SpicaBooks.Com/America.html

War

The members of Congress should stop pimping for the defense industry. Our tax dollars don't need to be wasted on weapon systems for the Air Force that will rarely be used. Our national security would be greatly improved with having funds being directed where they can do the most good for the Army and Marines. (Read New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy by Ralph Peters.)

Before the lives of American troops are wasted in Viet Nam or in the 2nd invasion of Iraq, let's have REAL evidence for a need for war.

How about ensuring that the troops are fully supplied and armored?

And how about a post-invasion strategy, too?

Three American generals have asked that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resign.

The View from Abroad

Students in Iran love Americans and the American government much more so than do the students in western Europe. The French and British would be speaking German today if it wasn't for American troops stopping the Nazis in Europe during World War II.

What’s At Stake Regarding U.S. Troops in Iraq?
a message from Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

George W. Bush and his principal officials are the greatest threat to world peace, to human rights, to economic justice, to the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law that the American people and the world at large face today. His personal, unilateral war of aggression has wrecked Iraq, taken 250,000 lives or more, created tensions worldwide and significantly isolated the United States, costing us international friendships, trust, respect and alliances. War of aggression was judged to be “the Supreme International Crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Proclaiming himself the “Decider,” President Bush insists he decides what is right. He threatens North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela, and most critically at the moment, Iran. The threats themselves violate international law and the U.N. Charter. His threats are made real by his personal record of false claims followed by arbitrary acts including the criminal aggression against and occupation of Iraq with its painful consequences just beginning for Iraq and the world. The additional U.S. military costs approach a trillion dollars and the occupation stretches the limits of U.S. military capacity. Yet he has ordered detailed plans for attacks on Iran that he could order to be executed as early as this summer. He may believe some radical action can save his presidency.

Iran has more than three times the population of Iraq. It was not debilitated by the Gulf War which cost Iraq more than 150,000 lives and destroyed its basic infrastructure. Thirteen years of sanctions, from Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1990 to “Mission Accomplished” Day “ending” the war of aggression against Iraq announced from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln by President Bush on May 1, 2003, cost Iraq 1 million lives, half children under the age of five. Iraq suffered near total isolation. Without international commerce, or the ability to rebuild, Iraq’s economy was devastated. It suffered physically and psychologically from frequent punitive bombings by U.S. aircraft throughout the sanctions period. Iran’s economy and power fueled by its oil, grew steadily through all these years.

Nothing could unify Iran like a military strike against it by the U.S. Few acts could better convince Muslims worldwide that George Bush is on a crusade against them. Iran with its long border with Iraq could radically alter political alignments and the level of conflict in Iraq and serve as an open conduit for fighters from many nations. Violence could spread from Egypt to neighboring Pakistan and beyond.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit assaults on “inherently dangerous” facilities, which would threaten civilian populations. Nuclear power plants are the prime example. Iran has a right to develop such plants. The Shah had ambitious plans 30 years ago, well financed and advanced, to construct nuclear plants across Iran to replace depleting oil reserves. Iran is six years or more away from the ability to build nuclear warheads if that is its purpose. The U.S. could incinerate Iran with a single launch from its worldwide land, sea and air nuclear missile capacity in place and alert today. Iran knows this. Surely it is better to seek to stop threatening and start seeking better relations and understanding with Iran and other nations that may be hostile.

Aside from the criminal nature of an attack on Iran, further aggressions by George Bush could put the United States in a rapid decline in international standing, economically and military on the defense, globally and at home.

This is only to suggest what might happen if George Bush remains President. The immediate question is whether We, the People of the United States of America, believe the future of our country is a spectator sport, or whether we will be players.

Will we let George Bush decide the fate of the nation?

Have his judgment and actions been acceptable?

With thirty-two months remaining in his Presidency, George Bush can inflict greater, even devastating injury on our people and the poor of the rest of the planet. He has squandered the largest federal surplus in history and created the largest national debt with his determination to be a War President and his ambition to enrich the rich.

He continues increasing military expenditures including the unlawful development of a new generation of nuclear weapons and a “Star Wars” shield for the U.S., insuring an arms race and increasing the probability of war.

His threats against other governments have strengthened opposition to the U.S. throughout the Muslim world, Latin American, former Soviet Union bloc countries, China, Africa and even West Europe.

President Bush’s tax cuts and “Free Trade” pressures have accelerated the concentration of wealth in oligarchies at home and abroad and further impoverished the poor. Nearly 1/3 of his tax cuts have gone to the top one percent of the population. When his estate tax cuts take hold the top one percent of the population will receive 40% of his tax cuts.

The number of billionaires is increasing rapidly while incomes of workers and the poor decline and organized labor continue to decline. And tax cuts combined with increased military expenditures and increasing deficits in balance of payments which make the U.S. the largest debtor nation are compelling cuts in federal expenditures for health care, education, social security, Medicare, humanitarian foreign aid and other needed programs for the poor. The real income of college graduates fell more than 5% from 2000 to 2004 under President Bush, eroding the middle class while concentrating wealth in the few. The richest ten percent of the population received more than half of all his tax cuts benefits.

But the concentration of wealth is accelerating most rapidly in the top 1/100th of one percent, about 30,000 individuals. The rise in income of these very rich has been astronomical. Just look at the growing number of billionaires and the bonuses and stock options of corporate CEO’s.

President Bush’s contempt for human rights and civil liberties is unprecedented in the American Presidency. He is not only above international law, he is above the Bill of Rights. He can arrest and detain people worldwide, including U.S. citizens, as enemy combatants. He condones torture. He wiretaps U.S. citizens and foreigners alike without court approval. Proclamations concerning his Presidential powers by his Attorneys General, Ashcroft and Gonzales, have stunned the international community. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo now symbolize U.S. regard for human dignity. Yet George Bush proclaims himself the champion of freedom and democracy!

Katrina is only one measure of the incompetence and indifference of the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Rice has acknowledged thousands of mistakes in Iraq without acknowledging the greatest mistake: the unilateral criminal invasion and occupation.

President Bush adheres ideologically to the belief that global warming is not caused in major part by the ever increasing human consumption of oil and other hydrocarbons.

He believes he can bully the world into accepting his way and the American people into accepting his decisions as right. For him, his ideology is truth. He professed to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq was "evil," and the U.S. is free and democratic, he believes Iraq should be controlled by the U.S. Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons in his view, because of its dangerous hatred for freedom and democracy and must be stopped by force now. His truth translated into force has done more to damage freedom and democracy at home and abroad than all the “evil empires” he threatens. For him, his tax cuts, free trade policies and deficits benefited the poor and lower income groups most, if not in dollars, because his ideology holds that when the oligarchy rule, all will fare better.

The imperative need is action now. We cannot risk delay.

If the American people fail to impeach George Bush and his principal officials for his war of aggression, the world can only see the American people as either powerless, or supportive of it. If he is charged only, or primarily, with misleading, or lying to the American people, the world can only believe the American people will accept mass murder if it is not lied about.

Why should any other nation refrain from Wars of Aggression against oil rich states and others unable to defend themselves if they believe they can win and get away with it, while the U.S. proceeds with impunity with its threats and attacks?

Impeachment is essential to the integrity of constitutional government. It is the most urgent duty of the American people. We have the power to cause impeachment, if we have the will. Do your part now! Participate and contribute to the Constitutional Crusade to Impeach George Bush. Click here to make a donation.

Ramsey Clark
May 3, 2006

RIGHT TO KNOW NOTHING

by Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

American corporations are successfully pursuing a new strategy to evade environmental laws and regulations. As the NEW YORK TIMES describes the new strategy, "Urged on by a coalition of big industries, one state after another is adopting legislation to protect companies from disclosure or punishment when they discover environmental offenses at their own plants."[1] In essence, state laws are giving corporations immunity from punishment if they self-report violations of environmental laws.

Furthermore, any documents related to the self-reporting become officially secret, cannot be divulged to the public, and cannot be used as evidence in any legal proceedings. "This is a disaster for environmental enforcement," says David Ronald, chief of the environmental crimes division in the Arizona State Attorney General's Office. "It has been creeping through the states without anybody paying much attention."[1]

The strategy took root in 1993 when the Oregon state legislature passed the first-ever "audit privilege" law, as they are called. Such laws - which have now been passed in at least 21 states and are pending in 13 or 14 others --typically contain the following provisions:

** Corporations that report violations discovered during a self-audit are immune from prosecution for their violations. They cannot be fined or otherwise punished if they disclose violations promptly to government authorities and take "reasonable" steps to achieve compliance.

** Individuals who participate in conducting an environmental audit cannot be called to testify in any judicial proceeding or administrative hearing.

** Perhaps most importantly, if a corporation conducts an environmental self-audit of its operations, the information in the self-audit cannot be disclosed to the public and cannot be used as evidence in any legal proceedings, including lawsuits and/or regulatory actions. Any information related to a self-audit becomes "privileged." This exemption typically covers any documents, notes, communications, data, or opinions related in any way to the audit. The corporation itself decides what is related to its self-audit and what is not. In essence, audit privilege laws allow a corporation to stamp any document "audit-related" and thus exempt it from public disclosure, discovery, or use as evidence in any legal proceeding. For companies facing Superfund lawsuits, or toxic tort actions, this exemption can translate into billions of dollars in avoided costs.

** Some states, such as Texas, have included additional provisions that make it a crime for employees or government officials to divulge anything related to environmental self-audits. In Texas, if a person divulges such information and it leads to penalties against a polluter, the individual who divulged the information must pay the polluters' fines, penalties, and other costs. This is a blatant "anti-whistle-blower" provision, clearly intended to silence individuals who might otherwise come forward with information about violations of law.

Audit privilege laws --which are sometimes called Corporate Dirty Secrets Laws, or Right
to Know Nothing Laws --apply not only to private corporations but also to governments as well. Thus citizens of a municipality can lose their right to know about pollution from their own local landfill when their state legislature passes an "audit privilege" law.

The 21 states that have, so far, passed "audit privilege" laws include: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
The Clinton administration supports environmental self-auditing. They say that companies know how to audit their own facilities better than the government does, and can do a better job of it. However, initially the administration took the position that companies should receive no immunity from fines or other punishment if their self-audits revealed violations. Further, the administration initially took the position that self-audit information should not be privileged or secret, saying workers and communities had a right to know what local corporations were doing to the environment.

To give these views clout, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Carol Browner threatened to take enforcement authority away from any state that passed a typical audit privilege law. (Most U.S. federal environmental laws allow EPA to delegate enforcement authority to the states with the provision that federal standards must be met.)

Specifically, EPA put Texas on notice that their audit privilege law was unacceptable because it would compromise the ability of all governments (federal, state, and local) to enforce environmental laws. However, in March, 1997, Ms. Browner reversed her position and said that the Texas law, with minor changes, would be acceptable to EPA. The Texas law gives both immunity from prosecution AND privilege to the information produced during a self-audit, and, as we have seen, it contains a blatant anti-whistle-blower provision.

Most observers believe the administration cut a deal with Texas to appease anti-environment forces in the 105th Congress. As expected, EPA's stance in Texas has been widely regarded as the administration's acceptance of all states' audit privilege laws. More state laws are expected to pass, now that the threat of EPA sanctions has been withdrawn.

However, the anti-environment forces in Congress have refused to be appeased. This month, they proposed national "audit privilege" legislation. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) personally endorsed S. 866, "The Environmental Protection Partnership Act," which is a standard audit privilege bill.[2] It gives immunity to violators who self-report violations; and it gives a privilege of secrecy to all information related to self-audits. Notably, S. 866 specifically prohibits EPA from revoking enforcement authority of states who pass audit privilege laws. A companion bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives --H.R. 1884, the "Voluntary Environmental Self-Evaluation Act."

For five years, corporations have been promoting environmental audit bills around the country, arguing that such laws would improve environmental protection and public health. Companies promoting audit privilege laws include ATandT, Caterpillar, Coors Brewing, DuPont, Eli Lilly, 3M, Pfizer, Procter and Gamble, Weyerhauser, and Waste Management, Inc. (WMI).

However, protecting public health may not be the first priority for all these corporations. For example, as soon as Ohio passed its "audit privilege" law in December, 1996, WMI demanded that a citizens' group return documents --some of them dating back to 1988 --which the citizens had obtained during litigation aimed at forcing the cleanup of the ELDA landfill near Cincinnati. WMI says the documents are now "privileged" under Ohio law and cannot be used in a federal court case brought by local citizens.[3]

Some of the documents in question are stamped "audit" and others were simply claimed to be "audits" after the fact. Thus WMI has revealed unmistakably what "audit privilege" laws are really about.
Some 80 citizen groups have formed a vigorous coalition to fight audit privilege laws. Contact The Network Against Corporate Secrecy led by Sanford Lewis in Boston: (617) 254-1030; or sanlewis@igc.apc.org. Their informative Web site can be found at http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gnp/nacs_toc.htm
As we step back and try to get this "right to know nothing" trend into perspective, it appears to us that this is just another aspect of the rapidly-growing power of corporations in America and worldwide.
Big corporations approved the passage of all the major U.S. environmental laws now on the books. (If they had seriously opposed any of them, they would not be on the books.) These laws impose onerous requirements for gathering and reporting data. Large corporations complain about these features of our national laws, but in truth these reporting requirements provide a competitive advantage for large corporations vs. small. It is small businesses that get hurt by all the paperwork that our environmental laws entail. A big company just assigns a team to the task and gets it done. So, big corporations created our complicated laws, partly for the competitive advantage that it gives them over their smaller, more nimble competitors.

Occasionally, however, our environmental laws cost some big polluter a major fine of $50 or $100 million dollars. And toxic tort lawsuits can cost them hundreds of millions from time to time. To reduce the likelihood of bearing such costs, big polluters now want "audit privilege" laws to protect them from public scrutiny and to give them immunity against major penalties. This retains the burdensome paperwork in the laws, which gives them a competitive advantage, while reducing the risks of major costs. The anti-environment Congress is doing its part to carry out this corporate strategy. Passing a federal "audit privilege" law would clearly benefit the big polluters.
Congress has already taken other steps that fit into this strategy: the federal EPA is now so weak that it cannot possibly enforce all the laws on the books. Speaking of EPA's Carol Browner recently, the NEW YORK TIMES said in an editorial, "As a practical matter, the task of issuing individual permits for thousands of companies nationwide is beyond her staff's capabilities."[4] This weakening has not happened by accident.

Congress has systematically reduced the capacity of the federal government to enforce our laws. In response, Ms. Browner has willingly formed voluntary "partnerships" with the states, giving them greater enforcement authority. State enforcement is weaker than federal enforcement because states compete with each other for jobs. Any state that becomes known as a "pollution haven" will be looked upon favorably by polluters. Conscientious states find themselves at a disadvantage under these circumstances.

Sure enough, reports the NEW YORK TIMES, "Pennsylvania and some other big industrial states are reporting only a handful of major pollution violations, suggesting that inspectors in those states may be turning a blind eye to pollution problems.... Federal inspectors said the state [Pennsylvania] should have found at least 10 times as many violations as were reported in 1995."[5]

The TIMES later said about 25% of all the states are failing to enforce the nation's environmental laws.[4]

We must note once again that the fundamental problem is the unfettered power of the modern corporation. The Clinton administration bears as much responsibility as any in this department. As the TIMES has said, "Ever since Bill Clinton came to office, he has done more for the Fortune 500 than virtually any other President in this century...."[6]

Corporations have limited capacity for self-restraint; they want it all and they want it now and they don't want anyone telling them what they can and cannot do. Until we recognize this -- the nature of the corporate form --as the key problem of our time, the environment and human health will continue to deteriorate.

[1] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Many States Give Polluting Firms New Protections," NEW YORK TIMES April 7, 1996, pg. 1. See also, John H. Cushman, Jr., "Colorado and Ohio Accused of Skirting Federal Environmental Laws," NEW YORK TIMES, January 30, 1997, pg.B7.
[2] Trent Lott, "Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit," CONGRESSIONAL RECORD June 11, 1997, pg. S5494.
[3] The attorney representing the citizens is David Altman; phone: (513) 721-2180.
[4] "Environmental Defiance [editorial]," NEW YORK TIMES, December 20, 1996, pg. A38.
[5] John H. Cushman, Jr., "State Neglecting Pollution Rules, White House Says," NEW YORK TIMES December 15, 1996, pg. A1.
[6] David E. Sanger, "The Big One: Washington's Political Earthquake," NEW YORK TIMES September 24, 1995, Section 4 ("Week in Review"), pg. 1.
Descriptor terms: enforcement; audit privilege laws; environmental audits; right to know nothing; corporate dirty secrets laws; corporations; Alaska; Arkansas; Colorado; Idaho; Illinois; Indiana; Ohio; Kansas; Kentucky; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Montana; New Hampshire; Oregon; South Carolina; South Dakota; Texas; Utah; Virginia; and Wyoming; Bill Clinton; Congress;

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT HEALTH WEEKLY #552 - June 26, 1997 - HEADLINES - "RIGHT TO KNOW NOTHING" - from the Environmental Research Foundation, PO Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403, fax (410) 263-8944, Email erf@rachel.clark.net. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP. In the message; back issues also available via ftp from. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com and from http://www.rachel.org/. Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free.NOTICE - Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5 or $500). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL. - Peter Montague, Editor.