up of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It horrified us, as it should. But, let us not forget
that we do the same thing. When Israel bombs the Palestinians we either rejoice or show no compassion. Our attitude is they deserve what they get. When the Palestinians bomb the Israelis we are indignant and condemn them as vermin who need to be eliminated.
We reacted without compassion when we bombed the cities of Iraq. I was among the millions in the United States who sat glued to the television and watched the drama as though it was a made for television film. The television had desensitized us. Thousands of innocent
men, women and children were being blown to bits and instead of feeling sorry for them we marveled at the efficiency of our military. For more than ten years we have continued to wreak havoc in Iraq - an estimated 50,000
children die every year because of sanctions that we have imposed - and it hasn't moved us to compassion. All this is done, we are told, because we
want to get rid of the Satan called Sadam Hussein.
Now we are getting ready to do this all over again to get rid of another Satan called Osama Bin Laden. We will bomb the cities
of Afghanistan because they harbor the Satan and in the process we will help create a thousand other bin Ladens.
Some might say "we don't care what the world thinks of
us as long as they respect our strength. " After all we have the means to
blow this world to pieces since we are the only surviving super-power. Do we want the world to respect us the way school children respect a bully? Is that our role in the world?
If a bully is what we want to be then we must be prepared to face the same consequences as a school-yard bully faces. On the other hand we cannot tell the world "leave us alone." Isolationism is not what this world is built for.
All of this brings us back to the question: How do we respond nonviolently to terrorism?
The consequences of a military response are not very
rosy. Many thousands of innocent people will die both here and the country or countries we attack. Militancy will increase exponentially and, ultimately, we will be faced with another, more pertinent, moral question: what will we gain by destroying half the world? Will we be able to live with a clear conscience? We must acknowledge our role in helping create monsters in the world and then find ways to contain these monsters without hurting more innocent people and then redefine our role in the world. I think we must move from seeking to be respected for our military strength to being respected for our moral strength.
We need to appreciate that we are in a position to play a powerful role in helping the "other half" of the world attain a better standard of life not by throwing a few crumbs but by significantly involving ourselves in constructive economic programs.
For too long our foreign policy has been based on "what is good for the United States." It smacks of selfishness. Our foreign policy should now be based on what is good for the world and how can we do the right thing to help the world become more peaceful.
To those who have lost loved one's in this and other terrorist acts I say I share your grief. I am sorry that you have become victims of senseless violence. But let this sad episode not make you vengeful because no amount of violence and killing is going to bring you inner peace. Anger and hate never do. The memory of those victims who have died in this and other violent incidents around the world will be better preserved and meaningfully commemorated if we all learn to forgive and dedicate our lives to helping create a peaceful, respectful and an understanding world.
Arun Gandhi Founder Director M.K.Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence 650 East Parkway South Memphis TN 38104 Tel:(901)452-2824; FAX: (901)452-2775 email: gandhi@cbu.edu web: http://www.gandhiinstitute.org
-------- activists
Prayers for peace from many traditions
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign nonukes@foesyd.org.au
Fri, 14 Sep 2001
The Prayer of Saint Francis
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred ... let me sow love Where there is injury ... pardon Where there is doubt ... faith Where there is despair ... hope Where there is darkness ... light Where there is sadness ... joy Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek To be consoled ... as to console To be understood ... as to understand, To be loved ... as to love For it is in giving ... that we receive, It is in pardoning ... that we are pardoned, It is in dying ... that we are born to eternal life
..........................
Baha'i Prayer for Peace
Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be fair in judgement, and guarded in thy speech, Be a lamp unto those who walk in darkness, and a home to the stranger. Be eyes to the blind, and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring Be a breath of life to the body of humankind, a dew to the soil of the human heart, and a fruit upon the tree of humility.
..........................
Buddhist Prayer for Peace
May all beings everywhere plagued with sufferings of body and mind quickly be freed from their illnesses. May those frightened cease to be afraid, and may those bound be free. May the powerless find power, and may people think of befriending one another. May those who find themselves in trackless, fearful wilderness--- the children, the age, the unprotected-- be guarded by beneficial celestials, and may they swiftly attain Buddhahood
..........................
Hindu Prayer for Peace
Oh God, lead us from the unreal to the Real. Oh God, lead us from darkness to light. Oh God, lead us from death to immortality. Shanti, Shanti, Shanti unto all. Oh Lord God almighty, may there be peace in celestial regions. May there be peace on Earth. May the waters be appeasing. May herbs be wholesome, and may trees and plants bring peace to all. May all beneficient beings bring peace to us. May thy Vedic Law propagate peace all through the world. May all things be a source of peace to us. And may thy peace itself, bestow peace on all and may that peace come to me also.
..........................
Jainist Prayer for peace
Peace and Universal Love is the essence of the Gospel preached by all Enlightened Ones. The Lord has preached that equanimity is the dharma Forgive do I creatures all, and let all creatures forgive me. Unto all have I amity, and unto none enmity. Know that violence is the root cause of all miseries in the world. Violence, in fact, is the knot of bondage. "Do not injure any living being." This is the eternal, perrenial, and unalterable way of spiritual life. A weapon, howsoever powerful it may be, can always be superseded by a superior one; but no weapon can, however,
..........................
Muslim Prayer for Peace
In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful. Praise be to the Lord of the Universe who has created us and made us into tribes and nations That we may know each other, not that we may despise each other. If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust God, for the Lord is the one that heareth and knoweth all things. And the servants of God, Most gracious are those who walk on the Earth in humility, and when we address them, we say "PEACE."
..........................
Native American Prayer for Peace
Almighty God, the Great Thumb we cannot evade to tie any knot; the Roaring Thunder that splits mighty trees: the all-seeing Lord up on high who sees even the footprints of an antelope on a rock mass here on Earth. You are the one who does not hesitate to respond to our call. You are the cornerstone of peace.
..........................
Another Native American Prayer for Peace
Oh Great Spirit of our Ancestors, I raise my pipe to you. To your messengers the four winds, and to Mother Earth who provides for your children. Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love, to respect, and to be kind to each other so that they may grow with peace of mind Let us learn to share all good things that you provide for us on this Earth.
..........................
Shinto Prayer for Peace
Although the people living across the ocean surrounding us, I believe are all our brothers and sisters, why are there constant troubles in this world? Why do winds and waves rise in the oceans surrounding us? I only earnestly wish that the wind will soon puff away all the clouds which are hanging over the tops of mountains.
..........................
Zoroastrian Prayer for Peace
We pray to God to eradicate all the misery in the world: that understanding triumph over ignorance, that generosity triumph over indifference, that trust triumph over contempt, and that truth triumph over falsehood.
..........................
Sikh Prayer for Peace
God adjudges us according to our deeds, not the coat that we wear: that Truth is above everything, but higher still is truthful living. Know that we attaineth God when we loveth, and only victory endures in consequences of which no one is defeated.
..........................
Christian Prayer for Peace
Blessed are the PEACEMAKERS, for they shall be known as the Children of God. But I say to you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you pray for those who abuse you. To those that strike you on the cheek, offer the other one also, and from those who take away your cloak, do not withhold your coat as well. Give to everyone who begs from you, and of those who take away your goods, do not ask for them again. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
----
Aftershocks
by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
Fri, 14 Sep 2001
http://www.zmag.org/reactionscalam.htm
Most revealing reaction
Benyamin Netanyahu, former Israeli prime minister, on being asked what the attack means for relations between the US and Israel: "It's very good."
Least credible analysis
New York Times columnist William Safire, claiming there was a terrorist mole in the White House, relaying to the kamikaze pilots the whereabouts of the President and the special coordinates of Air Force One. Safire's political mission in that particular column was to explain why the President fled down a SAC bunker in Nebraska.
Least credible news footage
CNN's videotape of Palestinians supposedly dancing in the streets of a West Bank town. CounterPuncher Marcio A.V. Carvalho at the state university of Campinas in Brazil tells us that he and his colleagues had compared this tape with one from 1991 showing Palestinian cheering, and found them to be identical.
America's Greens Rally to Flag, Run for Cover
Hot to present themselves as staunch flag-waggers, some of America's premier environmental organizations have disgracefully ditched their principles.
The Sierra Club, America's oldest green group has abruptly turned off its campaign against the anti-environmental program of the Bush administration. CounterPunch has secured an internal memo in which the club's high command explains to its staff why it suspending its campaigns. "In response to the attacks on America," the memo goes, "we are shifting our communications strategy for the immediate future. We have taken all of our ads off of the air; halted our phone banks; removed any material from the web that people could perceive as anti-Bush, and we are taking other steps to prevent the Sierra Club from being perceived as controversial during this crisis. For now we are going to stop aggressively pushing our agenda and will cease bashing President Bush "
The memo then instructs club staffers on how to respond to the press: "If you are asked about what this terrorism does to the Sierra Club's agenda, please respond simply by saying that right now the public needs to focus on comforting each other and strengthening our national security to deal with the crisis at hand."
Imagine if this craven posture spreads across the public interest movement. We could expect First Amendment defenders to say that they were abandoning efforts to protect the Bill of Rights. We could expect groups defending immigrants to say that henceforth the INS should be given free rein. Fortunately First Amendment defenders and defenders of immigrants have stronger spines and principles than the supposed defenders of the environment at the Sierra Club. Are we now to expect the Club to endorse drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve as necessary "for national security"?
Even groups that we here at CounterPunch have admired are now in pellmell cowardly retreat.
The Berkeley-based International Rivers Network, which has been the main bulwark against the Three Gorges dam in China, now announces that it is suspending its planned nationwide protest against Morgan Stanley, one of the dam's principle financiers. Morgan Stanley had 50 floors of offices in the World Trade Center. IRN has also announced that "out of respect for the victims of this disaster, with understanding of the strategic difficulties in conveying to a shocked media and public our messages regarding the World Bank and IMF, with concern for the integrity of security systems in Washington DC, and for the safety of all, we will refrain from participating in activities surrounding the planned World Bank / IMF this month. We are also sharing our concerns with the leading organizations responsible for planning and coordinating these activities."
The Ruckus Society, the direct action training group involved in many demonstrations at the World Trade Organization has simultaneously announced that it is canceling its training camp, to be held in Middleburgh, Virginia, scheduled as preparation for the next World Bank meeting. This camp was to be cosponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies, Jobs with Justice and Global Exchange. All these organizations have now backed out, saying that now is not the time for such activity.
The Rainforest Action Network, based in San Francisco, has called for the cancellation of the protest and said that in the event it goes forward it will not participate.
Let's get this straight. If all resisters to the Bush political program were to follow this shameful exhibition by these green groups, we would see peace groups declining to protest against nuclear attacks on Iraq and armed invasion of Afghanistan. We would see civil rights sitting on their hands as racial and religious profiling is used to persecute people of Middle Eastern descent. Defenders of Palestinian rights would say that for the time being they wouldn't protest the use of US Apache helicopters against civilians in West Bank towns and villages. What nonsense! Principles are never more important than when it is inconvenient or dangerous to stand up for them.
Big Oil's Kamikaze
Rep. Don Young, the wild man from Alaska, was one of the few members of congress who didn't completely buy into the notion of Osama bin Laden as the mastermind of the attacks on the World Trade complex and the Pentagon. There's some possibility, Young told the Alaska Daily News, that the attacks are linked to the protests against the World Trade Organization, another of which is scheduled for later this month in Washington D.C. "If you watched what happened (at past protests) in Genoa, in Italy, and even in Seattle, there's some expertise in that field," Young said. "I'm not sure they're that dedicated but ecoterrorists--which are really based in Seattle--there's a strong possibility that could be one of the groups."
Young doesn't believe any of this. But he smells weakness in the environmental movement and, like the old fur-trapper that he is, he is poised to exploit it. Young is not beneath using the carnage of the World Trade Center as a launching ground for his own agenda: oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, logging in the Tongass rainforest, passing laws against environmental protest and construction of new missile bases in the Alaska tundra and on the Aleutian Islands.
Chemical War in Manhattan
As the environmentalists are putting themselves into a state of suspended animation, the citizens of Manhattan and the thousands of volunteer rescue workers mulling through the rubble at the World Trade Center complex may well be in the whirlwind of a toxic event, which has received little media attention and almost no precautionary aid from FEMA or other federal agencies coordinating.
Early reports from the Environmental Protection Agency described the destruction of the World Trade complex "an environmental catastrophe": the air of Manhattan clotted with asbestos, dioxin and other poisons. Yet, rescue workers found themselves without little more than surgical masks between their lungs and the poisons emanating from the smoldering ruins.
For years, the Pentagon and other terror pundits had been warning of the vulnerability of American cities to attack by biological and chemical weapons, the so-called asymmetrical warfare. These apocalyptic scenarios held that terrorist groups would unleash anthrax or sarin gas attacks in subways, water supplies or mega-office buildings, such as the World Trade Towers. Well, it turns out that the attackers didn't need to pack any chemicals, the buildings themselves proved to be quite toxic enough. The attackers used American planes as missiles and the buildings as chemical weapons.
Built during the height of the asbestos boom, the guts of the World Trade Center may have been one of the world's largest repositories of the carcinogenic fiber, used as insulation in the giant towers.
Underneath the rubble, thousands of tires continue to burn, sending plumes of pitch black smoke down the canyons of Manhattan. This smoke is contaminated with dioxins and assorted other poisons of the petrochemical age.
Early Warnings
Reports keep coming in to us of advanced warnings that an attack of some sort was eminent. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was booked to fly from the Bay Area to New York City on the morning of September 11. But Brown says that late Monday evening, a full 8 hours prior to the attack, he received a call from a person Brown described as his "airport security man" telling him that he should be extra cautious about air travel on September 11.
In addition to what we have previously reported about heightened security at the World Trade Center itself in the weeks leading to the attack and at the Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway, New Jersey, CounterPunch has also learned that an internal memo was sent around Goldman Sachs in Tokyo on September 10 advising all employees of a possible terrorist attack. It recommended all employees to avoid any American government buildings.
That said, according to Rep. David Bonior, the Michigan Democrat, the Congress was the last to know. Even after two planes had struck the World Trade Center towers and another had smashed into the Pentagon, Bonior says congressional officials were not warned by the CIA or any other intelligence arm of the federal government that the 30,000 workers in the Capitol might be at risk of an attack. Bonoir has been one of the few members of Congress to openly question the value of bowing to the demands for more money made by CIA and other intelligence agencies. "If they can't even warn members of Congress about an ongoing attack, you really have to wonder what good they are," Bonior said. CP
--------
Hold the Vision
September 14, 2001
http://www.starhawk.org/activism/holdthevision.html
The world has changed in the past week. An act of violence and horror has cost the lives of thousands, and shattered all of our plans and expectations for the future. We who have been working for global justice now face an enormous challenge. Since Seattle, we've built and sustained a movement in spite of continually escalating police violence and attempts by the media to paint us as violent thugs. Genoa did not intimidate us, and momentum was growing for the demonstrations in Washington DC at the end of the month. Public opinion was shifting, and the whole edifice of corporate rule was losing legitimacy.
The terrorist attacks of last Tuesday could undermine all of our work, at least in the short term. They are the perfect excuse for the state to intensify its repression, restrict civil liberties, and for anyone who speaks out against blind retaliation to be demonized.
The mood of the country is potentially ugly. People are scared. They're angry. Their sense of power and invulnerability has been badly shaken, and in the U.S., they're not used to it. They're grasping at anything which can restore their sense of power over their lives, and in a violent society, that means punishment, retaliation, war.
And many of us activists are also scared. I know how easily I can sink into fear and despair right now. I'm scared of the repression that might come, scared of being personally targeted, scared of the loss of our liberties, scared, yes, of further attacks. But most of all I'm scared for the movement, which I believe is crucial to our survival as a species.
And yet I also believe that the current crisis can be a great opportunity, if we can only see how to grasp it. Extraordinary times create extraordinary openings and possibilities. Our usual patterns and ways of thinking are shattered. When structures fall, something new can be built.
To do that, we have to behave in extraordinary ways. We need to acknowledge our fears, but not act out of fear. Fear leads to bad decisions and constricted vision, just when we need to see most clearly.
"Hold on, hold on, hold the vision, that's being born," our cluster chanted in Quebec City.
It may be that the most radical thing we can do right now is to act from our vision, not our fear, and to believe in the possibility of its realization. Every force around us is pushing us to close down, insulate, retreat. Instead, we need to advance, but in a different way. We're called to take a leap into the unknown.
As a movement, we've often been accused of lacking a clear vision of the world we want. I think we do have a vision, that includes diversity and rejects uniform, dogmatic formulations. But within all its varied forms there's a clear common ground: we want a world of liberty and justice for all. It sounds downright patriotic but if you think about its ramifications, they are revolutionary. And we want a world in which no one has to fear violence, which is the ultimate violation of freedom.
There are many voices right now trying to mobilize people around fear, anger and blame. As radicals, tried to mobilize people out of guilt, or shame. This is the moment to reinvent our approach, our strategies and our tactics, to believe in the possibility of moving people to act from hope, to act in the service of what they love. What would this look like? It would mean embodying the world we want to create in our own movement, and in our actions.
Times of grief and anguish can strengthen our bonds. Right now, more than ever, we in the movement need each other as never before, and we need to treat each other well, to cherish and care for and support each other and become the community we like to imagine. Our solidarity must go deeper than we've ever known before. Solidarity means listening to each other with respect, and being willing to protect and support people with whom we may disagree on many levels, or who might simply irritate us.
Solidarity means strengthening our practice of direct democracy, our openness and communication with each other, our willingness to bring everyone to the table and give everyone affected by a decision a voice in making it. It means putting aside our usual internal politicking and maneuvering and treating each other with openness and trust. This is not simple to do. But in a moment when the ordinary patterns of life around us have been shattered, shifting our own patterns of behavior may actually be easier. Perspectives change, and the issues that last week seemed so important now seem trivial.
What would this look like tactically, say, in DC two weeks from now? First, we'd have to deliberately drop our assumptions, whether they are that confrontation is always the strongest action, or that nonviolence is always the most moral action, or that direct action is always our strategy of choice, or that a march and a rally with speakers are the ultimate form of politics, and ask what makes most sense? What is most visionary?
I'd like to see whatever we do involve some kind of process of mutual discussion and education around our visions of alternatives. And I'd like to see us think of ways to take that outside of our own groups and into the community, and to bring in voices from the community to teach us about their issues and concerns. That could be a consulta, a teach-in or maybe a learn-in, where we go out into the community and ask people how issues of power and inequality affect their lives, or what their visions are of the world they want. In a time of fear and despair, calling people to consider their visions could be a powerful form of action.
I also think it's important, symbolically and politically, that we make some kind of strong, visible presence in the streets, that we don't voluntarily relinquish the one political space in which we've been able to have a significant impact. But I also think it's important that what we do in the street be appropriate to the moment. A mourning procession, a vigil or rite of healing might make sense right now: a standard march with shouted slogans and printed signs would be offensive. But it's hard to predict what the mood or situation of the country will be two weeks from now. We could be heading into a full fledged war, and a large march might be a needed and powerful statement.
Direct action is a powerful tool, but like a chainsaw it's not the tool you want in every situation. Direct action points a spotlight on an issue, can directly interfere with an unjust group or situation, and delegitimize an institution or policy. Used at the wrong moment, without a strong base of support, it risks legitimizing the very institutions we seek to undermine.
Many police have just given their lives because they stayed in a dangerous situation helping other people get out. A lot of us in this struggle talk about being willing to die. They just did. Whatever we feel about police as tools of the state, now is not a good moment for a heavy police confrontation. In fact, although generally I'm against negotiating with the police, in this case I'd certainly consider that it might be a wise and even a generous thing to do. As individuals, the police are of a class that doesn't gain from the policies we oppose. Let's not write off the possibility that some of them could be brought to support us.
I want peace, not war. But calling for 'peace' at this moment does not sufficiently address the fear, anger and powerlessness people feel. I'd like to see us call for justice:
Justice for the victims of this week's terrorist attacks.
Justice, not blind vengeance-meaning that we need to know clearly and certainly who carried out the attacks before we retaliate. Justice for the Arab Americans who live among us. They deserve our support and protection.
Justice for the people of other countries who could soon become ourvictims. Justice for the many, many victims of ongoing terror around the world, and recognition of the part we have played in supporting and forging that terror.
Economic and environmental justice.
These are my thoughts at the moment. They could change as the situation changes. But mostly I suggest that we all begin a creative thinking process, that we consciously choose to set aside our fears and our depression. I suggest that before we agree to do anything we've done before, we consider at least three creative new alternatives. I think we should show up in Washington, if not in the numbers and way we expected, then in some other dimension of strength, and hold open the possibility that we can create not just a protest, but moments of public beauty that can transform the world. Finally, I want to say a word about faith. 'Faith' and 'religion' are being thrown around and served up to us in ways that are at the moment rather sickening. Religion of any denomination can motivate the worst acts and be a rationale for hate. And yet it's hard to get through times like these without faith in something.
I don't generally like to inflict my spirituality on people who might not want it. But I feel moved to tell you what's getting me through the night, along with the love and support of my community. It's the faith that there is a great, creative power that works through the living world toward life, diversity, healing and regeneration. That power works in us, in our human love, in our work for justice, in our courage and our visions.
We don't need priests or ministers or even Witches to contact that power for us: we each have our own direct line. .It exists within us, infinite, unlimited. Ultimately, it is stronger than fear, stronger than violence, stronger than hate. I wish you all deep contact with whatever feeds your soul, and nourishment from whoever and whatever you most love.
Starhawk. www.starhawk.org.
Permission is granted to reproduce, if copyright info is included.
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!