Activist at Alliant Tech  dismissed

On February 1st, a group of peace activists gathered in the undersized Hennepin County Courtroom in Edina, MN to once again face charges of "criminal trespass" for entering the property of Alliant Techsystems, a local war profiteer and notorious manufacturer and seller of indiscriminate and illegal weapons such as cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, land mines, as well as rocket motors for delivery of nuclear bombs via missiles.
78 defendants were on the court docket and over 40 had shown up for trial, claiming their innocence even though the Edina City Prosecutor offered a deal of a $5.00 fine for those choosing to plead guilty. Many defendants were anxious to have the opportunity to speak in court about their convictions which led them to this collective act of resistance to this present war (where some of these weapons have been used) and to corporations profiting from war and offensive weapons which masquerade as 'national defense'.
Before the trial began, the Prosecutor requested to meet with a smaller representative group of the defendants. When he inquired as to what we'd like to see happen, a member of AlliantACTION, the group coordinating the weekly vigil presence in front of the offices of this war profiteer stated, "We'd like to see these charges dismissed." Patrick Leach, the Prosecutor for the City of Edina where Alliant Techsystems (ATK) has their world headquarters, readily agreed. He expressed his concern about the cost to the city of having a number of police officers waiting around in court, ready to testify against us rather than out performing their public safety roles.
AlliantACTION has faithfully voiced opposition to the weapons made by ATK for more than ten years, with 666 arrests having been made for nonviolent civil resistance over the years. Four times in that 10 year period juries have found defendants 'not guilty' of criminal trespass charges after they have carefully listened to testimony about ATK as a war profiteer and maker of illegal, indiscriminate weapons.

For more information:
http://www.circlevision.org/alliantaction.html

http://www.warresisters.org/smod/smod_hp.shtml

For your information, taken from website of "Forum voor Vredesactie, Belgium"  :


Global?

When we talk about globalisation, we think about world trade, international monetary flows or institutions like the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO.

But this economic globalisation also has its military correlary. New York Times' columnist Thomas Friedman said: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley 's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

You pay for, and perhaps your work contributes to, military forces which can be rapidly deployed everywhere in the world. We make war under the labels of 'military humanitarian intervention' and 'war against terrorism'. Why? For our security? To protect our interests?
Which are these interests?



What is military force in a global world?

Military force is based on fire power and mobility. Who on a certain point can mass a bigger destruction force than his enemy, wins the battle. To play the boss on a global scale, implies to make this fire power very mobile by giving it a greater reach and by making sure you can rapidly move big volumes. 'Power projection' is the key word, or 'to move military force globally'.



Americans or Europeans: worldwide intervention where our interests are at stake.

“Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus”, as Robert Kagan said.
The US has the biggest military force and dares to use it. Europe would rather choose for diplomacy, for international agreements and rules, for negotiation and co-operation. But European countries support the US war machine. And what about the military ambition of the European Union? Americans, Europeans: they want to intervene worldwide where their interests are at stake.




The United States


The US has the biggest and most powerful military force in history. No discussion about that. Their war ships rule the waves. Their missiles and bombers can reach targets on every continent. Several 100 000 men are based overseas. A lot of countries make war but the US is unique by the size and strength of its military force and because they are inclined to effectively use this force.



A worldwide network of military bases

To move rapidly its military force the US has a worldwide network of bases. These bases are the supporting hubs for their worldwide military traffic. Together they constitute an enormous logistical network. Troops can be based near fast traffic capabilities or near the region where they will actually be deployed. Other bases ensure worldwide communications and intelligence gathering. Together with the bases is the crucial worldwide infrastructure for warfare built upon overflight and landing rights for planes, agreements for the use of ports, railways and highways. The official list contains 702 military bases but has some striking gaps as well. The real amount is probably around 1000 bases.


image: http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg

Aircraft Carriers

After it lost its main military support base in the Persian Gulf due to the Iranian revolution in 1979, the US developed a second type of rapid military intervention which was independant from other countries: the aircraft carrier strike groups. Such a group is a naval unit organised around an aircraft carrier, supported by other ships and a submarine to defend the unit against attacks from the air or over and under water. The US has 12 aircraft carrier strike groups. The aircraft carriers constitute the base of an enormous attack capacity from the air which at the moment is not equaled by any other military unit worldwide. Each aircraft carrier has 50 planes and is capable to do 90 ŕ 170 attacks a day, depending on the mission. Each group also has 2 cruisers with missiles. For an forcible entry capacity on land this group gets enlarged by amfibian troops and ships.



A third form of rapid military intervention are the 'prepositioned forces'. On ships and in stockage space on land in Europe, the Middle-East and the Pacific military material is stored for complete brigades. This shortens the time to deploy the troops.



Big transport capacity

These forms of fast intervention are strengthened with a big transport capacity over sea and through the air. 8 Fast Sealift Ships who in 18 days get from the US Eastern coast to the Persian Gulf, and 20 Roll on/Roll off schips constitute the core of the sealift capacity for rapid deployment of troops. This core is enlarged with 58 other ships in a varying state of readyness in the reserve fleet and commercially rented ships.
The airlift transport capacity consists of 134 C-17 Globemaster planes and other smaller planes.



C-17 Globemaster

Europe functions as an important forward deployed support base

The war against Iraq showed us the functioning of this global military network of the US in war practice. Europe functions as an important forward deployed support base for operations in the Middle East.
In Germany the US Army has stationed the 'V Corps'. This Corps consists of 2 heavy tank divisions (the 1st Armored Division and the 1st Infantry Division), the command structures of the Corps and 9 separate brigades. In total 41000 soldiers, 800 civilian employees and about 57000 extra family members.

The US Air Force has 3 big bases in Germany: Ramstein (more than 13.000 US military and 2000 civilians), Spangdalhem (almost 5000 US military) and Frankfurt Rhein-Main (a part of the airport of Frankfurt, with 700 US military and 1100 civilians).

The US military deployed in Germany were flown to the Gulf through Frankfurt Rhein-Main. Ramstein played a role in the transport of military material through the air, but the main part went over the sea. The port of Antwerp played an important role in this deployment for war. All material passing by Antwerp during this military movement towards the war, came to Antwerp by barges, trains (200-250) and over the road.


Trainstopping action (Belgium, 2003)


The US military presence in Europe undergoes a profound reform (see report)

Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility structure of the US, 2005), but also in the future wars will depart from Europe. The military presence will be adapted in such a way as to be able to deploy more rapidly.
The US Army pulls back its heavy divisions from Germany and puts a smaller and lighter 'Stryker-brigade' in place. The Stryker is a lighter armored vehicle on wheels, which is better fitted for rapid deployment than the heavy tanks originaly developed for warfare against the Soviet Union. Staying as well are smaller command structures, 2 battalions with Apache attack helicopters and a fast deployable artillery unit with rockets. The US Air Force leaves the airport of Frankfurt and centralizes on Spangdahlem and Ramstein. Ramstein was already the most important logistical hub and strengthens this role.

In Italy the 173rd Airborne Brigade will be enlarged and it stays in the neighbourhood of Aviano airforce base als point of departure for intervention. In Eastern Europe a rotating brigade will be stationed. The Navy strengthens her most important bases Rota (Spanje), Sigonella (Italië) and Souda Bay (Crete - Greece). The headquarters in London will be closed and centralised in Naples.
In general the US military move to the south and the east to bring troops nearer to the intervention zones and to strenghten their mobile character. In the plans of US EUCOM, the European command of the US military, the renewed attention for Africa is striking, specifically for the oil reserves in the Gulf of Guinea which are explicitely mentioned.



NATO


After the second World War NATO was officially founded as an alliance to collectively defend the territories of the member states. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the threat of an attack on that territory disappeared and NATO started searching for new reasons of existence. The Washington Summit in 1999 agreed on a new Strategic Concept for NATO. From that moment crisis management - humanitarian military interventions - is officially one of the central tasks of NATO.
The humanitarian tasks were grouped in the formulation "to enhance the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area" NATO must act in prevention of new security risks: chemical, biological and nuclear proliferation, drugs trade, the threat of weapons of mass destruction by 'rogue states'.


countries member of NATO

After the second World War NATO was officially founded as an alliance to collectively defend the territories of the member states. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the threat of an attack on that territory disappeared and NATO started searching for new reasons of existence. The Washington Summit in 1999 agreed on a new Strategic Concept for NATO. From that moment crisis management - humanitarian military interventions - is officially one of the central tasks of NATO.
The humanitarian tasks were grouped in the formulation "to enhance the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area" NATO must act in prevention of new security risks: chemical, biological and nuclear proliferation, drugs trade, the threat of weapons of mass destruction by 'rogue states'.



From collective defense of the territory to preventive military intervention worldwide.

In 2002 the member states decided that NATO could not only operate on its own territory but worldwide as well. Our security is subjected to global influences, by consequence NATO has to intervene globally. To make this happen in reality NATO works on the 'NATO Response Force'. This is a rapid intervention force of 21000 soldiers who have to be deployed in one weeks till one months time and who have to sustain 30 days of heavy fight. Every 6 months other troops are called to participate in the NATO Response Force and to be ready for deployment.


Belgians in Afghanistan

NATO goes the coming years through a new 'transformation' or reform debate. The US wants to go a step further with NATO.

Policymakers outlined the upcoming NATO-debate:

One: If our security is influenced globally, why limit its partners or NATO-membership to the European region? Why do not ask Japan or Australia as new NATO members? In Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere co-operation with these countries already takes place. Why not broaden and structure this co-operation?

Two: Till now every country bears itself the costs of its troops when they participate in a NATO-operation. Common funding is very limited. Why not have common funding for military operations independent of the participation of a country in an operation?

Three: Now decisions are made by consensus and can one country block a NATO decision. A 'constructive abstainment' or majority decision making, would that not be more efficient?

Four: With terrorism as new enemy the working area of NATO changes. Does NATO has to receive a place in the inner affairs policy against terrorism?

A frontal attack on the UN and the EU

Taken together these proposals are a frontal attack on the UN and the EU. NATO would develop from a European-American military alliance into a global collective security organisation. A 'United Nations of the willing', which would marginalise the existing United Nations.
And who gets better from common funding? The purpose seems rather to move a part of the US defense bill towards Europe. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US a lot of money. When such operations and the following occupations become NATO 'peace operations' and are financed through NATO common funding, the pressure on the US budget softens. Who does not want to follow the US demand to spend more on defense, receives the bill anyway through the NATO common funding. Linked with the proposal to change NATO decision making, this can make a country paying for an operation which it opposed.
At this moment the EU is the main player for anti-terrorism policy and judicial co-operation. Giving NATO a place in the internal anti-terrorism policy would make the US an important player in the European justice and home affairs policy. The US approaches terrorism as a military problem, while the Europeans mainly dealt with terrorism through the police and justice. Developing a common line would lead to taking over a more military approach. This creates problems concerning democratic control.
The proposition that threats are global could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.




The timing

The timing of this transformation discussion is known by now. The first conclusions where made by the summit of government leaders in Riga in November 2006. This discussion will be finalized at the next summit of government leaders in spring 2008. Just in time to be part of the legacy of US president Bush.


...
no pasaran!

Globalisation of war and militarisation are not far away problems.

Our companies earn money with it.

Taxpayers pay for it.

Dock-workers, pilots, air traffic controllers, train drivers, ... sometimes work for it.

Our ports, airports, highways and channels are used for the globalisation of war.

If we also are responsible, we can also change it.

Five ideas for action to build another security policy ourselves.

Action 1

Conscientious Objection status for civilian workers.

Who works at the railway, in air freight companies or in the ports can suddenly notice his of her work has become part of war preparations, like during the US war against Iraq. While a conscript was able to apply for the status of Conscientious Objector, this is not true for civilian workers. Time for a new law on conscientious objection?







Action 2

A European Trainstopping-campaign?

'Military power is based on fire power and mobility.' For this mobility governments and armies need our highways, our railways, our channels and our airports. We saw this during the war against Iraq. In Italy, Germany, Spain and Belgium 'trainstoppers' obstructed trains loaded with military material on transport for the Iraq war. These action came spontaneous, without co-ordination. What if we prepare and exercise in advance?






Action 3

A European Bombspotting-campaign!

Nuclear weapons are important in the globalisation of war. The nuclear policy of NATO is an obstacle for global nuclear disarmament. The Belgian Bombspotting-campaign gained its first political results. A European Bombspotting-campaign can push other NATO-states. Spring 2008: an international Bombspotting-action at the NATO headquarters in Brussels?





Action 4

A political campaign about globalisation and commercialisation of war.

Military and political strategies are changing rapidly. Today no debate is existing on globalisation and commercialisation of war. Time to change this. Parliamentarians are representants of the people and should represent our voice. Can a political campaign convince them?








Action 5

Time for a critical dialogue with the third world movement?

To adopt military intervention for humanitarian reasons as a legitimate policy tool, is a danger for the whole development aid policy. Time for a critical dialogue with the third world movement?

"The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control
bymartial law. It is control by the psychological
manipulation of consciousness through which reality is
defined so that those who exist within it do not even
realize that they are in prison. They do not even
realize that there is something outside of where they
exist. We represent what is outside of what you have
been taught exists. It is where you sometimes venture
and where we want you to dwell; it is outside of
where society has told you you can live."



"Because everyone is so frightened of giving up the
system in the United States, they are going to be
forced to give it up. The system is corrupt, it does
not work, it does not honor life, and it does not honor
Earth. That is the bottom line. When something does
not honor life and does not honor Earth, you can bet
it is going to fall, and it is going to fall big-time."

Blackwater continues killing Iraqis

Blackwater has made war profiteers to be main-stream news more than ever. Mainly because Blackwater personnel killed 11 Iraqis and wounded 14 during what the company said was an attack on a U.S. diplomatic convoy travelling through the Mansour district of Baghdad. Blackwater employees have been involved in at least 195 shooting incidents since 2005. Blackwater so far has fired 122 employees because of alcohol and drug abuse, misusing weapons, violent behaviour and other inappropriate conduct, according to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report. Mainly, this "inappropriate conduct" involves the death of civilians and the abuse of alcohol and drugs and has led many times to the killing of Iraqi civilians.
In another shooting by a Blackwater employee, that killed a guard of the Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, the report said, that the U.S. Embassy charge d'affaires recommended that Blackwater compensate the victim's family, proposing a $250,000 payment. That amount prompted one State Department official to say that such ``crazy sums'' might cause Iraqis to ``try to get killed so as to set up their family financially. '' Blackwater eventually paid $15,000 delivered to the guard's family with the help of the State Department, according to a House report. The Blackwater guard was moved out of Iraq on Dec. 26. On Dec. 28, in a letter to the U.S. Embassy, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's chief of staff labeled the incident ``murder.''

George Friedman said in his article "The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater" that "Blackwater works for the State Department in a capacity defined as noncombat, protecting diplomats and other high-value personnel from assassination. The Army, bogged down in its own operations, lacks the manpower to perform this obviously valuable work. That means that Blackwater and other contract workers are charged with carrying weapons and moving around the battlefield, which is everywhere. They are heavily armed private soldiers carrying out missions that are combat in all but name -- and they are completely outside of the chain of command". Blackwater has a noncombat campacity contract but they do exactly the opposite as they are involved in large military operations in Iraq not only providing security but in most cases replacing the military in their occupation operations.


Blackwater has a very good relationship with the White House and the Republicans, that in many cases includes the revolving door factor where employees of Blackwater move to work for the State or the other way around. As presented by Jason Rhyne and Nick Juliano in their article "Man Bush chose to lead Pentagon contracting probes left under fire to become Blackwater COO" "the connections include the firm's chief operating officer Joseph Schmitz, who was tapped by President Bush in 2002 to oversee and police the Pentagon's military contracts as the Defense Department's Inspector General" Also Erik Prince, Blackwater's founder, donated around $300,000 to Republican candidates and political action committees. The ties between State and Blackwater are only part of a web of relationships that Blackwater has maintained with the Bush administration and with prominent Republicans. From 2001 to 2007 the firm has increased its annual federal contracts from less than $1 million to more than $1 billion.

All the latest events have provoked an even bigger rejection from the Iraqis about the presence of Blackwater in their country. And the Iraqi government has asked for the removal of Blackwater from Iraq. Janessa Gans who was in Iraq and was protected by Blackwater said in an interview with Democracy Now about the Iraqi government asking for the removal of Blackwater "I actually was surprised that it had taken this long. You know, I used to often think, well, I benefited personally so much from their protection and their security and without which I could have not done my job, but I used to think if there were foreign armed convoys going through my streets every day, delaying traffic, if I got anywhere too close, I would be pelted with water bottles or have guns pointed at me, I would have piped up right away and made a complaint. So I’m just surprised that they waited this long"

Now is the time to keep up the pressure and make sure that Blackwater's contracts are not renew and that they leave Iraq and follow the example of what protesters did on Saturday 20 of October, when protesters re-enacted the Sept. 16 shooting in Iraq. Saturday's demonstration marked the first protest at Blackwater's headquarters since the company was formed. 7 people were arrested.

For more information about the action:

[url]http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/21/4718/

http://democracynow.org

back to school... University of California

University of California

The University of California runs two national laboratories in collaboration with the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. They are Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The duties of the two labs vary but both have a role in weapons and non-weapons related nuclear activities.
Due to their involvement in this type of research the role of the laboratories was threatened when the United Nations ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The United States Senate has thus far failed to ratify the treaty through Congress, signaling to the international community that the United States has no interest in the elimination of nuclear weapons.

In 1992, the President George Bush followed the Soviet and French moratoriums on nuclear testing and initiated a suspension of U.S. nuclear testing. With no way to test their designs, national nuclear weapons laboratories, like Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory faced a sudden cut back in the demand for their services. In the face of this challenge, the DOE, the facilities, and their congressional supporters devised the Stockpile Stewardship Program. This program created a way for the laboratories to stay in operation without cutbacks to their funding or employees. The reality of this program was to maintain the vitality of this large, government created enterprise. The DOE legitimized this program to the public by stressing the need to monitor the existing nuclear arsenal in order to predict age-related problems. In addition, the labs have expanded the program into a funding source that has been used to design new kinds of nuclear weapons (without testing) while rapidly reconstituting the already large arsenal. In effect, the United States is continuing the nuclear arms race virtually by itself with a blatant disregard for the international community’s efforts to end this dangerous pattern.


Los Alamos National Laboratory

(LANL) is located in New Mexico and is the DOE weapons laboratory with the largest number of defense facilities and weapons-related activities.
The Applied Physics (X) Division is responsible for nuclear weapons design as well as having a lead role in assessing the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear weapons in the nation’s nuclear stockpile. The X-Division works closely with several government agencies including the Departments of Energy and Defense, the intelligence community, other DOE labs, and the United Kingdom’s atomic weapons establishment. In addition, they provide operational assistance in response to nuclear emergencies, and advice to government agencies about treaty negotiations and foreign interactions. The expertise of the X-Division includes the physics design and assessment of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, and the analysis of the output and effects of nuclear weapons.
The Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility (DARHT) is a facility near the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The DARHT serves to test the first stage of a thermonuclear weapon. The mockups are imploded while photographs and x-rays are taken rapidly. This allows the scientists to see inside the explosion.
The Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative is a tri-laboratory project involving the LANL, LLNL, and Sandia National Laboratory that will create modeling and simulation capabilities for both the stockpile of nuclear weapons as well as aiding to design new ones.

The Weapon Design Technologies (NIS-9) section of the Los Alamos lab analyzes the threat posed by foreign weapons of mass destruction to the United States or it’s allies. It uses resources available throughout the LANL to support national agencies concerned with the proliferation of technologies that could be used to produce weapons of a nuclear, chemical, or biological nature.


Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Was established in 1952 to design and develop nuclear weapons. Scientists at LLNL are responsible for four out of nine nuclear weapons systems in the United States' stockpile.
Construction of the world’s largest laser installation, the National Ignition Facility (NIF), is underway at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The NIF’s intended use is to produce contained thermonuclear explosions to provide data for the advance of nuclear weapons science. According to LLNL and the DOE, the National Ignition Facility will preserve the U.S.’s ability to maintain, test, modify, design and produce nuclear weapons. NIF is used both to train weapons designers in nuclear weapons science and for nuclear weapons effects testing. Replacement of underground testing will be a result of this new laboratory, demonstrating a continued commitment to nuclear weapons as core instruments of national policy.

For more information:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/
http://bitethebullet.us/

Last edited by Yahu (2007-10-30 15:14:36)

Hi Yahu ji!
So...what is new my friend?! That is the way it has been through the millennia. IF there was a Chengiz Khan or a Truman or today's Bush-man, they are ALL of the same ilk.
   The world has the largest number of democracies, of all shades, including "guided democracies"--that the West facilitates through some subsidies, as long as their vested interests get served, all the time.

   What is new is: NGOs galore exist in the history of man; and they beat their breasts and weep, exhorting the knowledge and info-base of the disposessed like the ones we have in the developing world--nothing more.
   All watch helplessly as another war gets flung upon the lands of the weak--and we, the NGOs repeat our Mantras, which is akin to the ostrich with its neck in the sand--as if Peace will remain to be our birthright. Period.

  Except the websites and the internet makes life "easier" to know how our end will be, no?

   So, I say, what is new, my friend?
Is it strategic planning or deeds not words ??
Life (and death) will remain a baffling game both for the developed and the developing...as we exchange these "emails" on the net just like those "ostrices"!
Shanti, Shanti, Om Shanti...as we continue to "mind our ways" hoping the ones who wield the power will see the Truth, one day...
One continues to think and feel positive--Peace!!
dev chopra 1.30 p.m. IST of 31 st October '07.

Yahu,

You got lots of information man. Keep it posting.

Namil

Yahu,
Any new for us...
I am so much intrested in this topic by seeing the facts posted.
Keep posting/sharing the facts & thoughts here.