The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Author: Pamela Constable
Date: Jul 8, 2001
Start Page: A.16
Section: A SECTION
Text Word Count: 995
The car windows were blackened to hide the route and destination. The house was heavilyguarded, and the visitor could see only the mud-walled roomaround him, with several bearded, turbaned men sitting on low cushions. Oneof them was Osama bin Laden.
Bakr Atiani, a TV reporter with the Saudi-owned, London-based Middle East Broadcasting Center, received a phone call last month inviting him to Afghanistan to meet bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive wanted by U.S. officials on charges of planning the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and suspected of involvement in the attack on a U.S. warship in Yemen.
Bin Laden uttered only occasional pleasantries, letting aides do most of the talking during the rare three-hour meeting in his desert hideaway in southern Afghanistan, Atiani said. His reticence was apparently in keeping with hispledge to the Afghan authorities who harbor him that he will not use his Afghan base as a launching pad for political statements or foreign adventures. But his aides delivered a message that was direct, clear andchilling.
"They said there would be attacks against American and Israeli facilities within the next several weeks," recounted Atiani, who is based in Islamabad. "I am 100 percent sure of this, and it was absolutely clearthey had brought me there to hear this message."
The broadcast report of the meeting in late June came at a time when videotapes described as bin Laden-produced recruiting tapes were circulating inthe Middle East, and U.S. intelligence services were detecting evidence of suspicious activity around some U.S. embassies. As a result, all U.S. military forces in the Middle East were placed on high alert, andU.S. embassies and military facilities across the region were warned to expect attacks.
So far no such attacks have occurred, and officials of the Taliban, the Islamic militia that controls most of Afghanistan, have adamantly reiterated that bin Laden is under strict orders not to abuse the protection they provide for him.
"No matter what the United States' views are, the Afghan government has taken certain precautions for their own security as long as the presence of Osama continues on our soil," said a spokesman for Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban's envoy to Islamabad.
Although Taliban officials have repeatedly refused U.S. requests to hand over bin Ladenfor prosecution in the United States, "the Taliban government has nevertheless ensured that Osama has no means of communication with the outside world," the spokesman said. "This is also to enhance ourown security."
Some American commentators have mocked the panic that such vague and unconfirmed threats have recently caused among U.S. officials. Washington is still smarting from the August 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 240 people, and the bombing last October of the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17.
Reports of new threats by bin Laden, meanwhile, set off a flurry of speculation in Pakistan recently that the United States was planning a bombing raid or commando attack on Afghanistan. After the African embassy bombings, Washington retaliated with cruise missile attacks on military training camps allegedly operated by bin Laden inside Afghanistan.
American concerns about the threat bin Laden represents to U.S. interests remainthe major obstacle to improved relations between Washington and the military-run government of Pakistan, one of Afghanistan's fewallies and its major diplomatic channel to the world.
In the past several weeks, U.S. officials have attempted in vain to persuade Pakistani authorities to use their influence with the Taliban to rein in bin Laden. In Washington, officials met with Pakistan's foreign minister, Abdul Sattar, who reportedly told them Pakistan has little power over the Taliban and needs to maintain cordial relations with the group because of Afghanistan's strategic location and long-standing friendship.
In Islamabad, meanwhile, the departing U.S. ambassador, William B. Milam, said that he had reiterated American concerns about bin Laden in final courtesy calls on Pakistani officials and Taliban diplomats stationed there.
According to news agency reports in Pakistan, Zaeef said Milam had warned him that Washington would hold the Afghans responsible for any attacks by binLaden, but that Zaeef had "categorically" assured Milam "we would never allow anyone to use our soil for attacks against Americans."
In an interview, however, Milam said he was discouraged by the outcome of his meetings and suggested that Pakistan was locked into a relationship with its Afghan neighbors. The Taliban has collaborated with Pakistan in its support of Islamic insurgents in Kashmir, a disputed regionon Pakistan's border with India, and has close ties to conservative Islamic groups inside Pakistan.
"It was clear we still have a long way to go before coming to a meeting of the minds on this issue," Milam said.
Concerns about bin Laden's terrorist reach have also been raised recently in New Delhi, where a Sudanese man was arrested last month on suspicion of planning to attack the U.S. Embassy. Local police said the man told them he was acting on orders from a Yemeni man associated with bin Laden.
U.S. officials here have not commented on the case, and Atiani, the reporter, said bin Laden's aides did not seem to know about the alleged New Delhi operation when he raised the subject with them. Whether bin Laden and his followers have the means to carry out more spectacular attacks in the near future, they clearly want the world to believe they can and will.
During his meeting in the Afghan hide-out, Atiani said, the reclusive bin Laden, who has rarely granted interviews and has previously been reported to be in ill health, seemed healthy, calm and confident.
"He didn't say much, but I could feel his confidence. He smiled and he looked like he had put on weight," Atiani said.
Although the compound was clearly located in southern Afghanistan, the reporter said he saw only Arabs during his visit. "It felt like bin Laden had his own Arab kingdom in southern Afghanistan," he said.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
9/11 And Oil
Cindy Sheehan
9/11/2009
Today is the 8th anniversary since the tragedies of 9-11 and before I go forward, I want to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families of the people who were killed that day, but to also recognize that everyone in this country has suffered whether they know it or not.
On that sunny and bright morning, 8 years ago, I awoke from my sleep to learn that the first plane had hit the first tower. As the events of the day unfolded, I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that this event would somehow lead to the death of my oldest child Casey, who was in the Army stationed at Ft. Hood, Tx. I went into a tailspin of depression that didn’t break until I fell on the floor screaming after I found out he was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04. I wasn’t depressed anymore I was in a pain-soaked, white-hot rage.
9-11 was, of course, the defining moment of this generation. Of course, whether it was an inside job: evil Dick Cheney planning it between heart attacks in his bunker; to the “official story” (yeah, right!); the attacks were exploited to lead to, among other things: get our country militarily mired into three countries by now; torture; Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and rendition (began under the Clinton admin); USA PATRIOT ACT; military commissions act; lack of personnel and equipment to help the victims of Katrina in her aftermath; crumbling infrastructure here in America; collapsing economy; the FISA Modernization Act, etc, etc.
Remember after that awful day, our fearful leader, George, came on the TV box and told us to “go shopping and travel” and everything would be okay? Well everything is not okay.
Yesterday, I spoke at a very expensive, private college in Louisville, Ky: Bellarmine. After my talk, a student came up to me and said: “Ms. Sheehan, you said that we are in Iraq for the oil. Doesn’t our country run on oil? Don’t we need oil?" That question made me want to cry for so many reasons.
First of all, as I told the young man, the day before we were attacked on 9-11, the national average for a gallon of gas was 1.54. Today, it is 2.58/gallon, but in my state, California, the price is over 3.00/gallon. We have seen the price rise to over 4.50/gallon since the invasion of Iraq and that brings up a second aspect of that point to how tragically callous was this question.
The US oil companies and refineries could actually buy oil from Iraq. The oil that is under the territory that Iraq encompasses actually belongs to the people of Iraq, not Standard Oil or Exxon Mobil. So, in killing over one million Iraqis for this oil, our nation and the evilly greedy oil companies (which actually drive our geo-political strategy), they have committed first-degree murder: murder that happens when armed robbery is being committed. Why do our corporations have to have all the money? Many oil rich countries need the technology and equipment of our oil companies. Why can’t they “profit share” instead of “profit steal?”
Unfortunately, the young man was correct: our economy and our nation runs on oil, but we are just as complicit as our government and the CEO’s of oil companies. We need to rapidly wean ourselves off the oil tit and use the money we save by occupying Iraq to develop the sustainable forms of energy that have already been invented.
I don’t own a car and I take public mass transportation whenever I can. The mass transportation systems in this country need to be expanded and the fares need to be reduced or eliminated all together in a dream world where green jobs will be created and the environment will improve. When gas got over 4.50/gallon and people started to drive less, the air quality actually improved and that’s a good thing.
This nation wastes 275 million dollars per day on these insane and inane occupations. If we pulled our troops out of the Middle East where they should never have been, we would have the money to actually take care of the first responders to 9-11 who are suffering from health challenges and many can’t access the care they need in this callous medical system we have. We could also provide care to our wounded troops (physically, mentally, and emotionally) that also often find accessing care difficult, still.
At his inauguration, Barack Obama said: “We will not apologize for our lifestyle,” maybe he’s right, most likely he’s wrong, but we definitely need to change our lifestyle.
Wouldn’t it be nice if after 8 years, we had a leader that had the courage to take us in a direction of peace and sustainability?
9/11/2009
Today is the 8th anniversary since the tragedies of 9-11 and before I go forward, I want to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families of the people who were killed that day, but to also recognize that everyone in this country has suffered whether they know it or not.
On that sunny and bright morning, 8 years ago, I awoke from my sleep to learn that the first plane had hit the first tower. As the events of the day unfolded, I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that this event would somehow lead to the death of my oldest child Casey, who was in the Army stationed at Ft. Hood, Tx. I went into a tailspin of depression that didn’t break until I fell on the floor screaming after I found out he was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04. I wasn’t depressed anymore I was in a pain-soaked, white-hot rage.
9-11 was, of course, the defining moment of this generation. Of course, whether it was an inside job: evil Dick Cheney planning it between heart attacks in his bunker; to the “official story” (yeah, right!); the attacks were exploited to lead to, among other things: get our country militarily mired into three countries by now; torture; Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and rendition (began under the Clinton admin); USA PATRIOT ACT; military commissions act; lack of personnel and equipment to help the victims of Katrina in her aftermath; crumbling infrastructure here in America; collapsing economy; the FISA Modernization Act, etc, etc.
Remember after that awful day, our fearful leader, George, came on the TV box and told us to “go shopping and travel” and everything would be okay? Well everything is not okay.
Yesterday, I spoke at a very expensive, private college in Louisville, Ky: Bellarmine. After my talk, a student came up to me and said: “Ms. Sheehan, you said that we are in Iraq for the oil. Doesn’t our country run on oil? Don’t we need oil?" That question made me want to cry for so many reasons.
First of all, as I told the young man, the day before we were attacked on 9-11, the national average for a gallon of gas was 1.54. Today, it is 2.58/gallon, but in my state, California, the price is over 3.00/gallon. We have seen the price rise to over 4.50/gallon since the invasion of Iraq and that brings up a second aspect of that point to how tragically callous was this question.
The US oil companies and refineries could actually buy oil from Iraq. The oil that is under the territory that Iraq encompasses actually belongs to the people of Iraq, not Standard Oil or Exxon Mobil. So, in killing over one million Iraqis for this oil, our nation and the evilly greedy oil companies (which actually drive our geo-political strategy), they have committed first-degree murder: murder that happens when armed robbery is being committed. Why do our corporations have to have all the money? Many oil rich countries need the technology and equipment of our oil companies. Why can’t they “profit share” instead of “profit steal?”
Unfortunately, the young man was correct: our economy and our nation runs on oil, but we are just as complicit as our government and the CEO’s of oil companies. We need to rapidly wean ourselves off the oil tit and use the money we save by occupying Iraq to develop the sustainable forms of energy that have already been invented.
I don’t own a car and I take public mass transportation whenever I can. The mass transportation systems in this country need to be expanded and the fares need to be reduced or eliminated all together in a dream world where green jobs will be created and the environment will improve. When gas got over 4.50/gallon and people started to drive less, the air quality actually improved and that’s a good thing.
This nation wastes 275 million dollars per day on these insane and inane occupations. If we pulled our troops out of the Middle East where they should never have been, we would have the money to actually take care of the first responders to 9-11 who are suffering from health challenges and many can’t access the care they need in this callous medical system we have. We could also provide care to our wounded troops (physically, mentally, and emotionally) that also often find accessing care difficult, still.
At his inauguration, Barack Obama said: “We will not apologize for our lifestyle,” maybe he’s right, most likely he’s wrong, but we definitely need to change our lifestyle.
Wouldn’t it be nice if after 8 years, we had a leader that had the courage to take us in a direction of peace and sustainability?
A New 9/11 Investigation in New York City? The Voters Will Decide—If the Lawyers Let Them
by James Ridgeway
First published in his blog Unsilent Generation on 10 September 2009
In the five years since the 9/11 Commission released its studious but timid report, Americans of all political stripes have advocated for a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since Obama seems intent upon putatively pardoning the Bush Administration for all of its crimes and misdemenors, such an investigation will clearly not take place at the federal level. But a New-York based organization has been pursuing a local effort—and on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the attacks, it has achieved what could be an important step toward its goal. The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), which describes itself as “a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders, and survivors,” has gathered signatures to place a referendum for a new 9/11 investigation on the November ballot in New York City.
The Bloomberg administration fought the effort by claiming that only about 26,000 of the 52,000 signatures submitted by NYC CAN were valid, leaving the group some 4,000 short of the requirement for a ballot measure. After the New York courts appointed a “referee” to review the tossed-out petitions, NYC CAN scrambled to validate thousands of signatures, and submitted 28,000 more. And just yesterday, the group announced in a press release that “in a last minute decision, lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that [NYC CAN] indeed did submit over 30,000 valid signatures...The City’s concession...paves the way for lawyers for both sides to argue the legality of the petition.”
There are several more hurdles ahead: New York City has a long history of blocking citizen-generated ballot initiatives on the grounds of legal technicalities. And all legal issues must be resolved by September 30 for the measure to make it onto the November ballot. But if the referendum were to be presented and passed, it would lead to the creation of what its authors describe as “a local, independent commission with subpoena power that would be tasked with comprehensively reinvestigating the attacks.”
Believing that such an investigation is necessary and vital doesn’t require a subscription to any particular conspiracy theory about the attacks. In my 2006 book The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11: What the 9/11 Commission Report Failed to Tell Us, I focused on straightforward, even obvious questions: Why was the airline industry, with its army of well-connected lobbyists, permitted to resist safety regulations that could have saved lives? How did our foreign policy, and “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, help pave the way for the attacks? Why did a politically driven, Iraq-obsessed administration ignore repeated warnings of the coming danger? Who was in charge as the attacks unfolded?
Some of these questions ought to practically answer themselves. Yet in its 664-page report, the 9/11 Commission managed not to answer them—in many cases, by the simple means of not asking them in the first place. The Commissioners themselves announced their limited intentions in the report’s opening pages, where they wrote: “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible accounting of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.” The contradiction inherent in these stated aims is obvious: without “blame,” there can be no true accountability, and without accountability, there is nothing to ensure that the “lessons” of 9/11 will be “learned.”
In a just-released book called Ground Truth, John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission and now dean of Rutgers Law School, declares that at an early stage in its investigation, the Commission
discovered that what had occurred that morning — that is, what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue....At some level of the government, at some point in time ... there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened.
It should come as no surprise that the 9/11 Commission conceded to this decision and limited its investigations accordingly. As I wrote in the conclusion to my own book, when it comes to the September 11 attacks and the lies and obfuscations that followed:
It is not necessary to search for hidden conspiracies, because the conspiracy is right in front of us and all around us, and the conspirators are running the country. Those in power in government and business share a tacit agreement that the system must be preserved at all costs, and institutions such as the 9/11 Commission, by their very existence, sign on to this agreement. Political power must be preserved. Economic and business interests must be protected. Allies who serve us by providing the United States with valuable resources like oil or with strategic positions in the world balance of power must be guarded. These things must be done at all costs, even if it means leaving unanswered questions about a catastrophic attack on the level 9/11, and even if it means leaving the American people vulnerable to another such attack in the future....
Yet, realistic as we are about the intractable power of the “system,” the idea remains that this time, things should have been different. Something as enormous as the 9/11 attacks should demand accountability from those who allowed it to happen. On the morning of September 11, thousands of Americans went to work in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in police stations and firehouses. Hundreds more boarded planes and began their quotidian journeys. Surely even the most skeptical among them must on some level have assumed that their government would protect them from the kind of attack that took place that day. And surely even the most cynical among us must believe that a betrayal of such magnitude should carry consequences. Without consequences, there is no justice for the dead, and no safety for the living. Why has no one been held accountable? This is the last unanswered question about 9/11.
If anyone deserves the opportunity to press on for answers, it is the people of the City of New York. The next few weeks will tell whether they are at long last given that opportunity.
Born in 1936, James Ridgeway has been reporting on politics for more than 45 years. He is currently Senior Washington Correspondent for Mother Jones, and recently wrote a blog on the 2008 presidential election for the Guardian online. He previously served as Washington Correspondent for the Village Voice; wrote for Ramparts and The New Republic; and founded and edited two independent newsletters, Hard Times and The Elements.
Ridgeway is the author of 16 books, including The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11, It’s All for Sale: The Control of Global Resources, and Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. He co-directed a companion film to Blood in the Face and a second documentary film, Feed, and has co-produced web videos for GuardianFilms.
Additional information and samples of James Ridgeway’s work can be found on his web site, http://jamesridgeway.net.
First published in his blog Unsilent Generation on 10 September 2009
In the five years since the 9/11 Commission released its studious but timid report, Americans of all political stripes have advocated for a new investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since Obama seems intent upon putatively pardoning the Bush Administration for all of its crimes and misdemenors, such an investigation will clearly not take place at the federal level. But a New-York based organization has been pursuing a local effort—and on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the attacks, it has achieved what could be an important step toward its goal. The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), which describes itself as “a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders, and survivors,” has gathered signatures to place a referendum for a new 9/11 investigation on the November ballot in New York City.
The Bloomberg administration fought the effort by claiming that only about 26,000 of the 52,000 signatures submitted by NYC CAN were valid, leaving the group some 4,000 short of the requirement for a ballot measure. After the New York courts appointed a “referee” to review the tossed-out petitions, NYC CAN scrambled to validate thousands of signatures, and submitted 28,000 more. And just yesterday, the group announced in a press release that “in a last minute decision, lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that [NYC CAN] indeed did submit over 30,000 valid signatures...The City’s concession...paves the way for lawyers for both sides to argue the legality of the petition.”
There are several more hurdles ahead: New York City has a long history of blocking citizen-generated ballot initiatives on the grounds of legal technicalities. And all legal issues must be resolved by September 30 for the measure to make it onto the November ballot. But if the referendum were to be presented and passed, it would lead to the creation of what its authors describe as “a local, independent commission with subpoena power that would be tasked with comprehensively reinvestigating the attacks.”
Believing that such an investigation is necessary and vital doesn’t require a subscription to any particular conspiracy theory about the attacks. In my 2006 book The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11: What the 9/11 Commission Report Failed to Tell Us, I focused on straightforward, even obvious questions: Why was the airline industry, with its army of well-connected lobbyists, permitted to resist safety regulations that could have saved lives? How did our foreign policy, and “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, help pave the way for the attacks? Why did a politically driven, Iraq-obsessed administration ignore repeated warnings of the coming danger? Who was in charge as the attacks unfolded?
Some of these questions ought to practically answer themselves. Yet in its 664-page report, the 9/11 Commission managed not to answer them—in many cases, by the simple means of not asking them in the first place. The Commissioners themselves announced their limited intentions in the report’s opening pages, where they wrote: “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible accounting of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.” The contradiction inherent in these stated aims is obvious: without “blame,” there can be no true accountability, and without accountability, there is nothing to ensure that the “lessons” of 9/11 will be “learned.”
In a just-released book called Ground Truth, John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission and now dean of Rutgers Law School, declares that at an early stage in its investigation, the Commission
discovered that what had occurred that morning — that is, what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue....At some level of the government, at some point in time ... there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened.
It should come as no surprise that the 9/11 Commission conceded to this decision and limited its investigations accordingly. As I wrote in the conclusion to my own book, when it comes to the September 11 attacks and the lies and obfuscations that followed:
It is not necessary to search for hidden conspiracies, because the conspiracy is right in front of us and all around us, and the conspirators are running the country. Those in power in government and business share a tacit agreement that the system must be preserved at all costs, and institutions such as the 9/11 Commission, by their very existence, sign on to this agreement. Political power must be preserved. Economic and business interests must be protected. Allies who serve us by providing the United States with valuable resources like oil or with strategic positions in the world balance of power must be guarded. These things must be done at all costs, even if it means leaving unanswered questions about a catastrophic attack on the level 9/11, and even if it means leaving the American people vulnerable to another such attack in the future....
Yet, realistic as we are about the intractable power of the “system,” the idea remains that this time, things should have been different. Something as enormous as the 9/11 attacks should demand accountability from those who allowed it to happen. On the morning of September 11, thousands of Americans went to work in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in police stations and firehouses. Hundreds more boarded planes and began their quotidian journeys. Surely even the most skeptical among them must on some level have assumed that their government would protect them from the kind of attack that took place that day. And surely even the most cynical among us must believe that a betrayal of such magnitude should carry consequences. Without consequences, there is no justice for the dead, and no safety for the living. Why has no one been held accountable? This is the last unanswered question about 9/11.
If anyone deserves the opportunity to press on for answers, it is the people of the City of New York. The next few weeks will tell whether they are at long last given that opportunity.
Born in 1936, James Ridgeway has been reporting on politics for more than 45 years. He is currently Senior Washington Correspondent for Mother Jones, and recently wrote a blog on the 2008 presidential election for the Guardian online. He previously served as Washington Correspondent for the Village Voice; wrote for Ramparts and The New Republic; and founded and edited two independent newsletters, Hard Times and The Elements.
Ridgeway is the author of 16 books, including The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11, It’s All for Sale: The Control of Global Resources, and Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. He co-directed a companion film to Blood in the Face and a second documentary film, Feed, and has co-produced web videos for GuardianFilms.
Additional information and samples of James Ridgeway’s work can be found on his web site, http://jamesridgeway.net.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
US Girl Scouts prepare for war, pestilence
9/10/2009
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States wants to enlist its 3.4 million Girl Scouts in the effort to combat hurricanes, pandemics, terror attacks and other disasters.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a campaign Tuesday to entice the blue, brown and green-clad multitudes to be even more prepared, with the promise of a new patch if they pitch in.
The young scouts will be able to emblazon their sashes or vests with the patch if they undergo the training which readies them for an emergency.
"This new preparedness patch will increase citizen preparedness and enhance our country's readiness for disasters," said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement.
"As a former Girl Scout, I know the 'Be Prepared' motto well, and I look forward to working with the Girl Scouts to spread the preparedness message to all of our nation's citizens."
The move is part of a month-long government effort to make Americans better able to cope with natural and man-made disasters.
Napolitano has urged individuals, families and businesses to stock fresh water and food, and prepare an emergency plan -- to be enacted in the event of a disaster.
The unveiling of the patch marks a partnership between the scouts and Citizen Corps, a community-based initiative under the DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates national response to disasters.
Girl Scouts of the USA chief executive Kathy Cloninger said the tie up with Citizen Corps "provides an opportunity for our girls to lead the way in ensuring that their families and their communities are prepared for emergencies."
The patch will be available alongside existing Girls Are Great, Girl Scouts Against Smoking, Media Know-How and Read to Lead patches, and, of course, the Cookie Sale Activity Pin.
Girl Scouts sell an astonishing 200 million boxes of cookies each year on average, according to the organization, which was founded in 1912 and chartered by the US Congress in 1950.
It is not the first time the girl guides have been called into action in defense of the homeland.
During World War II, Girl Scouts "operated bicycle courier services, invested more than 48,000 hours in Farm Aid projects, collected fat and scrap metal, and grew Victory Gardens," according to Girl Scouts of the USA.
As the end of the second millennium neared and computers around the world were expected to be stricken with a debilitating bug, Girl Scouts were enlisted in some parts of the country to hand out advice about the threat poised by Y2K.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks scouts hosted remembrance ceremonies and wrote thank-you letters to rescuer workers
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States wants to enlist its 3.4 million Girl Scouts in the effort to combat hurricanes, pandemics, terror attacks and other disasters.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a campaign Tuesday to entice the blue, brown and green-clad multitudes to be even more prepared, with the promise of a new patch if they pitch in.
The young scouts will be able to emblazon their sashes or vests with the patch if they undergo the training which readies them for an emergency.
"This new preparedness patch will increase citizen preparedness and enhance our country's readiness for disasters," said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement.
"As a former Girl Scout, I know the 'Be Prepared' motto well, and I look forward to working with the Girl Scouts to spread the preparedness message to all of our nation's citizens."
The move is part of a month-long government effort to make Americans better able to cope with natural and man-made disasters.
Napolitano has urged individuals, families and businesses to stock fresh water and food, and prepare an emergency plan -- to be enacted in the event of a disaster.
The unveiling of the patch marks a partnership between the scouts and Citizen Corps, a community-based initiative under the DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates national response to disasters.
Girl Scouts of the USA chief executive Kathy Cloninger said the tie up with Citizen Corps "provides an opportunity for our girls to lead the way in ensuring that their families and their communities are prepared for emergencies."
The patch will be available alongside existing Girls Are Great, Girl Scouts Against Smoking, Media Know-How and Read to Lead patches, and, of course, the Cookie Sale Activity Pin.
Girl Scouts sell an astonishing 200 million boxes of cookies each year on average, according to the organization, which was founded in 1912 and chartered by the US Congress in 1950.
It is not the first time the girl guides have been called into action in defense of the homeland.
During World War II, Girl Scouts "operated bicycle courier services, invested more than 48,000 hours in Farm Aid projects, collected fat and scrap metal, and grew Victory Gardens," according to Girl Scouts of the USA.
As the end of the second millennium neared and computers around the world were expected to be stricken with a debilitating bug, Girl Scouts were enlisted in some parts of the country to hand out advice about the threat poised by Y2K.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks scouts hosted remembrance ceremonies and wrote thank-you letters to rescuer workers
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Sharp reminder:A mass vaccination programme for swine flu in the US was cancelled amid controversy in 1976. What lessons can the UK learn?
As the government prepares to roll out the swine flu vaccine campaign, few people are aware of a US vaccination programme more than 30 years ago that was abruptly stopped after reports of deaths and adverse reactions.
In early February 1976, an 18-year-old soldier at Fort Dix, New Jersey, collapsed and died suddenly. Subsequent tests revealed that four men at the base, including the dead soldier, were suffering from a strain of swine flu. In total, 13 soldiers developed the disease.
The possibility of a pandemic on the scale of the one in 1918, in which one million Americans had died, was soon being discussed in the press. Although many scientists expressed reservations, some officials at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) argued for a mass vaccination programme. Such an unprecedented undertaking required months of preparation, so President Gerald Ford's government was under pressure to act quickly, particularly as 1976 was an election year. In March, Ford announced that he was asking for $135m (£82.6m) for a vaccination programme. Congress agreed immediately.
The National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act was passed on 12 August, and it made the US government liable for any damages, after the insurance industry refused to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers.
The vaccination programme started on 1 October with the televised vaccination of the president and his family, but within days, the deaths had been reported of two elderly people. Weeks later, a Minnesota doctor reported that a patient had developed the neurological condition Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after vaccination. Other similar cases followed in Minnesota, with one death. By December, the CDC announced that 30 people had developed GBS within a month of being vaccinated. The possibility of a link meant that the vaccination programme was immediately stopped.
A subsequent CDC investigation found that vaccination increased the risk of developing GBS eightfold, and it was decided to compensate anyone who developed the syndrome within 10 weeks of vaccination. In all, 4,181 people successfully claimed damages, costing the American taxpayer nearly $93m (£57m). However, many argued that the supposed link between GBS and the vaccination was the result of reporting bias. For example, 80% of the US armed forces were vaccinated, twice, yet no increase of GBS was found in military personnel. In the Netherlands, the only other country that vaccinated against swine flu, studies revealed that there was no increase in the incidence of GBS, despite over 1.5m vaccinations.
The context of the current UK swine flu vaccination programme is different from the US inasmuch as 1976 was an anticipated epidemic that never materialised; no other cases were found anywhere in the world. Liability is also not an issue. Britain has a government compensation scheme for damage caused by routine childhood vaccinations, and this will apply to swine flu.
Yet, so far, the majority of swine flu cases continue to be mild, and there are no signs of the virus mutating. Given that the first people to be vaccinated will be those with underlying health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma and heart disease, it is a statistical certainty that there will be some deaths among these people soon after vaccination. Whether or not these are caused by the vaccination, some will argue that the vaccine is unsafe. Indeed, anti-vaccination websites are already recounting the alleged link between the 1976 vaccine and GBS as "proof" of the potential dangers of swine flu vaccination. And a survey published this month by the Lancet revealed that about half of pregnant women will refuse the vaccination.
One positive message from 1976 is that it is possible to vaccinate large numbers of people, and that vaccination may save many lives. But safety concerns could derail any vaccination programme and dent confidence in vaccines and healthcare professionals. For the forthcoming vaccination campaign to be successful, lessons need to be learned from 1976. Healthcare professionals should be alert to any possible coincidental or vaccination-related adverse events. In the UK, this data is collected by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which has set up the "swine influenza portal" for reporting adverse reactions to the antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, and it will be extended to include the vaccination. This system is also open to members of the public to report any adverse reaction to the vaccine they think they have had.
Most importantly, there needs to be effective and balanced communication. The responsibility for this rests with politicians, the media and the Department of Health, as well as individual healthcare professionals.
The government needs to heed criticisms of its failure to come clean about potential problems with Tamiflu. Without a balanced acknowledgment of the risks and benefits of vaccination against swine flu, the scene is set for a repeat of the MMR scandal, which has led to a resurgence of measles after a claim in 1998 that the vaccine was linked to autism resulted in many parents not getting their children vaccinated.
• Peter Washer's book, Emerging Infectious Diseases and Society, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan next year
In early February 1976, an 18-year-old soldier at Fort Dix, New Jersey, collapsed and died suddenly. Subsequent tests revealed that four men at the base, including the dead soldier, were suffering from a strain of swine flu. In total, 13 soldiers developed the disease.
The possibility of a pandemic on the scale of the one in 1918, in which one million Americans had died, was soon being discussed in the press. Although many scientists expressed reservations, some officials at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) argued for a mass vaccination programme. Such an unprecedented undertaking required months of preparation, so President Gerald Ford's government was under pressure to act quickly, particularly as 1976 was an election year. In March, Ford announced that he was asking for $135m (£82.6m) for a vaccination programme. Congress agreed immediately.
The National Swine Flu Immunization Program Act was passed on 12 August, and it made the US government liable for any damages, after the insurance industry refused to indemnify the vaccine manufacturers.
The vaccination programme started on 1 October with the televised vaccination of the president and his family, but within days, the deaths had been reported of two elderly people. Weeks later, a Minnesota doctor reported that a patient had developed the neurological condition Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after vaccination. Other similar cases followed in Minnesota, with one death. By December, the CDC announced that 30 people had developed GBS within a month of being vaccinated. The possibility of a link meant that the vaccination programme was immediately stopped.
A subsequent CDC investigation found that vaccination increased the risk of developing GBS eightfold, and it was decided to compensate anyone who developed the syndrome within 10 weeks of vaccination. In all, 4,181 people successfully claimed damages, costing the American taxpayer nearly $93m (£57m). However, many argued that the supposed link between GBS and the vaccination was the result of reporting bias. For example, 80% of the US armed forces were vaccinated, twice, yet no increase of GBS was found in military personnel. In the Netherlands, the only other country that vaccinated against swine flu, studies revealed that there was no increase in the incidence of GBS, despite over 1.5m vaccinations.
The context of the current UK swine flu vaccination programme is different from the US inasmuch as 1976 was an anticipated epidemic that never materialised; no other cases were found anywhere in the world. Liability is also not an issue. Britain has a government compensation scheme for damage caused by routine childhood vaccinations, and this will apply to swine flu.
Yet, so far, the majority of swine flu cases continue to be mild, and there are no signs of the virus mutating. Given that the first people to be vaccinated will be those with underlying health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma and heart disease, it is a statistical certainty that there will be some deaths among these people soon after vaccination. Whether or not these are caused by the vaccination, some will argue that the vaccine is unsafe. Indeed, anti-vaccination websites are already recounting the alleged link between the 1976 vaccine and GBS as "proof" of the potential dangers of swine flu vaccination. And a survey published this month by the Lancet revealed that about half of pregnant women will refuse the vaccination.
One positive message from 1976 is that it is possible to vaccinate large numbers of people, and that vaccination may save many lives. But safety concerns could derail any vaccination programme and dent confidence in vaccines and healthcare professionals. For the forthcoming vaccination campaign to be successful, lessons need to be learned from 1976. Healthcare professionals should be alert to any possible coincidental or vaccination-related adverse events. In the UK, this data is collected by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which has set up the "swine influenza portal" for reporting adverse reactions to the antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, and it will be extended to include the vaccination. This system is also open to members of the public to report any adverse reaction to the vaccine they think they have had.
Most importantly, there needs to be effective and balanced communication. The responsibility for this rests with politicians, the media and the Department of Health, as well as individual healthcare professionals.
The government needs to heed criticisms of its failure to come clean about potential problems with Tamiflu. Without a balanced acknowledgment of the risks and benefits of vaccination against swine flu, the scene is set for a repeat of the MMR scandal, which has led to a resurgence of measles after a claim in 1998 that the vaccine was linked to autism resulted in many parents not getting their children vaccinated.
• Peter Washer's book, Emerging Infectious Diseases and Society, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan next year
US actually increasing personnel in Iraq: More contractors, fewer troops
9/9/2009
US forces are not withdrawing from Iraq.
Well, its soldiers are. But not civilian contractors. Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to withdraw US troops from the war-torn country, the US is planning to award contracts to protect US installations at a cost to taxpayers that could near $1 billion.
In fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq just awarded $485 million in contracts just last week, while Congress enjoyed its summer recess. Five firms will handle private security deals to provide security for US bases. It's a neat rhetorical loophole that will allow US officials to say that the country has withdrawn from Iraq, while its contractors remain.
"Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period," the Washington Post's Walter Pincus wrote in Wednesday editions. "That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million.
Pincus cites an Inspector General's report, whose fine print notes that these contracts could swell to a whopping $935 million. An earlier IG report documented manifold allegations of fraud and government waste (PDF here).
Victory Base Camp, one of the US' largest installations, will likely require "approximately 2,600 security personnel," the report said -- just by itself.
The Pentagon's "quarterly report on contracting showed a 19 percent increase from the three previous months in the number of security guards in Iraq hired by the Defense Department. The Central Command attributed the increase, from 10,743 at the end of March to 13,232 at the end of June, mainly to "an increased need for PSCs [private security companies] to provide security as the military begins to draw down forces."
Private guards replaced soldiers at 19 locations. Are taxpayers getting their money's worth by awarding contracts to more efficient private firms?
Nope: security companies are billing the US for more people to do what the military is able to do with less.
"Camp Bucca, primarily a detention facility, called for '417 personnel to free up approximately 350 soldiers for combat operations,'" Pincus notes. "At Forward Operating Base Hammer, the task order called for 124 private guards to allow 102 soldiers to take on combat activities."
At another installation, Camp Taji, about 900 private contractors replaced 400 soldiers.
__________________
US forces are not withdrawing from Iraq.
Well, its soldiers are. But not civilian contractors. Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to withdraw US troops from the war-torn country, the US is planning to award contracts to protect US installations at a cost to taxpayers that could near $1 billion.
In fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq just awarded $485 million in contracts just last week, while Congress enjoyed its summer recess. Five firms will handle private security deals to provide security for US bases. It's a neat rhetorical loophole that will allow US officials to say that the country has withdrawn from Iraq, while its contractors remain.
"Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period," the Washington Post's Walter Pincus wrote in Wednesday editions. "That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million.
Pincus cites an Inspector General's report, whose fine print notes that these contracts could swell to a whopping $935 million. An earlier IG report documented manifold allegations of fraud and government waste (PDF here).
Victory Base Camp, one of the US' largest installations, will likely require "approximately 2,600 security personnel," the report said -- just by itself.
The Pentagon's "quarterly report on contracting showed a 19 percent increase from the three previous months in the number of security guards in Iraq hired by the Defense Department. The Central Command attributed the increase, from 10,743 at the end of March to 13,232 at the end of June, mainly to "an increased need for PSCs [private security companies] to provide security as the military begins to draw down forces."
Private guards replaced soldiers at 19 locations. Are taxpayers getting their money's worth by awarding contracts to more efficient private firms?
Nope: security companies are billing the US for more people to do what the military is able to do with less.
"Camp Bucca, primarily a detention facility, called for '417 personnel to free up approximately 350 soldiers for combat operations,'" Pincus notes. "At Forward Operating Base Hammer, the task order called for 124 private guards to allow 102 soldiers to take on combat activities."
At another installation, Camp Taji, about 900 private contractors replaced 400 soldiers.
__________________
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
