A-Changin' Times (ACT)
Born in the aftermath of 9/11, ACT has become as political as the times.
Now a blog for alternative news, views and rants offered with a twist, a song and a smile. Fair and balanced.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize [sic] with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
 — Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan Copyright 1963
(1991 Special Rider)

"A-Changin' Times: taking the best from the past to make the most of the present and to create a better future."

"What marching through the streets was to the Sixties, walking through the halls of Congress is now."

 — Marianne Williamson

You're visiting a website that incorporates a blogging feature, not "just" a blog.

Blog entries follow, most recent entries at the top

Saturday, November 22, 2003

	:: DUG853		11/22/2003 09:46:00 PM

THINGS DUG UP BY DUG -- News and Views from Here and There


Yevgeni Primakov: "Washington Has to Understand
that it Must Return to the U.N."
By Veronique Soule
La Liberation

Thursday 20 November 2003

Yevgeni Primakov, former Russian Prime Minister, Judges American Policy in Iraq: "Washington Has to Understand that it Must Return to the U.N."

Yevgeni Primakov, who was Boris Yeltsin's Prime Minister, is a Middle East affairs expert. During the Communist period, he was Pravda's Egyptian correspondent before directing the intelligence services. February 22 before the American offensive, he was the last person to meet Saddam Hussein to propose, in vain, that he quit power to forestall a war.

Does the decision to return power to the Iraqis quickly make sense to you?

In Paris to promote his book, "The World after September 11 and the War in Iraq" (Presses de la Renaissance, 274 pp., 20 Euros), he gives his vision of the situation in Iraq. I doubt that it will radically change the situation. Since, to whom is the power going to be given? The émigrés who returned after Saddam's fall have demonstrated their incompetence. I don't see who can fill this vacuum. The most active Shi'ites are, unfortunately, the radicals. A Kurd-dominated government would be unacceptable.
Sooner or later, they have to look among the Ba'athists, not those who were linked to the top power, but rather among the managers who have many contacts and who have declared their rupture with Saddam. Moreover, in order for anything to change, the United States has to understand that they must go back to the U.N. We have to imagine the deployment of peace-keeping forces. And that's the U.N.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

Friday, November 21, 2003

	:: DUG853		11/21/2003 10:33:00 PM

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that "the worst thing that could happen" is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."

Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution.

Two steps, very, very important."

Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: DUG853		11/21/2003 06:42:00 PM

Abandoning the 'Drug-Free America' Myth
By Glenn Backes, Drug Policy Alliance
November 19, 2003

Rush Limbaugh is addicted to OxyContin. Arnold Schwarzenegger smoked pot and consumed anabolic steroids. Most Americans enjoy a daily cup of coffee. The fact is, this country is filled with drugs -- prescription, over-the-counter, illegal and otherwise. The drug warriors have been promising for decades to make America drug-free. Billions of dollars have been spent and hundreds of thousands of people are locked up. Yet drugs are as prevalent and easy-to-get as ever.

It's time for a new approach. First off, let's abandon the "drug-free" myth. Clinging to this impossible goal clouds our common sense and perverts our policy priorities. Instead, we should focus on implementing new drug policies that are fiscally responsible and have the goal of keeping Americans safe and healthy.

Drug treatment, for example, works better than prison in helping to stop the cycle of addiction. Just ask Rush. Or Noelle Bush. Or Cindy McCain (John's wife). Unfortunately, half of Americans who need treatment cannot get it. Instead they are taken away from their families and locked in a jail cell for crimes committed primarily against them- selves. Those who struggle every day with addiction need help, not a drug charge on their record that could ruin their future chances for jobs, school loans, or public housing.

Federal and state governments flush about $40 billion a year trying to win the war on drugs. The lion's share goes toward busting, trying, and incarcerating nonviolent drug users and petty dealers. The federal prison bill for housing over 78,000 drug offenders exceeds $1.8 billion every year. Most of the men and women in federal prisons for drug offenses are first-time, nonviolent offenders.

THIS IS A FACT-FILLED MUST-READ! PLEASE CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

Thursday, November 20, 2003

	:: DUG853		11/20/2003 11:35:00 PM

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian
Thursday November 20, 2003

[Rogue-State anyone? -DUG]


International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view -- or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence.

On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.

SOURCE

[]

Link to This Post

	:: Nora		11/20/2003 02:58:00 PM

Amnesty International protestors demonstrating near Downing Street, London,
over conditions for the so-called "enemy combatants" at the U.S. military
detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, during Tony Blair's meeting with George W.
Bush on Thursday

The detainees at Guantanamo are in legal limbo, as the U.S. government has refused to afford them individual hearings to determine their status, as required by the Third Geneva Convention - N

[]

Link to This Post

	:: DUG853		11/20/2003 12:34:00 PM

"CLEAN COAL" TRUMPS ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUSH-SUPPORTED ENERGY PLAN

President Bush unveiled his energy plan in May 2001, vowing to "make this country the world's leader in energy efficiency and conservation in the 21st century."

But the energy bill under final consideration by the Senate and supported by the President devotes less than ten percent of the $25.7 billion in tax breaks to energy efficiency.

Read the full Mis-Lead -->

[]

Link to This Post

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

	:: Nora		11/19/2003 09:43:00 AM

A Right Royal Fiasco!

[The Mirror is thoroughly enjoying its security scoop! LOL - N]

By Ryan Parry, The Mirror
November 19

For the past eight weeks, I have enjoyed unfettered access throughout Buckingham Palace as one of the Royal Family’s key aides. Had I been a terrorist intent on assassinating the Queen or President George Bush, I could have done so with absolute ease.

Indeed, this morning I would have been serving breakfast to key members of his government, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of State Colin Powell ...

[This is the bedroom George Bush and his wife slept in last night. But five days ago, as Britain and the US geared up for the biggest security operation at the Palace since World War Two, I was able to take this photograph.]

It began last August when I applied for a job as a royal footman advertised on a recruitment page of the Buckingham Palace official website.

I composed a CV - leaving out details of my journalistic career - with one real reference and one fake ...

Read the stories HERE and HERE

[]

Link to This Post

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

	:: Nora		11/18/2003 08:56:00 AM

Lindis Percy, an anti-war protestor, standing on top of the gates of Buckingham Palace with an upside-down U.S. flag with the inscription "Elizabeth Windsor and Co. we don't want him here".

The woman dodged tight security on Monday to scale the wrought iron gates on the eve of George W. Bush's arrival in the UK.

--0--0--0--

Marchers get their way as Britain prepares for Bush

Jamie Wilson and Hugh Muir
Tuesday November 18, 2003
The Guardian

Anti-war protesters claimed victory last night after the Metropolitan police backed down and agreed to allow a march up Whitehall and past Downing Street to demonstrate against George Bush's visit to the UK.

The police had initially refused to allow the march -- which the Stop the War Coalition hopes will be attended by more than 100,000 protesters -- along the route because of fears about security.

But as official details of the president's itinerary were released, the Met said it remained concerned about the possibility of disorder by a minority of protesters. That concern led Scotland Yard to announce its extraordinary decision yesterday to increase the number of officers involved in the operation from the 5,000 anticipated last week to 14,000.

Organisers from the Stop The War Coalition emerged jubilant from talks at Scotland Yard. The national organiser, Lyndsey German, said: "This is a major victory for civil liberties. We have always believed it is important to be able to demonstrate where we will be most effective. We think it will be a massive demonstration."

Though Tony Blair has been keen to justify the state visit, there has been fresh criticism from politicians. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, said: "I think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction." [Emphasis added.]

Continue

[]

Link to This Post

Monday, November 17, 2003

	:: Nora		11/17/2003 08:51:00 AM

Could Red Jellyfish Help Save the World's Rainforests?

from GRIST Magasine

"If you're talking about the gelatinous sea creature, the answer is no. But if you're talking about the eco-friendly Internet service provider, well, then, sure. We at Grist aren't generally in the business of making product endorsements, but Red Jellyfish is doing good work so we thought we'd pass on the word. For each person who subscribes to the company's home Internet service, Red Jellyfish protects 6,000 square feet of rainforest a year through the Nature Conservancy. If you're looking for an Internet service provider you can feel good about,try them out: The first month's free and they'll throw in a complimentary Red Jellyfish tote bag (made of organic cotton, of course) -- only if you click on the link below":

Get the scoop on Red Jellyfish Internet service

[]

Link to This Post

	:: Nora		11/17/2003 08:32:00 AM

High Risks in Afghanistan

November 17, New York Times

While the failure of American policy in Iraq in recent months has been painfully visible and at the forefront of public debate, the Bush administration's failures in Afghanistan have been as serious, and the risks are also great. It was Afghanistan, not Iraq, that was the spawning ground for the Sept. 11 attacks. And now, less than two years after President Bush celebrated his first military victory, Afghanistan is in danger of reverting to a deadly combination of rule by warlords and the Taliban, the allies and protectors of Osama bin Laden.

A revived Taliban army, flush with new recruits from Pakistan, is staging a frightening comeback. Major cities remain in the hands of the corrupt and brutal warlords. Much of the countryside is too dangerous for aid workers. The postwar pro-American government led by Hamid Karzai rules Kabul and little else. Opium poppies are once again a major export crop. And Osama bin Laden remains at large.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post

Sunday, November 16, 2003

	:: DUG853		11/16/2003 11:30:00 PM

'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.

In the case of the "accidental" shooting of a protester [Yeah,...Right. --DUG] the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.

These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters.

CONTINUE

[]

Link to This Post