by David Michael Green
So. You’ve built yourself an empire, eh?
Well, bully for you!
What’s next, you ask? Well, now you’ve got to do what everybody does when they have an empire, of course. You’ve got to worry about it falling apart, mate!
But how to tell for sure? Let me see if I can be helpful. Here are some rules of thumb to keep in mind, thirty-six sure-fire indicators that your empire is falling apart:
You know your empire’s crumbling when the folks who are gearing up their empire to replace yours start blowing up satellites in space. And then they don’t bother to return your phone calls when you ring up to ask why.
You know your empire’s crumbling when those same folks are cutting deals left, right and center across Asia, Latin America and Africa, while you, your lousy terms, and your arrogant attitude are no longer welcome.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you’re spending your grandchildren’s money like a drunken sailor, and letting your soon-to-be rivals finance your little splurge (i.e., letting them own your country).
You know your empire’s crumbling when it’s considered an achievement to pretend that you’ve halved the rate at which you’re adding to the massive mountain of debt you’ve already accumulated.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you weaken your currency until it looks as anemic as a Paris runway model, and you’re still setting record trade deficits. (Hint: Because you’re not making anything anymore.)
You know your empire’s crumbling when “the little brown ones” (thank you George H.W. Bush – certainly not me – for that lovely expression) in country after country of “your backyard” blow you off and proudly elect anti-imperialist leftist governments.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you can’t topple those governments and replace them with nice puppet regimes – like in the good old days – even if you wanted to. And you badly want to.
You know your empire’s crumbling when one of their leaders comes to the United Nations and makes fun of your emperor, calling him the devil, and joking about smelling sulphur where he just stood. And though a few folks cringe, everybody laughs.
You know your empire’s crumbling when just about your entire military land force is tied up in a worse-than-useless war launched on the basis of complete fabrications, that every day is actually making you less – not more – secure from external threat.
You know your empire’s crumbling when almost half the soldiers in that war are high-paid mercenaries, and you don’t dare institute a draft.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you send soldiers into war with two weeks training and a lack of armor, and then you keep them there for three, four and five rotations.
You know your empire’s crumbling when a member of the Axis of Evil can test missiles and explode nuclear warheads, and all you can do about it is mumble some pathetic warnings about how they better not do that again or there will be consequences.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you even think that there is an Axis of Evil.
You know your empire’s crumbling when a rag-tag military hodge-podge of irregulars has you pinned down in an endless fight you can’t win, but also can’t lose.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you’re too dumb to even ban Humvees as a first step toward ending your dependency on a foreign-owned crucial resource.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you trade your prior moral leadership on human rights issues for global disgust at your torture, ‘extraordinary rendition’ (a.k.a. kidnaping for torture) and the dismantling of nine centuries worth of civil liberties progress.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you blow off international law that you once helped create, and undermine the institutions of international governance that you once helped build.
You know your empire’s crumbling when opinion polls confirm that every month you’re more and more despised throughout the world.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you can’t even pull off the hanging of a tin-pot murderous former dictator without turning him into a hero.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you’re the richest country in the world, but nearly 50 million of your people don’t have basic health care coverage.
You know your empire’s crumbling when the World Health Organization ranks your healthcare system 37th ‘best’ in the world, just above Slovenia, and just below Costa Rica. (And far below Colombia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia and Morocco.)
You know your empire’s crumbling when instead of making it easier for citizens to obtain a higher education, you’re making it harder and more expensive.
You know your empire’s crumbling when your government gives tax breaks to industries as a reward for exporting your jobs elsewhere.
You know your empire’s crumbling when the so-called ‘opposition’ party can’t even turn that obscenity into a viable campaign theme and use it to clobber the worst emperor in your history.
You know your empire’s crumbling when your middle class has been stagnant for three decades, while the wealth of the hyper-rich continues to climb through the roof.
You know your empire’s crumbling when your reaction to that is to exacerbate the problem by enacting tax policies that massively increase further still the gap between the rich and the rest.
You know your empire’s crumbling when the predatory class has taken over your government and is stripping the country of everything not bolted down to the floor. And then it sells the floor itself, as well, to your rivals.
You know your empire’s crumbling when you’re spending tens of billions of dollars you don’t own on new nuclear warheads and space weapons that don’t work, to be used against an enemy you don’t have.
You know your empire’s crumbling when one of your cities drowns and your government does next to nothing before, during and after.
You know your empire’s crumbling when a massive environmental nightmare is looming around the corner, and your emperor not only ignores it, but claims it isn’t real while taking steps to exacerbate it.
You know your empire’s crumbling when your emperor is warned by a CIA briefer of an imminent terrorist attack of vast proportions, and responds by remaining on vacation and dismissing the briefer with the words: “All right. You've covered your ass, now.”
You know your empire’s crumbling when the same emperor drops everything to fly across the country from his vacation home in order to sign a bill intervening on the wrong side of a personal medical drama involving a single family.
You know your empire’s crumbling when gays and immigrants are used as diversionary issues to keep people from thinking about the pillaging of their country and their wallets actually taking place. And it works.
You know your empire’s crumbling when people are getting more religious and less scientific, not the other way around.
You know your empire’s crumbling when your political leaders start to be chosen by dynastic rules of succession.
And you especially know your empire’s crumbling when the most idiotic child of one of the least accomplished leaders in its history is not only crowned as the next emperor, but is even revered for a time by most of the public as a great one.
Rome? Britain? Spain?
At this rate we’ll be lucky to end up like Belgium.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Aqua Teen Hunger Force unleashes terror on Boston
An advertising campaign for a late-night animated series went seriously wrong today when police in Boston mistook the ads for explosive devices and shut down half the city. The discovery of five suspect devices sent authorities into a tailspin, closing off major roads, suspending rail services and river transport and causing major disruption in the city as police investigated.
After some hours, Turner Broadcasting issued a statement saying that the so-called suspect devices were actually part of a marketing campaign for the series Aqua Teen Hunger Force on the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim section.
"The 'packages' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger,'' said the statement from Turner Broadcasting System, according to ABC television. "They are part of an outdoor marketing campaign in 10 cities in support of Adult Swim's animated television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. They have been in place for two to three weeks.''
It said the company was in contact with police on how to resolve the issue. "We regret that they were mistakenly thought to pose any danger,'' it said. Police Commissioner Edward Davis earlier in the day said he was unaware who was behind the devices, but a police spokesman later said authorities were digesting the statement from Turner.
"There's nothing that we have found that indicates any danger to the people who are coming into or out of the city,'' Mr Davis said, describing the day's security operation as a major strain on police resources. "I think we are all relieved that the devices found so far have proven to be hoax devices,'' Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said.
One of the five devices was destroyed in a controlled explosion.
Local reports said that officials had described one device as containing an electronic circuit board with some components that were "consistent with an improvised explosive device" but that it contained no explosives. Other reports said the devices contained circuit boards featuring a cartoon that lit up a figure making an obscene gesture. Security alerts have become a frequent occurrence in the US ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the vast majority of which turn out to be false alarms or hoaxes.
Is this normal? Or rather, is this what passes for normal behavior in America today? If so, then I have to concede that I am certifiably insane, because for me, when I see a dolphin at a Sea World-type park playing with a softball-sized black and white glass jar, I generally do not think "Jesus, he's got a bomb!"
Likewise, if I were to hear movie theme music coming from a newspaper box, I doubt I would automatically understand it to mean that an explosion was imminent. As for a circuit board made up of LEDs depicting a cartoon character 'flipping the bird': if 'Improvised explosive device' was the first thing that came to my mind, I would seriously consider therapy.
That American citizens are reacting in such an fearful and irrational way to mundane everyday objects is deeply worrying. Can anyone image this happening 10 or 20 years ago? What has happened during that period of time to create such a degradation of what used to be the American people's ability to think and act in a relatively sane way to their environment? This question is, of course, somewhat rhetorical because the root cause of the current malaise that afflicts the American mind is, or at least it should be, screamingly obvious. It is the last 6 years of the tenure of the Bush government, its relentless beating of the "war on terror" drum, and most importantly, the defining moment in the recent history of the United States - the self-inflicted wound of 9/11.
If dolphins, music and cartoon characters on bridges are now being interpreted by the average American as evidence of "terrorism", then the plans of the Bush government to radically reprogram the American mind with thoughts of an omnipresent yet wholly fictitious threat of "Islamic terrorism" have been much more successful and have progressed much further than even we suspected.
It goes without saying that none of this augurs well for the ability of the American people to protect themselves against further US government-sponsored "terror attacks", the perpetration of which is now even more likely and indeed has been rendered as effortless as taking candy from a baby.
After some hours, Turner Broadcasting issued a statement saying that the so-called suspect devices were actually part of a marketing campaign for the series Aqua Teen Hunger Force on the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim section.
"The 'packages' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger,'' said the statement from Turner Broadcasting System, according to ABC television. "They are part of an outdoor marketing campaign in 10 cities in support of Adult Swim's animated television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. They have been in place for two to three weeks.''
It said the company was in contact with police on how to resolve the issue. "We regret that they were mistakenly thought to pose any danger,'' it said. Police Commissioner Edward Davis earlier in the day said he was unaware who was behind the devices, but a police spokesman later said authorities were digesting the statement from Turner.
"There's nothing that we have found that indicates any danger to the people who are coming into or out of the city,'' Mr Davis said, describing the day's security operation as a major strain on police resources. "I think we are all relieved that the devices found so far have proven to be hoax devices,'' Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said.
One of the five devices was destroyed in a controlled explosion.
Local reports said that officials had described one device as containing an electronic circuit board with some components that were "consistent with an improvised explosive device" but that it contained no explosives. Other reports said the devices contained circuit boards featuring a cartoon that lit up a figure making an obscene gesture. Security alerts have become a frequent occurrence in the US ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the vast majority of which turn out to be false alarms or hoaxes.
Is this normal? Or rather, is this what passes for normal behavior in America today? If so, then I have to concede that I am certifiably insane, because for me, when I see a dolphin at a Sea World-type park playing with a softball-sized black and white glass jar, I generally do not think "Jesus, he's got a bomb!"
Likewise, if I were to hear movie theme music coming from a newspaper box, I doubt I would automatically understand it to mean that an explosion was imminent. As for a circuit board made up of LEDs depicting a cartoon character 'flipping the bird': if 'Improvised explosive device' was the first thing that came to my mind, I would seriously consider therapy.
That American citizens are reacting in such an fearful and irrational way to mundane everyday objects is deeply worrying. Can anyone image this happening 10 or 20 years ago? What has happened during that period of time to create such a degradation of what used to be the American people's ability to think and act in a relatively sane way to their environment? This question is, of course, somewhat rhetorical because the root cause of the current malaise that afflicts the American mind is, or at least it should be, screamingly obvious. It is the last 6 years of the tenure of the Bush government, its relentless beating of the "war on terror" drum, and most importantly, the defining moment in the recent history of the United States - the self-inflicted wound of 9/11.
If dolphins, music and cartoon characters on bridges are now being interpreted by the average American as evidence of "terrorism", then the plans of the Bush government to radically reprogram the American mind with thoughts of an omnipresent yet wholly fictitious threat of "Islamic terrorism" have been much more successful and have progressed much further than even we suspected.
It goes without saying that none of this augurs well for the ability of the American people to protect themselves against further US government-sponsored "terror attacks", the perpetration of which is now even more likely and indeed has been rendered as effortless as taking candy from a baby.
Police raid hardware stores and Radio Shacks across the US looking for terrorist wire
LA Times faces legal action over news-stand 'bomb' alert
Feb 1 2007
The Los Angeles Times and movie studio Paramount could face a federal lawsuit after a publicity stunt to promote "Mission: Impossible III" sparked a bomb scare, the paper reported.
Around 4,500 sidewalk newspaper boxes across California were rigged with devices last April that played the "Mission: Impossible" theme when customers opened them in the build-up to the release of the Tom Cruise blockbuster.
But several customers thought the music players were bombs and reported them to law enforcement officials. An arson squad blew up one of the newspaper boxes in Santa Clarita, just north of Los Angeles, as a precaution.
In West Los Angeles, federal police at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center called the bomb squad after a newspaper buyer spotted wires rigged to the music player within the box. Hospital officials evacuated the building.
The Times quoted assistant US attorney in Los Angeles Linda Kontos as saying that the hospital had suffered around 93,000 dollars in losses because of the evacuation.
In letters sent to The Times and Paramount, Kontos said her office would recommend that the government sue the newspaper and studio, The Times reported.
Kontos however said her department would provide both parties "with the opportunity to resolve the allegations" without litigation.
Feb 1 2007
The Los Angeles Times and movie studio Paramount could face a federal lawsuit after a publicity stunt to promote "Mission: Impossible III" sparked a bomb scare, the paper reported.
Around 4,500 sidewalk newspaper boxes across California were rigged with devices last April that played the "Mission: Impossible" theme when customers opened them in the build-up to the release of the Tom Cruise blockbuster.
But several customers thought the music players were bombs and reported them to law enforcement officials. An arson squad blew up one of the newspaper boxes in Santa Clarita, just north of Los Angeles, as a precaution.
In West Los Angeles, federal police at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center called the bomb squad after a newspaper buyer spotted wires rigged to the music player within the box. Hospital officials evacuated the building.
The Times quoted assistant US attorney in Los Angeles Linda Kontos as saying that the hospital had suffered around 93,000 dollars in losses because of the evacuation.
In letters sent to The Times and Paramount, Kontos said her office would recommend that the government sue the newspaper and studio, The Times reported.
Kontos however said her department would provide both parties "with the opportunity to resolve the allegations" without litigation.
When people live in terror the terrorists have won
Wausau Daily Herald
WITTENBERG -- What Rachel Rasmussen thought was an explosive situation ended without a bang once the Army rolled into town. Rasmussen, who recently purchased a new home in Wittenberg, thought she had found a land mine in her backyard but discovered Wednesday that it actually was an old base for a large umbrella.
"It looked very suspicious," Rasmussen said, adding that it was half-buried behind trees and a large rock. "Everyone else I showed the picture to thought it was a land mine." Photographs of the object apparently were convincing enough that Fort McCoy dispatched a bomb squad to investigate. But early Wednesday afternoon, the bomb squad determined it was not a land mine or anything else dangerous. The Fort McCoy team refused to comment, and the two responding Shawano County Sheriff's Department officers were unavailable for comment.
The false alarm wasn't a new experience for the bomb specialists, said Linda Fournier, Fort McCoy's public affairs officer. The specialists respond to calls in a seven-state area, but Fournier said she did not know how many of those are false alarms.
It was a first for the Shawano County Sheriff's Department, however. Lt. George Lenzner said the department sometimes receives calls regarding old artillery shells, but never for land mines.
"It's kind of a relief (that it wasn't a land mine)," he said. "Otherwise, we would have had to find a place to detonate it."
Rasmussen's adventure began when she and her boyfriend were working in the yard Monday at her new home at W17236 Witt-Birn Townline Road. They found what they thought might be a land mine, and they called police the next day.
Lt. Staber Cook snapped some pictures and sent them to the Brown County bomb squad. Fort McCoy officials received the pictures that night and told Shawano County authorities Wednesday morning that it was a land mine and they were sending a team to handle the situation.
Rasmussen said the "freaky" experience will be a funny story she won't soon forget.
"I'm sure I'll be laughing about this thing for years," she said.
Jim Schultz
redding.com
Bomb squad and other public safety personnel were breathing a sigh of relief Thursday night after determining that a suspicious, old-fashioned, medicine-type bottle containing a clear liquid that was left outside a Redding business was not an explosive device.
Suspicious liquid found downtown is not explosive. Still, the contents had not been identified as of Thursday evening and a hazardous materials team collected the bottle to test the liquid today to determine whether it was dangerous.
A passerby reported a suspicious object on South Street between California and Market streets around 2:10 p.m. Thursday. The parking lot was roped off, and a Shasta County sheriff's bomb squad member checked the bottle and recommended that the squad be called to investigate.
Police later cordoned off a portion of South Street, and it was determined around 6:45 p.m. that the object was not explosive.
Lt. Jerry Shearman of the Shasta County Sheriff's Department said the bomb squad, using a portable X-ray device, ruled out a possible bomb after it did not discover wires, metal or a triggering device in the bottle. Still, its contents were a mystery.
The large public safety and media presence at the scene startled those doing business in the area, catching the attention of hair stylist Robin Young and her customers inside the Colours Hair Salon.
"I've been down here for four or five bank robberies and that's what I thought it was at first," said Young, 42, of Shasta Lake.
"Our responsibility is to make sure the public is safe," Lauderdale said. "That's what we're here for."
AFX News Limited
LONDON (AFX) - A federal press centre near the White House housing several of President George W Bush's press aides was evacuated for about a half an hour this morning because of a bomb scare, according to US media reports.
The alarm was raised after a car was checked by sniffer dogs, but Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce said nothing amiss was found in the vehicle, which was driven by a State Department contractor and had been stopped at the entrance to the White House complex, on further inspection, Fox TV reported.
The White House Conference Center on Jackson Place, which was emptied, is serving as the temporary offices of several of Bush's press aides as well as reporters covering the president, the US TV news channel said.
South Bend, Indiana
A bomb scare startled a number of St. Joseph County workers as police checked out suspicious packages. South Bend Police received a call early Friday morning that someone left two packages at the St. Joseph County Jail.
The bomb squad closed down Sample street for safety while they inspected the area.
Police say it was a false alarm. County workers tell us it was just a space heater and phone.
In any event, officers had the situation under control in a couple hours.
South Bend Police Captain Phil Trent says, "We protect lives first, we protect property secondarily and if we can leave a scene with no one hurt and no property damaged or destroyed then that's a success."
Police say it's best to call emergency and leave the area immediately, if you find anything suspicious.
WITTENBERG -- What Rachel Rasmussen thought was an explosive situation ended without a bang once the Army rolled into town. Rasmussen, who recently purchased a new home in Wittenberg, thought she had found a land mine in her backyard but discovered Wednesday that it actually was an old base for a large umbrella.
"It looked very suspicious," Rasmussen said, adding that it was half-buried behind trees and a large rock. "Everyone else I showed the picture to thought it was a land mine." Photographs of the object apparently were convincing enough that Fort McCoy dispatched a bomb squad to investigate. But early Wednesday afternoon, the bomb squad determined it was not a land mine or anything else dangerous. The Fort McCoy team refused to comment, and the two responding Shawano County Sheriff's Department officers were unavailable for comment.
The false alarm wasn't a new experience for the bomb specialists, said Linda Fournier, Fort McCoy's public affairs officer. The specialists respond to calls in a seven-state area, but Fournier said she did not know how many of those are false alarms.
It was a first for the Shawano County Sheriff's Department, however. Lt. George Lenzner said the department sometimes receives calls regarding old artillery shells, but never for land mines.
"It's kind of a relief (that it wasn't a land mine)," he said. "Otherwise, we would have had to find a place to detonate it."
Rasmussen's adventure began when she and her boyfriend were working in the yard Monday at her new home at W17236 Witt-Birn Townline Road. They found what they thought might be a land mine, and they called police the next day.
Lt. Staber Cook snapped some pictures and sent them to the Brown County bomb squad. Fort McCoy officials received the pictures that night and told Shawano County authorities Wednesday morning that it was a land mine and they were sending a team to handle the situation.
Rasmussen said the "freaky" experience will be a funny story she won't soon forget.
"I'm sure I'll be laughing about this thing for years," she said.
Jim Schultz
redding.com
Bomb squad and other public safety personnel were breathing a sigh of relief Thursday night after determining that a suspicious, old-fashioned, medicine-type bottle containing a clear liquid that was left outside a Redding business was not an explosive device.
Suspicious liquid found downtown is not explosive. Still, the contents had not been identified as of Thursday evening and a hazardous materials team collected the bottle to test the liquid today to determine whether it was dangerous.
A passerby reported a suspicious object on South Street between California and Market streets around 2:10 p.m. Thursday. The parking lot was roped off, and a Shasta County sheriff's bomb squad member checked the bottle and recommended that the squad be called to investigate.
Police later cordoned off a portion of South Street, and it was determined around 6:45 p.m. that the object was not explosive.
Lt. Jerry Shearman of the Shasta County Sheriff's Department said the bomb squad, using a portable X-ray device, ruled out a possible bomb after it did not discover wires, metal or a triggering device in the bottle. Still, its contents were a mystery.
The large public safety and media presence at the scene startled those doing business in the area, catching the attention of hair stylist Robin Young and her customers inside the Colours Hair Salon.
"I've been down here for four or five bank robberies and that's what I thought it was at first," said Young, 42, of Shasta Lake.
"Our responsibility is to make sure the public is safe," Lauderdale said. "That's what we're here for."
AFX News Limited
LONDON (AFX) - A federal press centre near the White House housing several of President George W Bush's press aides was evacuated for about a half an hour this morning because of a bomb scare, according to US media reports.
The alarm was raised after a car was checked by sniffer dogs, but Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce said nothing amiss was found in the vehicle, which was driven by a State Department contractor and had been stopped at the entrance to the White House complex, on further inspection, Fox TV reported.
The White House Conference Center on Jackson Place, which was emptied, is serving as the temporary offices of several of Bush's press aides as well as reporters covering the president, the US TV news channel said.
South Bend, Indiana
A bomb scare startled a number of St. Joseph County workers as police checked out suspicious packages. South Bend Police received a call early Friday morning that someone left two packages at the St. Joseph County Jail.
The bomb squad closed down Sample street for safety while they inspected the area.
Police say it was a false alarm. County workers tell us it was just a space heater and phone.
In any event, officers had the situation under control in a couple hours.
South Bend Police Captain Phil Trent says, "We protect lives first, we protect property secondarily and if we can leave a scene with no one hurt and no property damaged or destroyed then that's a success."
Police say it's best to call emergency and leave the area immediately, if you find anything suspicious.
Non-Terrorist Embarrassment in Boston
from
The story is almost too funny to write about seriously. To advertise the Cartoon Network show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," the network put up 38 blinking signs (kind of like Lite Brites) around the Boston area. The Boston police decided -- with absolutely no supporting evidence -- that these were bombs and shut down parts of the city.
Now the police look stupid, but they're trying really not hard not to act humiliated:
Governor Deval Patrick told the Associated Press: "It's a hoax -- and it's not funny."
Unfortunately, it is funny. What isn't funny is now the Boston government is trying to prosecute the artist and the network instead of owning up to their own stupidity. The police now claim that they were "hoax" explosive devices. I don't think you can claim they are hoax explosive devices unless they were intended to look like explosive devices, which merely a cursory look at any of them shows that they weren't.
But it's much easier to blame others than to admit that you were wrong:
"It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme," Mayor Thomas Menino said. "I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses incurred."
And:
Rep. Ed Markey, a Boston-area congressman, said, "Whoever thought this up needs to find another job.""Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," Markey, a Democrat, said in a written statement. "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt."
And:
"It had a very sinister appearance," [Massachusetts Attorney General Martha] Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."
For heavens sake, don't let her inside a Radio Shack.
I like this comment:
They consisted of magnetic signs with blinking lights in the shape of a cartoon character.And everyone knows that bombs have blinking lights on ‘em. Every single movie bomb you’ve ever seen has a blinking light.
Triumph for Homeland Security, guys.
And this one:
"It's almost too easy to be a terrorist these days," said Jennifer Mason, 26. "You stick a box on a corner and you can shut down a city."
And this one, by one of the artists who installed the signs:
"I find it kind of ridiculous that they're making these statements on TV that we must not be safe from terrorism, because they were up there for three weeks and no one noticed. It's pretty commonsensical to look at them and say this is a piece of art and installation," he said.
Right. If this wasn't a ridiculous overreaction to a non-existent threat, then how come the devices were in place for weeks without anyone noticing them? What does that say about the Boston police?
Maybe if the Boston police stopped wasting time and money searching bags on subways....
Of the 2,449 inspections between Oct. 10 and Dec. 31, the bags of 27 riders tested positive in the initial screening for explosives, prompting further searches, the Globe found in an analysis of daily inspection reports obtained under the state's Freedom of Information Act.In the additional screening, 11 passengers had their bags checked by explosive-sniffing dogs, and 16 underwent a physical search. Nothing was found.
These blinking signs have been up for weeks in ten cities -- Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia -- and no one else has managed to panic so completely. Refuse to be terrorized, people!
Too much secrecy helps terrorists, Overreacting to risk means we're 'giving in to fear'
Ian MacLeod
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Canada's spy master, of all people, is warning that excessive government secrecy and draconian counterterrorism measures will only play into the hands of terrorists.
"The response to the terrorist threat, whether now or in the future, should follow the long-standing principle of 'in all things moderation,' " Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said in a recent Toronto speech.
"The response must be calibrated carefully so as to optimally protect Canadians and Canadian interests while containing an often natural disposition of giving in to fear and panic."
Even so, he offered a candid -- and bleak -- assessment of the threat posed by terrorism.
"I regret to say that, at this juncture, there appears to be little prospect in the near term for the threat to dissipate. Successfully countering the current terrorist threat is going to be a very difficult and longer-term challenge."
Authorities, he said, are faced with an imaginative adversary and "it could be argued that traditional responses -- military, security, intelligence and law enforcement -- will go only so far in countering this threat.
"We are dealing with an adaptive adversary that learns from its mistakes, our mistakes and vulnerabilities, and our operational methods. It is an adversary that is not going to favour us with mindless repetitiveness in its actions."
He admitted officials do not yet fully understand a crucial element in combating terrorism -- the process of radicalization that can lead individuals, especially young Muslims raised in Canada and other democracies, to embrace terrorism.
That remark at the recent Raoul Wallenberg International Human Rights Symposium was followed yesterday by details from a CSIS study that found a "very rapid process" is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.
The study, obtained by the National Post under the Access to Information Act, says a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed after becoming enraged over what they perceive as a western "war on Islam" and being coaxed on by extremist preachers.
"The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must pre-emptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies," it concludes.
The study is the government's latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is under way in Brampton for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.
Mr. Judd's comments are similar to those made in November by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the normally very private head of Britain's MI5 security service.
In a major public speech, she predicted the fight against terrorism will last a generation and warned that radicalization, especially of young people, was one of the biggest problems facing anti-terror investigators. Three of the four men who attacked three London subways and a red double-decker bus on July 7, 2005, were British-born.
In his speech, Mr. Judd said governments and societies must measure their response to terrorism by keeping in mind that it is driven by the aspirations and actions of a select group of individuals and groups.
"We therefore have to avoid falling prey to the terrorist propaganda which would have people believe that this is a clash of civilizations or cultures or religions," he said. "Our own response therefore has to be carefully modulated and very focused.... And we have to be very careful in our use of language on these issues.
"Over-reaction to terrorism, it should be remembered, is a fundamental objective of most terrorists in history. We should not accommodate their goals in this regard."
Though organizations such as CSIS, he said, are often seriously constrained in what can and cannot be said publicly "we do have to play our part in this dialogue, something we have been doing much more of in the last several years.
"Broader public education and engagement is critically important to ensure a dialogue that is well-informed, robust and balanced. This is particularly the case with those diverse communities in our societies who may feel most threatened by the efforts to contain this terrorist threat."
Canadians cannot afford to see these communities withdraw or close in on themselves for fear of being unfairly associated with the actions of what amounts to a relatively few individuals, he said.
"More broadly, there is a risk that, absent adequate public dialogue and a surfeit of secrecy, the justification for action by governments against terrorism will be undermined or misunderstood. This in turn can put in jeopardy the legitimacy of the government response."
A careful, broadly based and multi-faceted national and international response to the issue is going to be required to prevail, he said.
"Democracies have taken a long period to develop and their values, laws and institutions continue to provide inspiration to those without the luxury of living in one. It is thus essential that in responding to threats such as terrorism we do so in a fashion that best reflects what democracies stand for."
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Canada's spy master, of all people, is warning that excessive government secrecy and draconian counterterrorism measures will only play into the hands of terrorists.
"The response to the terrorist threat, whether now or in the future, should follow the long-standing principle of 'in all things moderation,' " Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said in a recent Toronto speech.
"The response must be calibrated carefully so as to optimally protect Canadians and Canadian interests while containing an often natural disposition of giving in to fear and panic."
Even so, he offered a candid -- and bleak -- assessment of the threat posed by terrorism.
"I regret to say that, at this juncture, there appears to be little prospect in the near term for the threat to dissipate. Successfully countering the current terrorist threat is going to be a very difficult and longer-term challenge."
Authorities, he said, are faced with an imaginative adversary and "it could be argued that traditional responses -- military, security, intelligence and law enforcement -- will go only so far in countering this threat.
"We are dealing with an adaptive adversary that learns from its mistakes, our mistakes and vulnerabilities, and our operational methods. It is an adversary that is not going to favour us with mindless repetitiveness in its actions."
He admitted officials do not yet fully understand a crucial element in combating terrorism -- the process of radicalization that can lead individuals, especially young Muslims raised in Canada and other democracies, to embrace terrorism.
That remark at the recent Raoul Wallenberg International Human Rights Symposium was followed yesterday by details from a CSIS study that found a "very rapid process" is transforming some youths from angry activists into jihadist terrorists intent on killing for their religion.
The study, obtained by the National Post under the Access to Information Act, says a few have embraced terrorism with frightening speed after becoming enraged over what they perceive as a western "war on Islam" and being coaxed on by extremist preachers.
"The most important factor for radicalization is the perception that Islam is under attack from the West. Jihadists also feel they must pre-emptively and violently defend Islam from these perceived enemies," it concludes.
The study is the government's latest attempt to understand why a handful of Canadian Muslims are alleged to have become involved in terrorist plots. It comes as a preliminary hearing is under way in Brampton for four of 18 suspects charged for their alleged role in a Canadian terrorist group accused of plotting attacks in southern Ontario.
Mr. Judd's comments are similar to those made in November by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the normally very private head of Britain's MI5 security service.
In a major public speech, she predicted the fight against terrorism will last a generation and warned that radicalization, especially of young people, was one of the biggest problems facing anti-terror investigators. Three of the four men who attacked three London subways and a red double-decker bus on July 7, 2005, were British-born.
In his speech, Mr. Judd said governments and societies must measure their response to terrorism by keeping in mind that it is driven by the aspirations and actions of a select group of individuals and groups.
"We therefore have to avoid falling prey to the terrorist propaganda which would have people believe that this is a clash of civilizations or cultures or religions," he said. "Our own response therefore has to be carefully modulated and very focused.... And we have to be very careful in our use of language on these issues.
"Over-reaction to terrorism, it should be remembered, is a fundamental objective of most terrorists in history. We should not accommodate their goals in this regard."
Though organizations such as CSIS, he said, are often seriously constrained in what can and cannot be said publicly "we do have to play our part in this dialogue, something we have been doing much more of in the last several years.
"Broader public education and engagement is critically important to ensure a dialogue that is well-informed, robust and balanced. This is particularly the case with those diverse communities in our societies who may feel most threatened by the efforts to contain this terrorist threat."
Canadians cannot afford to see these communities withdraw or close in on themselves for fear of being unfairly associated with the actions of what amounts to a relatively few individuals, he said.
"More broadly, there is a risk that, absent adequate public dialogue and a surfeit of secrecy, the justification for action by governments against terrorism will be undermined or misunderstood. This in turn can put in jeopardy the legitimacy of the government response."
A careful, broadly based and multi-faceted national and international response to the issue is going to be required to prevail, he said.
"Democracies have taken a long period to develop and their values, laws and institutions continue to provide inspiration to those without the luxury of living in one. It is thus essential that in responding to threats such as terrorism we do so in a fashion that best reflects what democracies stand for."
Bush Is Not Above the Law
January 31, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Bush Is Not Above the Law - New York Times
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney’s office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.
But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.
The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In the past, even presidents were not above the law. When the F.B.I. turned up evidence during Watergate that Richard Nixon had obstructed justice by trying to cover up his involvement, a special prosecutor was named and a House committee recommended that the president be impeached.
And when an independent counsel found evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the impeachment machinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of a Senate trial (which ended in acquittal).
Laws are broken, the federal government investigates, and the individuals involved — even if they’re presidents — are tried and, if found guilty, punished. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government. But not this time.
Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Justice Department lawyers argued last June that warrants were not required for what they called the administration’s “terrorist surveillance program” because of the president’s “inherent powers” to order eavesdropping and because of the Congressional authorization to use military force against those responsible for 9/11. But Judge Taylor rejected both arguments, ruling that even presidents must obey statutory law and the Constitution.
On Jan. 17, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unexpectedly declared that President Bush had ended the program, deciding to again seek warrants in all cases. Exactly what kind of warrants — individual, as is required by the law, or broad-based, which would probably still be illegal — is as yet unknown.
The action may have been designed to forestall a potentially adverse ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which had scheduled oral arguments on the case for today. At that hearing, the administration is now expected to argue that the case is moot and should be thrown out — while reserving the right to restart the program at any time.
But that’s a bit like a bank robber coming into court and arguing that, although he has been sticking up banks for the past half-decade, he has agreed to a temporary halt and therefore he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Independent of the A.C.L.U. case, a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor should begin immediately. The question that must finally be answered is whether the president is guilty of committing a felony by continuously reauthorizing the warrantless eavesdropping program for the past five years. And if so, what action must be taken?
The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was “illegal wiretaps.” President Nixon, the bill charged, “caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code.”
Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.
It is not only the federal court but also many in Congress who believe that a violation of law has taken place. In a hearing on Jan. 18, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law.”
His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”
And Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that much of the public was opposed to the program and that it both hurt the country at home and damaged its image abroad. “The heavy criticism which the president took on the program,” he said, “I think was very harmful in the political process and for the reputation of the country.”
To allow a president to break the law and commit a felony for more than five years without even a formal independent investigation would be the ultimate subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law. As Judge Taylor warned in her decision, “There are no hereditary kings in America.”
James Bamford is the author of two books on the National Security Agency, “The Puzzle Palace” and “Body of Secrets.”
Op-Ed Contributor
Bush Is Not Above the Law - New York Times
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney’s office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.
But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.
The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In the past, even presidents were not above the law. When the F.B.I. turned up evidence during Watergate that Richard Nixon had obstructed justice by trying to cover up his involvement, a special prosecutor was named and a House committee recommended that the president be impeached.
And when an independent counsel found evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the impeachment machinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of a Senate trial (which ended in acquittal).
Laws are broken, the federal government investigates, and the individuals involved — even if they’re presidents — are tried and, if found guilty, punished. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government. But not this time.
Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Justice Department lawyers argued last June that warrants were not required for what they called the administration’s “terrorist surveillance program” because of the president’s “inherent powers” to order eavesdropping and because of the Congressional authorization to use military force against those responsible for 9/11. But Judge Taylor rejected both arguments, ruling that even presidents must obey statutory law and the Constitution.
On Jan. 17, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unexpectedly declared that President Bush had ended the program, deciding to again seek warrants in all cases. Exactly what kind of warrants — individual, as is required by the law, or broad-based, which would probably still be illegal — is as yet unknown.
The action may have been designed to forestall a potentially adverse ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which had scheduled oral arguments on the case for today. At that hearing, the administration is now expected to argue that the case is moot and should be thrown out — while reserving the right to restart the program at any time.
But that’s a bit like a bank robber coming into court and arguing that, although he has been sticking up banks for the past half-decade, he has agreed to a temporary halt and therefore he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Independent of the A.C.L.U. case, a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor should begin immediately. The question that must finally be answered is whether the president is guilty of committing a felony by continuously reauthorizing the warrantless eavesdropping program for the past five years. And if so, what action must be taken?
The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was “illegal wiretaps.” President Nixon, the bill charged, “caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code.”
Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.
It is not only the federal court but also many in Congress who believe that a violation of law has taken place. In a hearing on Jan. 18, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law.”
His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”
And Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that much of the public was opposed to the program and that it both hurt the country at home and damaged its image abroad. “The heavy criticism which the president took on the program,” he said, “I think was very harmful in the political process and for the reputation of the country.”
To allow a president to break the law and commit a felony for more than five years without even a formal independent investigation would be the ultimate subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law. As Judge Taylor warned in her decision, “There are no hereditary kings in America.”
James Bamford is the author of two books on the National Security Agency, “The Puzzle Palace” and “Body of Secrets.”
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)