Anthrax Scare Gives UN Pact a Fresh Edge (Globalism Empowered By Terrorism)

NITED NATIONS - Here's a sobering thought. If the United States, with its superior resources in technology and medicine and all the other advantages that come with being the most powerful country, is thrown into a panic by a relatively few cases of bioterrorism and still hasn't been able to track down the killer, how could the rest of the world cope with a similar situation?

Tibor Toth, chairman of an international bioweapons conference, asks the question and has disappointingly few answers beyond remarking that the post-Sept. 11 anthrax attacks in Florida, Washington, Virgina, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut -- and, most recently, in Chile in the first reported case outside the US -- have reframed talks on strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention.

All of the 60-odd countries that addressed the problem at the conference, which the UN convened to review (for the fifth time) the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, indicated that they share Ambassador Toth's view that America's recent experience of terrorism in its crudest and cruellest forms has redefined the issue of disease as a weapon.

Yet, despite its recent experience with anthrax -- and fears that smallpox and other killers may be out there to be exploited by terrorists when they're good and ready and have refined the means of delivery -- Washington has rejected a resumption of negotiations on a protocol that would beef up the convention, Toth notes.

Instead, the US suggested a number of other measures that it thinks would enhance the treaty's implementation.

Meanwhile, Toth, who is from Hungary, believes that a good way to deal with any widening of the threat of bioterrorism to countries ill equipped to meet such a challenge would be to establish, on a standby basis, international teams of experts ready to move within 24 hours of an attack and organize an appropriate response.

Every country cannot possibly have all of the necessary medicines and vaccines in stock to counter bioterrorism, but if everyone pulls together, an international capability could be developed, he says. Chillingly, he estimates that there may be as many as three dozen diseases that can be used in biological warfare.

Iraq is known to have employed chemical weapons already and is suspected of developing a bacteriological arsenal, including anthrax. This week, Hans Blix, the Swedish former head of the Intenational Atomic Energy Agency who was named to succeed Richard Butler as the UN's chief weapons inspector for Iraq, is scheduled to confer in New York with other experts who, like him, are concerned about what Saddam Hussein may have been up to since all of the UN monitors were thrown out of the country three years ago and have not been allowed back in.

Butler, a former ambassador of Australia now working with the Council on Foreign Relations as its diplomat in residence, has written that he suspects Saddam may have a whole lot of new lethal tricks up his sleeve. He fears that much of that good work done over several years by UN inspectors trying to stop Iraq's acquiring weapons of mass destruction may prove to have been for naught now that Baghdad has a virtually free hand again.

When the US has finishing cleaning Mullah Omar's clocks in Afghanistan, may Saddam be next on the list? Hawks in the Bush administration are said to be willing and eager, but the US must also think of how its allies, especially Russia and France, might react. Probably, not well. Kofi Annan also believes it would be a bad idea to go after Saddam.

But the question is how long can the UN sit quietly on its hands while Iraq flouts Security Council resolutions, collects billions of dollars in oil revenues (including from clandestine shipments) and acts generally as if it were Baghdad not the coalition that won the Gulf war. On top of that, blames the UN and convinces the naive that Council-ordered sanctions and not he and his goons who are responsible for the plight of sick and hungry Iraqi children. This, despite the embargo's exception for food and humanitarian supplies.

Back to Ambassador Toth and the biological warfare convention: Asked about its future in light of Sept. 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks and whether a change in Washington's attitude is necessary to push the accord forward, his response is cautious. All of us are too close to these events to be able to gauge their lasting impact, he says.

However, he adds, Iraq provides an object lesson. The states that signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention were "energized" (his word) to act more substantively following the uncovering of Baghdad's previously hidden chemical weapons depositories.

Also, public opinion has to count for something. Most states, says Toth, are aware that people want to see progress made to enhance the biological weapons treaty.

WASHINGTON — Following is a transcript from Fox News Sunday, November 25, 2001.

TONY SNOW, HOST, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Joining me now to discuss the war on terror, the anthrax scare and the stumbling economy, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

Senator Daschle, on another broadcast it's being reported — actually, U.S. News is reporting that scientists now have cloned a human embryo for the purposes of stem cell research. Do you support or oppose such research?

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TOM DASCHLE, D-S.D.: Well, Tony, I support the cloning for research purposes, but we vehemently oppose any cloning for purposes of human replication. I don't think there's any need to do that. I think there is strong bipartisan overwhelming opposition in the Senate and the House to do that.

DASCHLE: Well, I guess I'd want to see more of the story to be able to react in a more informed way. But it's disconcerting, frankly. I think it's going in the wrong direction.

What we've got to do is understand the importance of research for all of the purposes and medical needs that we have. But to take it to the direction that this story suggests is one that I think we're going to want to look at very closely in the Congress.

SNOW: I have a feeling a lot of people will be talking about it in the weeks ahead.

Let's turn to the war on terror. There are reports now that the Northern Alliance may be taking Al Qaeda fighters and transferring them to the jurisdiction of the United Nations. Is that what we want to have happen?

*****DASCHLE: Well, I think we want to take a closer look and see just exactly what that means. What does it entail? What would the United Nations do? Under what circumstances would they have jurisdiction? Would it be complete, partial? What role would the United States have?

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

These are all questions that I think we're going to have to look at very carefully before we come to any conclusion.

DASCHLE: Well, that's the impression I think most people would have. The question is whether or not, in addition to that, they've done other things that warrant the involvement of other countries. And clearly that's something we're going to have to look at much more closely.

DASCHLE: Well, I think certainly we're going to have to hold them. We're going to have to make some decision about what we do in the longer term. There has to be some accounting for their actions, some justice provided here.

But I think, again, we need to know a lot more about the proposal and about just what the circumstances are before we come to any hard and fast, universally applicable solution.

SNOW: There's another solution that's being suggested in press reports today, which is that maybe we just take them and we put them on some sort of facility in Guam, not an easy place to escape. Does that seem reasonable?

SNOW: Well, I think that's an innovative suggestion. I'm not sure anybody's thought through it enough to know for sure. I'd be concerned if I were some of the people living on Guam whether or not it's a great idea. But clearly that is something we're going to have to look at.

We have to come to a lot of decisions with regard to the judicial process, how we handle incarceration, how do we deal with other countries who are holding prospective terrorist cells, and how do we address that from an international point of view? All of these questions are going to have to be addressed a lot more comprehensively.

SNOW: One of those was raised this week when Spain, which has been very helpful to us in the war on terror — it has intercepted a cell of Al Qaeda terrorists, and it says it will not extradite them unless it gets absolute assurances that these people will not be subjected to the death penalty in America. That's in part because of agreements signed by all the members of the European Union.

Are we ready to say that we will not use the death penalty against Usama bin Laden and the people who work with him?

DASCHLE: Tony, I don't think we're ready to say that, certainly not the American people. I doubt Congress would be willing to say that.

So clearly this is a matter of great import to other countries. We've got to find a way to resolve this impasse.

Clearly, we can't ensure that justice will be served unless we are able to come to some agreement with countries that are withholding people that we're going to have to bring to justice one way or another.

SNOW: The question often asked, Usama bin Laden, alive or dead? You got a preference?

DASCHLE: I don't. I just think we've got to find him, we've got to break up the Al Qaeda network, we've got to do all that we can to bring him to justice. I just think it has to be done soon.

SNOW: The president says this is going to be protracted, the war on terror, and it's going to go to a lot of other places than Afghanistan. Do you agree?

DASCHLE: Well, I think the president is wise to warn us of all the ramifications down the road. I understand there's a big story in Newsweek this week where he lays out exactly his concern, and I think it's appropriate that he and other leaders do that.

This is not going to be easy. It is going to be protracted. We know that there are going to be a lot of twists and turns that we can't foresee. So the more that the American people can be warned of the circumstances, the better, I think.

SNOW: A lot of people now think of the next step. It's pretty clear that the Taliban has been broken as any kind of entity. We're now focusing in on Al Qaeda. It looks as if Kunduz has now fallen. So now you've got Al Qaeda in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan.

What I do think we have to appreciate is that this goes beyond the borders of Afghanistan, this war on terrorism.

What I do think we have to be balanced about, however, is the reaction of all of our Arab allies, and keeping that coalition together has to be a priority as we consider our next moves.

So that balance is one that we have to strike very carefully, and I'm not sure we're prepared yet to make that decision about Iraq.

SNOW: Do you think military success has made our Arab allies more or less supportive of us?

DASCHLE: I think, overall, probably more supportive. I think that generally they — they have seen the reaction of the Afghan people. They've seen the reaction of other people in the region. I think they're encouraged by the stability that apparently is being created in Afghanistan. They think that that could be extended elsewhere.

But overall, this has been an extraordinary success. And I think any time you have successes of this kind, you're going to get allies that are more supportive.

SNOW: A number of people have told me, including some Arab diplomats, that one of the reasons why moderate Arab states have been a little less willing to embrace this operation fully, at least up until now, is because we didn't go ahead and deal with Saddam Hussein a decade ago.

DASCHLE: Well, Tony, again, that's not something that I think we can negotiate or that we can pass a bill or a law to do. I think this is something they're going to have to be weighed very carefully.

That's going to be hard to do. There are many complications. This is not something that involves just the United States. It would have to involve other countries, especially countries in the region.

So I think we have to be very circumspect. I think we have to be concerned about all the repercussions. And before we make any public declaration, I think it has to be done with great care.

SNOW: Israel took out a leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Abu Hahmoud (ph), in a pretty ferocious fashion this week. Helicopters came in, swooped in and shot at with rockets a car in which he was traveling.

Clearly, we support the effort to eliminate terrorism wherever it may exist. Hamas has been known for its terrorism in Israel and in the region. The elimination of those threats to society is something that we all support.

I'm not — I don't think the United States would have a position per se on the method or the actual individual involved. But clearly, eliminating the possibility of greater terror in the region, especially in Israel, is something the United States would support.

SNOW: Your office received an anthrax-laced letter. This week a 94-year-old woman in Connecticut died mysteriously of anthrax, of pulmonary anthrax.

DASCHLE: I don't think the mails are entirely safe. Clearly, we have to be cautious. I would be very skeptical about opening envelopes that aren't recognizable, that look suspicious. And we can't possibly protect every single one of our citizens from the possibility of another attack.

******DASCHLE: Based on what I know, I'd have to say they have. [What a joke, no suspects, yet Daschle thinks they're doing a good job!!!??!Unbelieveable!] This is a very difficult set of circumstances. This is not easily resolved. I think, given what little evidence they have, given what massive ramifications this has, clearly, they've done as good a job as I think their circumstances allow.

SNOW: Earlier in the broadcast, Lawrence Lindsey was on. We asked him if he thought we were in a recession. He dodged the question, so I'll throw it to you. Are we in a recession?

DASCHLE: Well, technically we're not yet. I mean, we've seen a slowdown in the economy. It is possible that we could see a recession at some point in the future but we don't have one right now.

SNOW: He also argued that you've got to cut tax rates, that you don't do government spending. And he accused Democratic leaders, of which you are one, of trying to spend too much.

DASCHLE: Well, Tony, I think it is important to cut taxes, but I do believe that it has to be done in balance. Providing retroactive help to corporations in the billion-dollar range going all the way back to 1988 doesn't make a lot of sense to many of us when it comes to economic stimulus.

SNOW: Now, what you're talking about there — what you're talking about there is the corporate minimum, alternative minimum tax.

DASCHLE: Telling corporations they don't have to pay any tax at all, going all the way back to 1988, when we've got people who are unemployed — we have 7.5 million people unemployed. Our Republican colleagues so far have been opposed to providing them with a comprehensive unemployment assistance in both health as well as unemployment that is so critical.

They are also opposed, even though now you've even got the director of homeland security saying we need additional commitment in investment to homeland security, they're opposed to providing that kind of assistance as well.

The economists tell us a couple of things: It should be temporary, it should be immediate, and it should be cost-contained. We're providing that. The Republicans so far have been in opposition to our proposal.

SNOW: Now, you seem to be saying corporations, they're trying to get away with not paying taxes. Don't they employ people?

DASCHLE: Well, they do employ people, but they're letting people off in numbers that we've got to be concerned about.

SNOW: So when they're letting people off, should we be lightening their tax burden so they can hire more people?

DASCHLE: Well, I think the question is, how do you spur the economy? And what economists tell us, Tony, is that the way you spur the economy the most in the fastest amount of time is to spur consumption, to demand more.

We have an excess capacity within our economy today, 30 percent. A General Motors executive the other day was saying, even all these tax breaks won't cause us to invest more.

What will cause them to invest more is if somebody's buying more cars. So that's exactly what we want to do: spur consumption, try to create additional demand. And that is probably as fundamental a difference between our parties right now as we try to resolve this economic stimulus question.

SNOW: Cars are pretty expensive. You must be talking about a pretty big jolt for the average taxpayer.

DASCHLE: Well, we're talking about the $65 to $75 billion range. But we're also talking about helping people buy things a lot less expensive — shirts and suits and pay their bills, try to improve their house. Christmas time is coming, buy some Christmas presents for the family. The kinds of things that really would spur the economy.

In addition — let me emphasize — in addition to making the investment in homeland security, so people feel more confident, more able to go out and do the kinds of things that would allow us to get back to normal.

DASCHLE: We have to. It's our strong desire to do that. The Republicans, so far, have filibustered. We had a cloture vote. It was defeated. We're going to offer another cloture vote. We're going to try to get this thing done, this job done.

SNOW: There was also talk of insurance reform again. Mr. Lindsey said, you know, a lot of people are afraid that — everybody from homeowners to businesses are afraid that their insurance is going to go away.

And he pointed a finger at tort lawyers. He said the biggest problem right now is that there's a lot of pressure, and he said, again, he pointed a finger at Democratic leaders, saying that you guys are trying to help out tort lawyers. Is he right or wrong?

DASCHLE: He's wrong. There's no desire to help out anybody. What I simply want to do is to finish this bill prior to the end of the month.

There is no question, if you get into tort reform, you're going to have a filibuster. What I have said to all sides who really are interested in resolving this matter is, let's get a bill to the floor that isn't going to generate a filibuster. It's probably the only way we're going to get it done before the first of January, and my strong desire is to get it done.

DASCHLE: Well, I think that there ought to be a way to look at all of these questions.

But if we're going to be — and I, frankly, don't think we ought to violate fundamental constitutional rights. That's first and foremost.

But let me also say, Tony, that I think it would be a tragedy if we left this session of Congress without helping the unemployed at all. If we — you know, we've helped the industries that have come to the Congress, looking for help. The insurance industry is the latest in their legitimate request for help. Well, we've got to help those unemployed people, people with no health insurance, people with no incomes at all, especially as they go into the Christmas season.

SNOW: You talked about fundamental constitutional rights. A lot of people complain that the attorney general, by establishing new rules, or actually asking to have voluntary question sessions with non-American citizens of Arab descent, and also by saying that the administration may want to listen to attorney-client conversations of people in prison and, in addition, the president laying forth the possibility of military tribunals for terrorists, that those three acts constitute an assault on the Constitution. Do they?

DASCHLE: Well, I don't know that anybody's going to give you a definitive answer. I will say that I think there is overwhelming support to give the attorney general all the help, all the power he needs to get the job done.

We are all very concerned about the spread of terrorism. But we have to ask ourselves what the balance is, how do you do that and ensure that we don't trample on the constitutional rights that we have fought to protect for over 200 years. That is the balance that all of us are striving to achieve.

And frankly, I think we've got to be very concerned about some of the suggestions made. We haven't seen the rules yet. We don't know exactly how they're going to do this. So until we see exactly how they will promulgate this new concept, I think it's pretty hard for us to come to any conclusions.

Homeland security efforts take spotlight

By Dane Schiller

San Antonio Express-News

Web Posted : 11/26/2001 12:00 AM

Fifteen feet below a San Antonio street, conversations focus on how to respond to a bomb blast at a shopping mall, an outbreak of smallpox, or a massive Gulf Coast hurricane.

Assistant Fire Chief Mike Miller spends a lot of his time in the underground Operations Center.

"You name a disaster, and we have got to have some kind of plan to deal with it," Assistant Fire Chief Mike Miller said as he sat in the city's emergency Operations Center, housed under the Fire Department administration building on Auditorium Circle downtown.

"We always plan for what if, that is our kind of job," said Miller, a 28-year veteran of the department who just over a year ago was named the city's Emergency Management coordinator.

Miller's job is to expect the unexpected and coordinate the responses of police and firefighters, as well as the public health, public works departments and other private and government agencies.

His efforts might have gone largely unnoticed but for Sept. 11, when homeland security became a chief concern for communities nationwide.

Miller, like authorities in Austin and Washington, says the terrorist attacks awoke the general public to the idea that terrorists can strike anywhere, and that cities must be prepared for the threat.

"We're dealing with the unknown," said Miller, a San Antonio native and second-generation firefighter. "We're dealing with the terrorism mindset.

"We are as prepared as any city, but I'm one of those skeptical people who always believes there is something else we could do; we can always go a little further."

Miller meets regularly with law enforcement officers, doctors, teachers and other members of the community to review preparedness and exchange ideas on what could be done better.

Where could an emergency shelter be located? How many patients can an emergency room handle? How quickly can city buses be mobilized to transport refugees?

Those are among the questions Miller wrestles with at the center, a concrete-fortified basement outfitted with banks of computers, more than two dozen phone lines, showers, a kitchen and a generator that can power the place for at least a week.

Among Miller's most pressing concerns is how San Antonio and Bexar County can keep the momentum for their anti-terrorism efforts, which have received about $1 million in federal funds since 1997.

The money went mostly toward equipment for handling hazardous-materials incidents. Police, fire and health personnel also have received special training.

Earlier this month, the state requested $430 million from the federal government to better prepare for terrorism, with some of the money proposed to create hazardous-materials strike teams in 10 cities.

Bexar County and the city will try to tap the funds, Miller said.

"We are going to have our hand out and we're going to be asking for it," Miller said. "We've kind of got a good start on it and we don't want to lose any ground."

Land Commissioner David Dewhurst, chairman of the state's Task Force on Homeland Security, said the state has a long way to go in terms of preparedness, but is ahead of the game thanks to so many tornadoes, fires and floods.

"One of the silver linings to so many natural disasters here in Texas is that we now have county and city emergency preparedness plans and good local coordinators," he said.

The task force aims to enhance the state's ability to detect and deter acts of terrorism and to better coordinate federal agencies with state and local organizations, he said.

Also, more needs to be done to defend the state's vital industries and utilities from attack, Dewhurst said.

"There are a number of critically important utilities and industries that we have yet to be successful in getting them to make preparedness plans," said Dewhurst, who declined to say which entities weren't cooperating.

"We've got a lot of work in front of us."

Dave McIntyre of ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, a think tank, said it is difficult to determine how well cities across the nation are prepared to face terrorist attacks.

"All we have done is recognize the need and begun to get a handle on who would respond and how," said McIntyre.

He stressed that homeland security issues are far more complex than crisis management or preparing for a storm.

"Tornadoes do not learn," he said. "In homeland security, we are working against a living, thinking enemy. Whatever you do, he's going to try to work around that to find something you haven't thought of."

At the Operations Center, Miller makes his way past computers, hurricane tracking charts and a room stocked with ham radios and a Morse Code sending device.

On a board mounted on the wall beneath a bank of television sets, reminders are scribbled of when the city geared up during the Sept. 11 attacks.

On one side is a timeline of the chaos: 08:45, first plane hits the World Trade Center, 09:10, second plan hits the World Trade Center.

On the other side of the board remains a note that a Trinity Baptist Church shelter is on standby, and there's a running tally of malls closing their doors.

"One of the most important things we can do is let people know that daily, we are looking out for their best interests," Miller said.

"We have to be prepared to deal with whatever the community may have inflicted upon it, may it be a car wreck or terrorist attack."

dschiller@express-news.net

11/26/2001 - Updated 12:43 PM ET

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

Latest deaths alter thinking about anthrax

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

When doctors admitted 94-year-old Ottilie Lundgren to the hospital 10 days ago, they saw nothing unusual about an elderly lady with a respiratory infection. That was before they found boxcar-shaped germs in her blood. A battery of tests quickly confirmed that the germs were Bacillus anthracis, the cause of anthrax. Even before the tests had been completed, the tiny, rural town of Oxford, Conn., had become the latest epicenter of an unprecedented investigation into the source of the deadly anthrax spores that have now killed five people.

Initial tests have found no spores in Lundgren's mail or in her home. Tests on two postal facilities, 400 postal workers and Lundgren's garbage were also negative. Her death last Wednesday from inhalation anthrax makes Lundgren the second person in a month — after Kathy Nguyen, 61, of New York — whose death bears no apparent direct connection to anthrax-laced mail.

Lundgren's case further challenges the conventional thinking about anthrax by raising new questions about whether a few anthrax spores can cause infection, whether spores in the environment pose a threat and whether older people with weakened immunity face a higher risk of contracting the disease.

"This case, along with the one in New York, has special significance," says epidemic expert D.A. Henderson, head of the Department of Health and Human Services' new Office of Public Health Preparedness. "One does find in many outbreaks an unusual case that really is a puzzle, and work done to solve that puzzle can be very revealing."

Medical detectives from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Connecticut Department of Health spent Thanksgiving and much of the weekend working side-by-side with FBI agents on the case. The investigators are following a protocol that in the past six weeks has become routine. They have searched Lundgren's home and belongings, questioned her doctors, friends and relatives and taken scores of environmental samples to determine how she might have been exposed to the lethal bacteria.

Lundgren was long retired and could not have been exposed through an employer's mailroom. When she left home at all, it was to visit a doctor, have her hair styled or go to church, places thought to pose no risk at all. And she does not appear to have received any constituent mail from Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., whose Washington office was found to contain trace amounts of spores.

Nevertheless, the investigators won't rule out any possibility. "It behooves us to keep an open mind as to the source of exposure," says CDC director Jeffrey Koplan.

The Nguyen case has proved to be equally perplexing. Investigators still have no clues about how the hospital worker became infected, even after testing her workplace, Manhattan Eye and Ear Hospital, her Bronx home and the subway line she rode to work.

The two cases, and their lack of apparent connection with anthrax-stuffed envelopes sent to Capitol Hill and news organizations, provoked fears among some people that the two women may have been exposed to anthrax in the environment. Perhaps, some wondered, other people may have died of the disease quietly without being diagnosed or raising alarms.

"We will not eliminate the possibility that this was a natural occurrence, but I think it is a very, very (slight) possibility," Koplan says.

The evidence weighs heavily against that possibility, Koplan says. Tests by biowarfare experts have shown that naturally occurring spores found at low levels in soil tend not to float up into the air, even when the soil is stirred up.

It also is unlikely that previous cases have gone unnoticed, Koplan says. The initial tests used to detect bacteria, including Bacillus anthracis, the anthrax bacterium, are routinely done on all hospital patients with respiratory infections. But they return far different results when the ailment is caused by something other than anthrax. For example, pneumonia is typically caused by cocci, which are round. The bacteria that cause anthrax are rod-shaped. They turn blue on standard laboratory staining tests; cocci and other bacilli turn red. Both the Lundgren and Nguyen cases also challenge the long-held notion that it takes at least 8,000 spores to cause inhalation anthrax. The reason: The 8,000-spore threshold is an educated guess, not a fact.

There are several reasons for this. Before tabloid photo editor Bob Stevens was diagnosed with inhalation anthrax on Oct. 3, only 18 such cases had been diagnosed in humans in the USA over the last half-century — too few to yield much information about the development of disease. And because it's unethical to expose humans to lethal microbes for research purposes, all exposure studies were done in monkeys, and their results may not apply to humans.

Doctors now believe it is possible for a few spores to cause infection, though it may take longer for the disease to develop. Moreover, the risk posed by a smaller dose of anthrax may be higher in older people with weak immune systems, says Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. All but one of the people who have died so far were older than 50.

Fauci noted that a lifetime of breathing dust, secondhand cigarette smoke, pollutants and other airborne debris takes a severe toll on the lungs' ability to clear foreign particles. "Don't discount the fact that (Lundgren) was 94 years old," he says. "That may be the reason she got infected, while somebody else could brush it off."

Homeland Security holds seminar on terrorism By Sally Schmid, Staff writer

November 26, 2001

Suburban Newspapers (Chicago)

http://reporterprogress.chicagosuburbannews.com/display/inn_news/WOODRIDGE/V5133.TXT

The Illinois Homeland Security Regional Training Seminars of 2001 made a stop in DuPage County Nov. 7, to address the terrorism threat in Illinois and how local protectors of the peace can be better prepared for an emergency.

Fire District representatives, police and municipal officials of DuPage County filled the Billy Graham Center of Wheaton College in Wheaton to receive an update from many Illinois agencies, including the Department of Emergency Management, the state police, the EPA, the Department of Public Health, the state fire marshals and the American Red Cross.

State representatives are traveling around the state to make sure all groups trained and equipped to handle emergencies are on the same page.

Chief Tom Freeman of the Lisle-Woodridge Fire District was already familiar with the information shared. As part of the subcommittee of the Illinois Terrorism Task Force (ITTF), Freeman directly brings updates back to the DuPage County Emergency Management Committee, which includes Dupage Mayors and Managers and DuPage County Police.

The information sharing seminar was mainly an opportunity for mayors and other municipal representatives to learn how Illinois is prepared for a terrorist attack, said Freeman. Most firefighters and police officers were already briefed on the information presented, but by piecemeal. The seminar offered an organized overview of where all Illinois agencies are in terms of preparedness.

Audience members were also invited to ask questions of state agency representatives. An audience member from one fire department asked whether there is a quick test that could be obtained to determine if a sample believed to be anthrax would need further scrutiny, since test results take so long to confirm anthrax. The answer from George Stevens, a representative with the Illinois Department of Public Health, was a simple ``no.''

In order to keep current, participants were invited to sign up for weekly updates on homeland security via e-mail.

Mike Chamness of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) described how Illinois quickly became prepared after Sept. 11. ``Within 15 minutes of the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, we activated the State Emergency Operations Center. Within 45 minutes, every agency was represented and we conducted the first briefing . . . Since then, we've had a skeleton crew that operates 24 hours a day with all agencies and it does a 15-minute call back,'' said Chamness.

The package Gov. George Ryan and Matt Bettenhausen, the Illinois security director, are taking to Washington to obtain funding includes supplies of antibiotics to protect first responders so they can do their job in the event of an emergency; a third, additional lab in Carbondale; an online response system that connects all first responders; and an urban search and rescue team that would include the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System groups (MABAS) and the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association.

``The answer that we've gotten repeatedly from FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) is that you don't need one. You have one. . . . These are the specially trained and equipped teams that you saw rotated in and out of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We beg to differ with them. Gov. Ryan has been knocking on doors in Washington. He's spoken to Speaker Hastert and Sen. Durbin and the Illinois congressional delegation. I am predicting that we're going to win this and that we're going to have an urban search and rescue team very shortly,'' said Chamness.

Chamness stressed that ITTF would not be duplicating efforts of fire districts that have banded together for local MABAS and Hazmat teams that specialize in dealing with hazardous materials. Rather, the plan will build upon emergency crews that already exist.

The plan would work this way: a call would come in to the state's emergency office, IEMA, and then IEMA would turn to the state's fire marshals, who would then activate the system, and the actual dispatch would come out of a regional emergency dispatch center not yet built, referred to by Chamness as the MABAS red center.

Gov. Ryan has allotted $20 million for the system to be up and operational in two years and has gone to Washington, D.C., to ask for an additional $45 million to complete it.

``I spoke earlier of this being the first ever agreement for the state of Illinois. We don't have a state fire department or state fire equipment. Through this agreement, we now do have something like that. It's also the first of its kind, of my knowledge, in the country,'' said Chamness.

Chamness said that a statewide terrorism training center is also part of the package that Ryan is proposing.

``We think that we need a place in Illinois where first responders can go and get hands-on training in large numbers'' to deal with a scenario that the state might face someday, said Chamness.

An issue addressed at the conference was that most police officers do not have the bioterrorism equipment or training necessary to deal with a biological attack, like fire departments and Hazmat teams do.

The DuPage County Office of Emergency Management has requested $800,000 in funds from ITTF, which receives its funding from the Department of Justice, to pay for biohazard equipment. The equipment would be not just for fire departments but also for police and health care responders. The county's emergency offices are awaiting the Justice Department funds to trickle down to the local level.

Woodridge Police Chief Geoff Korous said he doesn't foresee his department receiving biohazard training anytime soon because the department does not even possess the equipment, which is very expensive, and the department has not yet received any funding for equipment and training. Korous said he is hoping to find out if there is any grant money available.

In August of 1999, the city of Chicago conducted a bioterrorism exercise at Comiskey Park.

``They learned a lot of things from that exercise and they put that into their planning,'' said Chamness, who stressed throughout the meeting that Illinois has been preparing for 17 months for a terrorist attack with ITTF, started by Gov. Ryan in 1999.

Chamness described a training exercise that took place in Denver but failed because antibiotics could not be counted and distributed fast enough to save people in the hypothetical situation. Chamness said the Department of Public Health is working on a plan for a national pharmaceuticals stockpile and that department members reported that they believe they have found solutions to the problem.

ITTF has applied to the federal emergency agency to have a training exercise in the fall of 2002. Half of the counties in the state have done some sort of training exercise, reported Chamness.

George Stevens of the Illinois Department of Public Health said the department is working on a response to smallpox.

In regards to the use of Cipro, Stevens called for physicians to hold back on prescribing it to a patient unless it has been confirmed that the patient has anthrax. Generic antibiotics work just as well and the country does not have enough Cipro to use it unwisely, said Stevens, who added that one of his concerns is that bacteria will become resistant to Cipro, therefore eliminating its effectiveness.

Stevens said his department is working hard to get through an overwhelming amount of white powder.

``We got trailer-loads full of powder. We got rooms full of powder, bags full of powder . . . we've tested. Everything's negative. Lot of bird poop out there. Lot of crushed Lifesavers,'' said Stevens, who elicited laughter from the audience.

Korous said the Woodridge Police Department has expended a lot of energy on anthrax scares. However, the department takes all calls seriously, said Korous, who advises residents that if they are suspicious of any package, they should not transport it.

Sally Schmid's e-mail address is:

sas@libertysuburban.com

The Police State Agenda

By Richard K. Moore

Like many other viewers, I shrank back in disbelief when the images of the World Trade Centre (WTC) attack first began to flood the airwaves. How could this happen? Who would want to do such a thing? How could four different airliners all be hijacked at the same time? How had security systems and air defenses both failed so miserably? How would America respond?

And then the answers to such questions started coming in… within hours the authorities “knew” that the perpetrators were linked to Bin Laden, and President George Bush was already announcing a “War Against Terrorism”. While images of the attack were still being replayed, over and over again, US Congress had already authorised the President to take “any necessary measures”, and had allocated $40 billion to that purpose. Within days, the US had persuaded NATO to declare that this “attack on one member nation was an attack on all”. Then it turned out that the $40 billion had come from America’s social-security fund, and $15 billion was being allocated to bailing out the airline industry. Next we were being told that Americans would need to give up their civil liberties, and Congress was rapidly approving the “Combating Terrorism Act of 2001”. The War on Terrorism was going to be largely a covert war, a war “unlike any other”, a war that would go on indefinitely into the future.

By this time, my disbelief began to turn into suspicion. How had the US government come up so quickly with such a comprehensive and coordinated response? How had they decided within hours that an extended War on Terrorism was the appropriate action? How did they know that $40 billion was the exact amount needed? And then as background reports began to appear, my suspicion deepened. It turns out that the airlines were already in deep trouble, before the attack. And the US had other reasons to go after Afghanistan, having to do with oil reserves, and pipeline routes. And there had been earlier signs that the social-security funds might be raided for other uses. And still, no actual evidence had been produced linking Bin Laden to the attacks.

The whole scenario began to fit a very familiar pattern, a pattern that has characterised American history from its earliest days. This led me to a quite different analysis of the events than we were being fed over the mass media. I am not claiming that this alternative analysis is correct, I offer it only for your consideration. The various claims I make in this article are my opinion only. There may be some factual errors, but in my humble opinion, given the reports I have seen, this seems to be the most-likely scenario...

US History – A Series of Suspicious Warpath ‘Incidents’

As we look back at history, we find that every time the US has entered into a major military adventure, that has been enabled by a dramatic incident which aroused public sentiment overwhelmingly in favour of military action. These incidents have always been accepted at face value when they occurred, but in every case we have learned later that the incidents were highly suspicious. And in every case, the ensuing military action served some elite geopolitical design.

Consider, for example, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which gave President Lyndon Johnson an excuse to begin major escalation of the Vietnam War. Supposedly, in that incident, a North Vietnamese boat launched torpedoes in an attempt to sink an American warship. It is now generally accepted by historians that the attack did not in fact occur, and that Johnson had been preparing to escalate all along.

One of my correspondents on the Internet summarised a portion of the history this way:

“The US Government lied to the American People about the following events. Each of these incidents led the United States into War....

“1898…THEY LIED about the sinking of the battleship Maine. (Spanish American War)

“1915…THEY LIED about the sinking of the ocean liner Lusitania (World War I)

“1941…THEY LIED about the attack on Pearl Harbor. (World War II)

“1964…THEY LIED about the Gulf of Tonkin affair. (Vietnam War).”

In the media coverage of the recent WTC attack, the comparison with Pearl Harbor has been frequently raised. Thousands of American troops were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and thousands of American civilians were killed in the attack on the WTC. In both cases the American people responded (quite understandably) with deep shock and outrage. In both cases, overwhelming public sentiment was for retaliation, and for giving the President total support for whatever course he chose. In 1941, as now, any suggestion that the US government knew in advance of the attacks, and could have prevented them, would have been met by angry disbelief by almost any American. Nonetheless, the evidence now seems to favour the view that President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) did know about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, and that he could have mounted an effective defense.

We now know that elite US planners, during the period 1939-1941, had come to the conclusion that the Japanese conquest of Asia had to be stopped. The planners determined that Southeast Asia, in particular, was critical to US economic interests. But US public opinion was overwhelmingly against entering the war. It now seems that FDR figured out a way to get the US into the war, and that Pearl Harbor was the key to his plan.

When the Japanese began to threaten Southeast Asia, FDR froze Japanese assets in US banks, resulting in a cutoff of Japanese oil supplies. This was considered an act of war by Japan, and Japanese retaliation was expected by American planners. As the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, intelligence services in Britain and the US evidently knew of that approach. British Prime Minister Churchill notified his Pacific commanders that the Japanese were heading for Pearl Harbor. FDR, on the other hand, did not notify his commanders. Instead, he sent the most strategic ships (the aircraft carriers) out to sea where they would be safe, and instructed key observation outposts on the island of Kauai to stand down. It was over Kauai that the Japanese made their approach to Pearl Harbor.

It seems that FDR intentionally set the stage for a ‘surprise’ attack – shocking the nation and instantly shifting public opinion from non-interventionism to war frenzy. I am suggesting that this same scenario must be considered in the case of the recent WTC and Pentagon attacks. Unbelievable as this may seem, this is a scenario that matches the modus operandi of US ruling elites. These elites show callous disregard for civilian lives in Iraq, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and dozens of other places around the world. Is it so surprising that they would sacrifice a few thousand American civilians if they considered that necessary in order to pursue their geopolitical objectives?

Let us now consider in more detail the possible motives for such a crime scenario.

Global Capitalism in Crisis

Capitalism must have growth and change in order to operate. The engine of capitalism is driven by wealthy investors who put their money into the economy in order to increase their wealth. If the economy offers no growth opportunities, then investors withdraw their money and the whole system collapses. A minor collapse is called a recession, and a major collapse is called a depression. The history of capitalism is punctuated by such collapses.

Capitalism came into existence along with the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s in Scotland and northern England. Before that time societies were not based primarily on growth. Certainly there were people before then who sought to increase their wealth, but economies as a whole did not require growth in order to operate. Societies were ruled by aristocratic elites whose wealth was measured by the estates they owned, and the peasants who worked their land. Such aristocrats were more interested in stability than change, and more concerned with maintaining their estates than with economic growth.

When the Industrial Revolution came along then all this began to change. With the cotton gin, steam engine, and other new technologies, it became possible for an entrepreneur to make a great deal of wealth rapidly. A new wealthy elite began to emerge made up inventors, industrialists, bankers, and traders. These were the people who built the factories, invested in them, and figured out ways to get the new products to markets.

The interests of this new elite clashed with those of the old aristocratic elite. The aristocrats favoured stability, and laws which provided stability – such as tariffs, price controls, etc. The new elite, on the other hand, wanted change and growth – they wanted to develop new products, build new factories, and capture new markets. While aristocratic wealth was based on land and stability, industrial wealth was based on investment, development, change, and growth.

This new kind of economics, based on investment and growth, came to be known as capitalism. And the new elite, gaining its wealth through change and growth, is the capitalist elite. At first capitalism existed alongside aristocracy, competing with it to control the laws of society. But then in Britain, and later in other nations, the capitalist elite won out. Laws, economies, and societies were transformed to favour capitalism and growth over stability and land-based wealth. Banking, monetary systems, and taxation were re-engineered so as to compel businesses to seek growth whether they wanted to or not. Thus our economies were transformed into engines designed to increase elite wealth. Rather than economies which serve the needs of societies, we have societies which serve the needs of capital growth.

No one can deny that capitalism and its growth have brought many kinds of benefits to some people. America was based on capitalism from its very founding, and American wealth and prosperity are legendary. But there is a fundamental problem with capitalism. How is it possible for an economy to grow endlessly? How can growth be forever achieved in a finite world? Is capitalism, in the final analysis, sustainable?

In fact, providing for ongoing growth has been the primary challenge faced by every nation that has adopted capitalism. The history of the 19th and 20th centuries has been primarily the story of nations competing for markets and resources to support growth. Our history books tell us about noble causes and evil enemies, but in truth every significant war since 1800 has been about competition among Great Powers for economic growth.

Before capitalism, nations built empires because kings or individuals were greedy and wanted more territory and wealth. After capitalism, nations developed empires out of necessity. If they didn’t expand their markets and access to resources their economies would collapse. As industrial capitalism got into high gear in the late 1800s, that was accompanied by an unprecedented expansion of imperialism on a global scale.

From 1800 until 1945 the world system was a matter of competition among Great Powers for empires, in order to provide for capitalist growth. In each empire there was a core nation which ruled over peripheral territories. The peripheral territories were exploited in order to provide growth for the core ruling nation. The populations of the core nations were convinced by propaganda that they were helping or aiding the periphery to develop. This propaganda was lies. The fact was suppression, exploitation, and the prevention of healthy development in the periphery – so as to enable capitalism to flourish in the core Great Powers.

In 1945 this global system was radically changed. Under American leadership, with the help of both incentives and coercion, a new paradigm of capitalist growth was launched. Instead of competitive imperialism, a regime of cooperative imperialism was instituted. Under the protection of the American military, the so-called “Free World” was opened to exploitation by capitalism generally. This led to the rise of immense transnational corporations which were no longer limited in their growth to a single national empire. This new post-1945 system was invented in order to provide another round of growth to capitalism.

Under the post-1945 system, part of the scheme was to provide prosperity to the Western middle classes. In Europe, the USA, and in Japan as well, populations experienced unprecedented prosperity. Cooperative imperialism provided immense growth room for capitalism, and the wealth was being shared with the core-nation populations.

But no matter what system might be set up, growth eventually runs into the limits of that system. The post-1945 system was no exception. By the early 1970s the growth machine was beginning to slow down. Recessions began to replace prosperity. As a consequence, the global capitalist elite designed yet another system, offering yet another round of capitalist growth. This new system goes under the name ‘neoliberalism’, and it was launched under the auspices of Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the UK.

The purpose of neoliberalism was to steal the wealth of the prosperous capitalist nations and transfer that wealth to the capitalist elite and the corporations which they own and control. That’s what privatisation, deregulation, and other so-called ‘reforms’ were all about. In addition, neoliberalism was aimed at disempowering democracy itself – because it was the democratic nations which were implementing laws which limited the power of corporations. Any limit on the power of corporations is a limit on their ability to grow. And the one thing capitalism cannot tolerate is limits to its growth. That is a matter of life and death to capitalism. Globalisation amounts to four radical changes in the world system. These are (1) the destabilisation of and removal of sovereignty from Western nation states, (2) the establishment of an essentially fascist world government under the direct control of the capitalist elite, (3) the greatly accelerated exploitation and suppression of the third-world, and (4) the gradual downgrading of Western living conditions toward third-world standards. By these means, elites hope to achieve yet another round of capital growth.

During most of the decade of the 1990s globalisation proceeded almost unnoticed by the world’s population. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) began to establish their tentacles of power without publicity. Government leaders worldwide, under the pressure of capitalist elites, were quietly signing their sovereignty over to the new global institutions. When globalisation was mentioned at all in the media, it was described in propaganda terms as sharing ‘progress’ with the downtrodden of the world.

And then in December 1999 the people of the world began to wake up. The demonstrations in Seattle marked the beginning of a new global movement. In fairness, one must acknowledge that there were earlier signs of the movement in Europe and the third world. But only when the movement reached the USA did it become ‘real’ in the eyes of the world. And ever since Seattle the movement has been growing by leaps and bounds on a global scale.

The movement does not yet have well-defined goals, but it is a very promising and very radical movement. It is based on a clear understanding that global capitalism is leading us to ecological disaster and to tyranny. The movement does not have a clear organisational structure, but that itself is promising. The decentralised nature of the movement points the way to a new kind of genuine, locally-based democracy – a democracy that is not subject to elite manipulation as have been our Western pseudo-democracies with their manufactured ‘majorities’.

Having presented this (highly abbreviated) historical background, I can now describe the nature of ‘the global crisis of capitalism’. On the one hand, the capitalist elite must accelerate the pace of globalisation in order to continue providing room for capital growth. On the other hand, the people of the world, including in the West, have begun to wake up and oppose the dangerous and ominous path of globalisation. The elite know that as the path of globalisation is pursued more vigorously, more and more people will rise in opposition. The crisis of globalisation is a crisis of population control, requiring tightened political management of the people of Europe and North America.

People in the third world have been subjected to imperialist tyranny for centuries, and this has been possible because of suppression by Western military force. If the people of the West arise in opposition to globalisation, then the hegemony of the capitalist elite is seriously threatened. This is the crisis of global capitalism.

“War on Terrorism” – A Solution to Capitalism’s Crisis

President Bush calls it a “War on Terrorism”, but what is it really? Let’s look at some of the specifics...

• Congress has authorised the President to do “whatever is necessary”.

• Congress has allocated 40 billion dollars to do “whatever”.

• The $40 billion came from Social Security funds.

• $15 billion is being allocated to bail out the airline industry. Thus, terrorism is being used as an excuse to steal the savings of workers and transfer it to large corporations, including airlines and weapons contractors.

• For the first time, NATO has invoked the treaty clause which says “an attack on one nation is an attack on all”.

• We’ve been told to expect significant curtailment of civil liberties.

• Bush declared that “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

• Fleets, planes, and ground troops have been dispatched to the Middle East to do “whatever”.

• We are to expect a long, protracted war, much of which will be covert and we won’t be told what happened even after it’s all over.

• After Bin Laden is dealt with, Secretary of State Colin Powell tells us “we will then broaden the campaign to go after other terrorist organisations and forms of terrorism around the world.”

• Bush tells us that “We will use every necessary weapon of war”, and “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.”

• The Pentagon specifically refuses to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

This is a very comprehensive agenda. Bush has a blank check to do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, using whatever means he chooses. He has made it clear he intends to pull no punches and that he will keep drawing on this blank check for a long time to come. From such an agenda, one cannot easily predict where it will all lead. In such a case, it is instructive to look at the historical precedents.

Pearl Harbor aroused the wrath of Americans against the Japanese... but as soon as the blank check was signed, it was Europe that received the initial focus of American military attention. After the Battleship Maine was blown up (from an internal explosion we have since learned), the thirst for revenge was translated into the imperialist capture of the Philippines. In other words, when one of these outrage incidents occurs, the modus operandi of the US elite is to pursue whatever objectives are most important to it – regardless of the incident that provided the blank check.

And the most important issue before the elite at this point in history is the preservation of global elite rule, the acceleration of globalisation, and the suppression of the anti-globalisation movement. They must deal with the crisis of global capitalism.

From this perspective, the real meaning of the “War on Terrorism” begins to come into focus. Permit me to speculate as to the scenario which is likely to unfold...

• Nearly every country in the third world has some local ethnic group which is struggling against some kind of dictatorial government, usually installed by the USA. Every one of these ethnic groups can be labelled ‘terrorist’. Thus Bush can always intervene anywhere he wants for whatever reason and call it part of the “War on Terrorism”.

• In the Middle East, Balkans, and Western Asia, the US will continue the process of turning much of the region into an occupied imperialist realm, as we now see in Kosovo. Afghanistan occupies a very strategic geopolitical position, and military bases there will be important in the coming confrontation with China. Vast reserves of oil remain in that region, along with other minerals, and control over these resources will be critical as global supplies become increasingly scarce. In particular, Afghanistan is the planned route for a pipeline to transport huge Caspian Sea oil reserves to Western markets.

• US dominance of the NATO agenda will be important in this region, as will the careful management of European public opinion. One should not be surprised if US intelligence agencies covertly arrange for terrorist attacks in Europe along the same lines as the WTC attacks.

• Even without covert US encouragement, one can expect terrorist responses to the indiscriminate US bombing unleashed in Afghanistan and who-knows-where-else. Any such terrorist attacks will galvanise Western public opinion still further, adding depth to Bush’s blank check.

• The “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001” is almost unbelievable in the degree to which it will turn the USA into a full-scale police state. Terrorism is very loosely and broadly defined, and life imprisonment is authorised for any offense which comes under this definition. The bill is retroactive and there is no statue of limitations. This means that people who were activists back in the 1960s or 1970s could be imprisoned for life, if their acts in the past could be construed as ‘terrorism’ under this new police-state bill. Even those who merely attended the demonstrations, or helped plan them, could be punished equally with those who actually committed the acts. Broad new powers of surveillance, preventive detention, and searches of homes without warrants are included in the police-state bill. Even minor computer hacking would be ‘terrorism’ and would be punishable by life imprisonment. And there many, many other equally frightening provisions.

• Already Greenpeace and many other progressive organisations are categorised as ‘terrorist’ in the FBI lexicon. And it is the anti-globalisation movement, which includes such organisations, which is the real threat to the global capitalist elite. Agent-provocateur tactics have already been used against the movement, from Seattle to Genoa, and in the media the movement has been falsely portrayed as being essentially a violent movement. When Colin Powell talks about going after “other forms of terrorism”, it seems very clear that the movement will be systematically suppressed on a global scale. The overt fascism we saw in Genoa will be raising its ugly head in the US, Germany, the UK, and elsewhere. Right-wing paranoia about Federally-managed concentration camps in the USA will soon seem much less paranoid.

George Bush senior announced the New World Order, and it seems that George Bush junior is destined to complete its implementation. With a blank check to dominate the globe militarily, and to suppress the American people in the name of ‘security’, there seems to be little to stand in his way. This does not mean that the movement should give up. It means that the movement needs to be aware that the game being played is totally hardball. And hardball does not mean violence, at least not on the part of the movement. Hardball means we need to realise that the enemy is nothing less than global fascism. The sooner we realise that and organise accordingly, the greater chance we have of changing things while there are still human beings alive and out of prison on this Earth.

Excerpts from the draft US Anti-Terrorism Bill of 2001:

SEC. 302. ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM CRIMES.

...A person convicted of any Federal terrorism offense may be sentenced to imprisonment for any term of years or for life, notwithstanding any maximum term of imprisonment specified in the law describing the offense.

SEC. 303. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES.

...Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any Federal terrorism offense shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense…