Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 12.19.05

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R    12.19.05

1. Suit vs Roseville   12.19 9am
2. Eminent domain scam 12.19 7:30pm

3. ATK photo           12.21 7am

It might be well to contact the remaining groups for their Xmas schedules

4. Anti-torture        12.21? 7pm

5. Eagan peace vigil   12.22? 4:30pm

6. Counter recruit     12.23? 12noon
7. Palestine vigil     12.23? 4:15pm

8. Northtown vigil     12.24? 1pm

9. Space nukes
10. Aaron Nicodemus    - Bush versus Mao
11. Matthew Rothschild - Rumsfeld spies on Quakers and grannies
12. Martin Garbus      - An incredible day in America
13. Joe Kay/Barry Grey - McCain-Bush gives legal cover for continued abuse

--------1 of 13--------

From: Amy Ihlan <amyihlan [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Suit vs Roseville 12.19 9am

[The misdeveloppers have captured the Roseville City Council via the gang
of Three. They won't listen to the citizens; if you don't like it, they
say, sue us. So the suit is going forward. - ed]

The Friends of Twin Lakes are going to trial against Rottlund and the city
under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, beginning Monday, December
19 at 9am, in room 1620 of the Ramsey County Court House in downtown
St. Paul.  The trial is open to the public, and is scheduled to last for
approximately 3 days.  Friends of Twin Lakes encourages interested people
to please attend.


--------2 of 13-------

From: Amy Ihlan <amyihlan [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Eminent domain scam 12.19 7:30pm

Consideration of eminent domain for Twin Lakes is scheduled for
approximately 7:30-8 pm (after the council sets a final budget and tax
levy).

Although I believe there are many good policy reasons why eminent domain
should not be used in Twin Lakes (and I plan to make these arguments
tomorrow night), I am also very troubled by the council's attempt to make
such a controversial decision at our last meeting of the year in the
holiday season, with the deciding vote likely to be cast by an
unaccountable, outgoing council member, with litigation pending against
the city on the Twin Lakes project, and with legislation restricting
eminent domain also pending at both state and federal levels.

If you are also troubled by what the council is doing, please let them
know, either by attending the meeting if you can, or by expressing your
opinion to the Mayor and council by e-mail or other means.

--------3 of 13--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: ATK photo 12.21 7am

Wednesday, 12/21, 7 am (yes, am), Annual Holiday Photo in front of the ATK
sign (maker of illegal weapons), Alliant Tech, 5050 Lincoln, Edina. FFI:
www.circlevision.org/alliantaction.html


--------4 of 13--------

From: Dave Bicking  <dave [at] colorstudy.com>
Subject: Anti-torture 12.21?  7pm

This Wednesday 12/14, and every Wednesday, meeting of the anti- torture
group, T3: Tackling Torture at the Top (a sub-group of WAMM).  We have
changed our meeting time to the evening in order to accomodate the
schedules of our growing membership.  This week, and for the next few
weeks until we find a suitable public space, we will be meeting at 7pm in
the home of Dave Bicking, 3211 22nd Ave. S., Mpls (lower duplex).  (2
blocks south of Lake St, just west of the LRT stop)  Anyone interested in
stopping torture is welcome.

We have also added a new feature, starting this week:  we will have an
"educate ourselves" session before each meeting, starting at 6:30, for
anyone who is interested in learning more about the issues we are working
on.  We will share info and stay current about torture in the news.


--------5 of 13--------

From: Greg and Sue Skog <skograce [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Eagan peace vigil 12.22? 4:30pm

CANDLELIGHT PEACE VIGIL EVERY THURSDAY from 4:30-5:30pm on the Northwest
corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. We have signs
and candles. Say "NO to war!" The weekly vigil is sponsored by: Friends
south of the river speaking out against war.


--------6 of 13--------

From: sarah standefer <scsrn [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Counter recruit 12.23? 12noon

Counter Recruitment Demonstration
 Our Children Are Not Cannon Fodder
Fridays   NOON-1
Recruiting Office at the U of M
At Washington and Oak St.  next to Chipolte
for info call Barb Mishler 612-871-7871


--------7 of 13--------

From: peace 2u <tkanous [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Palestine vigil 12.23? 4:15pm

Every Friday
Vigil to End the Occupation of Palestine

4:15-5:15pm
Summit & Snelling, St. Paul

There are now millions of Palestinians who are refugees due to Israel's
refusal to recognize their right under international law to return to
their own homes since 1948.


--------8 of 13--------

From: Lennie <major18 [at] comcast.net>
Subject: Northtown vigil 12.24? 1pm

The Mounds View peace vigil group has changed its weekly time and place.
We will now be peace vigiling EVERY SATURDAY from 1-2pm at the at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Co. Hwy 10 and University Ave NE
in Blaine, which is the northwest most corner of the Northtown Mall area.
This is a MUCH better location.

We'll have extra signs.  Communities situated near the Northtown Mall
include: Blaine, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, Shoreview, Arden
Hills, Spring Lake Park, Fridley, and Coon Rapids.

For further information, email major18 [at] comcast.net or call Lennie at
763-717-9168


--------9 of 13--------

From: barbara Vaile <barbara [at] organicconsumers.org>
Subject: Space nukes

NASA plans to launch 24 pounds of highly toxic plutonium (pu-238 & pu-239)
on a New Horizons mission to the planet Pluto. The launch is set to lift-off
on/after January 11, 2006 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The
plutonium will be used in a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) to
convert the heat from the radioactive decay of the plutonium into on board
electricity.

We are urging the public (in the U.S. and worldwide) to contact NASA,
Congress, and send a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper stating
your opposition to this launch. See contact information below and also
talking points to make. Please help us spread the word by passing this
e-mail on to others in your community. NASA and Congress must hear that the
public does not support launching more nuclear materials into space.

Write to:
Michael Griffin
NASA Administrator
300 E. Street SW
Washington DC 20546
(202) 358-0000
mgriffin [at] mail.hq.nasa.gov <mailto:mgriffin [at] mail.hq.nasa.gov>
U.S. Congressional Switchboard: (Toll-free number) 1-888-355-3588

Talking Points (Please use your own words when writing your letter)

1) NASA acknowledges in their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
New Horizons mission that there is a 1 in 300 chance of an accident
resulting in release of the plutonium. In the event of such an accident the
EIS states that the deadly plutonium could be carried by winds for a 60-mile
radius throughout Central Florida. Clean-up costs for a plutonium accident
would range from $241 million to $1.3 billion per square mile.

2) NASA is moving toward a dramatic escalation in the numbers of nuclear
launches in the coming years. Everything from nuclear powered bases on the
moon to nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars. The Department of Energy (DoE)
is now doing a $300 million laboratory expansion in Idaho to produce
plutonium for future space missions.

3) The Pentagon has long stated that they will require nuclear reactors to
provide power for space-based weapons. NASA says that each of its space
missions will now be dual use, meaning military and civilian at the same
time. The obvious next question is what is the military application for
nuclear power in space?

4) At a time of major fiscal crisis in the U.S. why is NASA using public tax
dollars to put the lives of the people on Earth at risk?

5) Why does NASA not invest in development of alternative space power
technologies and move away from the use of deadly plutonium?

Thank you for your support.
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)


--------10 of 13--------

Bush versus Mao
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents
two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on
Communism called "The Little Red Book."

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert
Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the
UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for
Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a
form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social
Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford
by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on
a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time
abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the
official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said.
"Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring
inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I
understand it."

Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not
coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become
public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.

The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush
had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500
people at any given time since 2002 in this country.

The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.

The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts
from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.

In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was
required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the
student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.

The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland
Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought the
book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors
said.

Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in
Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some
of his calls are monitored.

"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he
said.

Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next
semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.

"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web
sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is
completely harmless."

The link: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

[One reader suggests we support freedom to read by all going to the
library to request the Mao book. I say, if the Mao book could bring down
BushCo, we should all read and practice it as soon as possible. -ed]


--------11 of 13--------

Rumsfeld Spies on Quakers and Grannies
By Matthew Rothschild
http://progressive.org/mag_mc121605
PROGRESSIVE  December 16, 2005

Not to trouble you or anything, but the next time you're going to a
protest, the eyes of the government may be upon you.

And I'm not just talking about local police filming your activity.

I'm not talking about the FBI under cover in your midst.

I'm talking about the Pentagon, too, getting into the act.

According to an MSNBC story on December 13, Rumsfeld's Pentagon is
tracking some of the most innocuous and lawful protests.

For instance, the Pentagon has a file on an anti-war group that was
gathering at the Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida, to plan a
counter-recruiting effort at local high schools.

That group of Quakers constitutes a "threat, " according to a 400-page
Pentagon document that MSNBC got hold of.

It was "one of more than 1,500 'suspicious incidents' across the country
over a recent 10-month period" that caught the attention of the Pentagon
snoops, MSNBC said. Of these, "nearly four dozen" were anti-war meetings
or protests.

The Pengaton's partial file on the spying is available at
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatab
aseTracker.pdf.

It lists 43 events in a six-month period alone, dating from November 11,
2004, to May 7, 2005. Pentagon political spying took place in the
following states and the District of Columbia: Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

One took place in Madison, Wisconsin, on April 26, 2005, according to the
Madison Capital Times.

It was sponsored by the Student Labor Action Coalition and the Stop the
War, the Capital Times reported. "Participants in the rally numbered only
about 20," the paper said, and it was designed to protest recruitment in
Madison. "A planned Air Force recruiting drive was abandoned as a result."

The Pentagon's database "listed the type of threat posed by the event as
'anti-DOD vandalism' and marked the source as 'not credible.' The case,
however, was left on a status of 'open/unresolved,' " the Capital Times
reported.

The Pentagon snooped on another counter-recruitment protest, this one in
Santa Cruz on April 5. It labeled the protest a credible "threat."

"Over 300 students marched into a campus job fair, occupying the building
and holding a teach-in until all military recruiters left," according
Santa Cruz Indymedia. It quoted third-year student Jen Low saying: "The
notion of the Pentagon spying on peaceful protesters is a major threat to
the freedoms that they claim to protect."

The Pentagon also surveilled Code Pink and the Raging Grannies in Northern
California, starting a file on a November 10, 2004, protest at the
Sacramento Military Entrance Processing Station ("Disposition:
Open/Unresolved," the document states) and a May 7, 2005,
counter-recruiting protest at the San Francisco Recruiting Station
("probably peaceful," it notes).

"It's just a big waste of time and money," says Natalie Wormeli, who is on
the board of directors of the Northern California ACLU and is co-founder
of the Davis chapter of Code Pink. "I think taxpayers should be outraged
at that." She adds, "We are not the enemy of the state. And I do worry it
could have a chilling effect on newcomers to the cause. I get concerned
we're headed to a new COINTELPRO. The U.S. can do better this. We should
not be living in a surveillance society."

Ruth Robertson of the Raging Grannies, who provided songs for the San
Francisco rally, says, "I guess they still don't get it that grannies in
flowery hats are peaceable."

Gail Sredanovic of the Raging Grannies makes an additional point: "Aside
from the disturbing civil liberties aspects of the Pentagon spying on
local peace groups, it makes me scared to think that the folks in charge
of protecting us from possible terrorist attacks can't tell the difference
between a terrorist threat and a peaceful citizen gathering. Are they
really that stupid?"

[We see who BushCo, the corporations, and the ruling class, are really out
to get. We know who really hates our freedoms and democracy. -ed]


--------12 of 13--------

An Incredible Day in America
By Martin Garbus
The Huffington Post via Info Clearing House - Dec 17, 2005
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article11320.htm

12/17/05 "Huffington Post"--Today, for two separate reasons, has been an
incredible day in America. First, the United States has legitimized
torture and secondly, the President has admitted to an impeachable
offense.

First, the media has been totally misled on the alleged Bush-McCain
agreement on torture. McCain capitulated. It is not a defeat for Bush. It
is a win for Cheney.

Torture is not banned or in any way impeded.

Under the compromise, anyone charged with torture can defend himself if a
"reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful
order.

That defense "loophole" totally corrodes the ban. It is the CIA, or the
torturing agency, who will decide what a "reasonable" person could have
concluded. Can you imagine those agencies in the interrogation business
torturing on their own in trying to decide what is reasonable or what is
not? What is not "reasonable" if the interrogator (wrongfully or
rightfully) believes he has a ticking-bomb situation? Will a CIA or
military officer issue a narrow order if he knows his interrogator
believes, in this case, torture will work?

The Bush-McCain torture compromise legitimizes torture. It is the first
time that has happened in this country. Not in the two World Wars, Korea,
the Cold War or Vietnam did the government ever seek or get the power this
bill gives them.

The worst part of it is that most of the media missed it and got it wrong.

Secondly, the President in authorizing surveillance without seeking a
court order has committed a crime. The Federal Communications Act
criminalizes surveillance without a warrant. It is an impeachable offense.
This was also totally missed by the media.

[Martin Garbus is a partner in the law firm of Davis & Gilbert LLP and one
of the country's leading trial lawyers.]

Copyright 2005 © HuffingtonPost.com, LLC


--------13 of 13--------

McCain-Bush "anti-torture" measure gives legal cover for continued abuse
By Joe Kay and Barry Grey
World Socialist Web Site  17 December 2005
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/tort-d17.shtml

The agreement reached between the Bush White House and Senator John McCain
on a measure ostensibly banning torture does nothing of the kind. The
official disavowal of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of alleged
terrorists held by the US is a ploy to cover up Washington's past defiance
of international laws banning torture and provide a pseudo-legal cover for
the continuation of the same methods.

The very fact that the US government is obliged to make a public disavowal
of torture is a damning indictment of Washington's lawless methods. The
whole world knows that the US is employing torture and other illegal
means, including abductions, secret prisons, imprisonment without charge
or legal recourse, in the name of its global "war on terror."

The agreement reached between the White House and McCain - a right-wing
Republican senator and fervent supporter of the war in Iraq - is in the
form of an amendment to the appropriations bill for the Department of
Defense. The amendment, as agreed on by the White House and the senator,
requires that the US military treat those detained by it in accordance
with the Army Field Manual. It adds that no prisoner "in the custody or
under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment."

The Bush administration, which had previously opposed any measure
proscribing the use of torture on the grounds of "national security" and
the "war on terrorism," was moved to work out a deal with McCain after the
senator's original amendment was passed last month by a lopsided margin in
the Senate, and a non-binding resolution supporting the amendment was
adopted by a large margin on December 14 in the House of Representatives.

The crafting of the agreed-on amendment has been accompanied by
proclamations from Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the
United States does not condone or employ torture. These are brazen lies.

What was Abu Ghraib? What about the evidence showing that the sadistic
methods employed there were the result of policy decisions made by top
Bush administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and then-White House counsel, now attorney general, Alberto
Gonzales?

There are further revelations of prisoner abuse, up to and including
murder, in Afghanistan, Iraq and at the US concentration camp in
Guantanamo Bay. And there are the CIA's secret prisons, to which the
International Red Cross has, in violation of international law, been
denied access.

Let us not omit the practice of "extraordinary rendition," a euphemism for
the abduction of people outside the US by American agents and their
transfer to the torture chambers of foreign governments in league with
Washington. At least two cases of innocent men kidnapped by the US and
handed over to be tortured have been exposed: that of Maher Arar, a
Canadian citizen picked up in New York and dispatched by the CIA to Syria,
and Khalid al-Masri, a German who was "disappeared" from Macedonia and
trundled off to be tortured in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration is utilizing, appropriately enough, the "Big Lie"
propaganda methods perfected by the Hitler regime to cover up Washington's
use of barbaric practices that were employed on a more massive scale by
the German fascists.

In 2001, the US officially repudiated the Geneva Conventions as applied to
prisoners captured in Afghanistan. Why would the Bush administration
repudiate this cornerstone of international law, if not to provide itself
with a license to break the law and employ interrogation and detention
practices proscribed by the Conventions?

In subsequent months, administration officials and lawyers, including
Gonzales, sought to redefine torture and manufacture a pseudo-legal
rationalization for its use.

For the US government's verbal disavowals of torture to be taken
seriously, Washington would be obliged to officially reverse its policy on
the Geneva Conventions, release all those being held illegally in
Guantanamo and elsewhere, reveal the location of its secret prisons, and
close its gulags down. It will do none of these things.

The McCain amendment will have no effect on US policy toward alleged
terrorists detained by Washington. This policy flows organically from the
drive by the American ruling elite to achieve by military force a
hegemonic position in oil-rich regions such as the Middle East and Central
Asia, which is deemed critical to the broader aim of establishing American
imperialist hegemony on a global scale.

The hypocrisy that underlies McCain's position was on display at his joint
appearance with President Bush on Thursday. He ended his remarks praising
the White House by declaring, "Now I think we can move forward with
winning the war on terror and in Iraq."

The claim that adherence to international law on the treatment of
prisoners can be squared with support for the war in Iraq is a repudiation
of the fundamental principle laid down at the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war
criminals after World War II. The prosecution, led by US Supreme Court
Justice Robert Jackson, insisted that the basic crime committed by the
defendants, from which flowed all other crimes - including torture, the
network of concentration camps, even the extermination of the European
Jews - was the planning and waging of aggressive war. Bush, McCain - in
fact, the entire US political establishment and both parties - defend
just such a war of aggression: the unprovoked "preventive" war against
Iraq, plotted years in advance and launched on the basis of lies.

The differences between McCain and the White House were from the start
more a matter of form than substance. The sticking point had been the
insistence of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that the CIA be exempted
from any ban on the use of torture or abusive methods.

The real position of McCain and other congressional backers of his
amendment is that such open sanction for torture is politically and
militarily inexpedient. McCain is well aware that the US and forces
trained and financed by Washington have long engaged in such methods, most
notoriously in Latin America and Vietnam. Their basic position can be
summed up as: do it, but don't talk about it.

McCain, a Vietnam-era navy pilot who was held as a prisoner of war in
Hanoi, is close to sections of the military brass. He speaks for those in
the military, and the ruling elite more generally, who consider the open
defense of detainee abuse to be highly damaging to the interests of
American imperialism, including the struggle to crush the insurgency in
Iraq and prepare future military interventions elsewhere.

They are concerned that Bush's open repudiation of international law has
undermined the ability of the US to present itself as a defender of
democratic rights, that it opens up US soldiers to the same type of
treatment, and that it could land American officials, military as well as
civilian, in the dock in future war crimes trials.

The basic aim of the agreement reached between McCain and Bush is to
provide a new legal and public relations cover behind which Washington
will continue to abduct individuals and hold them indefinitely, maintain a
network of secret prisons, and torture and abuse detainees.

This is underscored by both the language of the "compromise" amendment and
other measures taken in conjunction with it. In working out the agreement
with the White House, McCain agreed to include a provision to allow CIA
officials accused of torture to argue in court that they had a reasonable
belief they were following legal orders. This will serve to undermine any
attempts to prosecute those who carry out torture.

There are other loopholes in the amendment. The only language that places
explicit limits on the methods allowed states that no person under the
control of the Department of Defense "shall be subject to any treatment or
technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United
States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."

Even as the agreement between McCain and the Bush administration was being
negotiated, the Pentagon was busy revising the Army Field Manual,
undoubtedly to give a green light to torture and other abusive measures.
The New York Times reported December 13 that the Pentagon had approved a
secret addendum to the manual concerning interrogation procedures. Army
officials have refused to release details on what methods are authorized,
however "some military officials said the new guidelines could give the
impression that the Army was pushing the limits on legal interrogation,"
the Times wrote.

A separate amendment to the same Defense appropriations bill would deny
habeas corpus rights to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Newsweek
reported on Thursday that it had obtained a new draft of the amendment,
co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Carl Levin, which contains language
permitting US military tribunals to use evidence obtained through the
torture of prisoners in other countries. "The new Graham draft also adds
more restrictions on the rights of terror detainees to sue or launch an
action against the US government outside of a narrow appeals process," the
magazine wrote.

The Graham amendment passed with the support of most Democratic senators,
as well as that of John McCain. This very fact demonstrates the cynicism
behind the McCain amendment on inhumane treatment. With one breath its
backers claim to oppose torture, with the other they support the use of
"evidence" obtained through its use.

On top of this, the Bush administration defines torture so narrowly - in
a manner entirely at odds with international law - that virtually any
abusive method can be said to fall outside the definition. A New York
Times editorial on Friday noted that hours after the McCain-White House
deal was announced, "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made it crystal
clear that the administration would define torture any way it liked. He
said on CNN that torture meant the intentional infliction of severe
physical or mental harm, and repeated the word 'severe' twice. He would
not even say whether that included 'waterboarding' - tormenting a
prisoner by making him think he is being drowned."

The Washington Post editorial of the same day, which praised the amendment
in general, noted that the Bush administration and the Pentagon had sought
to redefine torture and inhumane treatment "as not covering in all
circumstances such CIA techniques as 'waterboarding,' or simulated
drowning; 'cold cell,' the deliberate induction of hypothermia; mock
execution; and prolonged and painful 'short-shackling.'"

The newspaper added that the administration's position implied that such
methods could be used on US citizens.

The administration is only able to employ such methods, and lie so
brazenly to the American people, because it knows it will not be seriously
challenged by the Democratic Party or the media. On the contrary, the
Democratic leadership supports not only the war in Iraq, but also, whether
openly or tacitly, the use of torture as an instrument US imperialist
policy around the world.

[Is the BuchCo government fascist? If not now, how fast is it going that
way, and how fervently does the ruling class wish it? If so, what do we do
about it? Wait until it's too late? -ed]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments