Archive for November, 2002

Working Together

Thursday, November 21st, 2002

Reposted from Mike Welch’s pages for “Non-Functioning Literates”.


The “PRACTICAL” Benefits of Banning Guns

Mike Welch

1. Rednecks would save money not having to buy a rack for each truck.

2. The sales of country music CD´s would drop drastically (please note: extreme benefit to society)

3. The number of Libertarians and Republicans would dwindle.

4. Beer sales would drop, wine sales would soar.

5. The reactionary extremists would buy Super-soakers and Toys R Us stock would go way up and they would finally, in the act of squirting each other, discover the benefits of basic hygiene.

6. Fewer Christians, or at least less imposters claiming to be (as if Christ would own guns! sheesh)

7. More cabinet space.

8. People might even resort to reading actual literature instead of NRA drivel.

9. The acronym NRA would change meaning to National Roundup of Assholes.

10. “Use your words, use your words!” would not just be for two year olds anymore.

11. No more annoying security checks at airports, and other public buildings.

12. Women would no longer wonder if that was a gun in my pocket (very practical and to the point!)

13. Hanging oneself is less messy.

14. Safer freeways.

15. Safer schools, homes, courtrooms, malls, buses, offices & airplanes.

16. BANG would be an erotic invitation rather than a hole in someone´s body.

17. More free time for funeral workers, grave diggers, coroners.

18. Less police equals less taxes.

19. The nightly news would begin with a story about vandals tipping over trash cans.

20. Less chance of a formaldehyde shortage.

21. More open caskets.

22. WalMart could finally sell Sheryl Crow´s CD.

23. People might finally realize the freedom to kill someone is a freedom and a choice we can live without.

24. Late night liquor stores and grocery clerks could finally buy life insurance.

25. Fewer video cameras invading our lives.

26. John Lennon would still be alive.

27. JFK and Robert Kennedy would still be alive.

28. Martin Luther King would still be alive.

29. No one would know who John Wilkes Booth was.

30. Phil Hartman would still be alive.

31. Many, many students would still be alive.

32. Less grief.

33. Shorter rap sheet for Jose Canseco.

34. Harvey Milk would still be alive.

35. Lower life and medical insurance rates.

36. Fewer lawyersÖneed I say more?

37. Fewer prisons, less taxes.

38. Fewer jails, less taxes.

39. Less tax money spent on court time and public defenders, parole officers, probation officers, halfway houses, court reporters, security guards.

40. No one will try to pry anything out of anyone´s cold dead hands.

41. Smaller cemeteries.

42. Ask Mary Jo Buttafucco

43. No more of those inane signs that say “I shoot every fourth salesman and the third one just left!”

44. Fewer locker and backpack inspections.

45. Less money spent on flowers and sympathy cards.

46. Fewer road signs riddled with bullet holes.

47. When the cops pull you over for speeding you won’t have to put your hands on the steering wheel to show them you’re not going to shoot them.

48. No more metal detectors at theme parks (like Great America, ironically)

49. Safer work environment at Planned Parenthood clinics.

50. Fewer restraining orders.

51. Less bullshit on AM talk radio.

52. Fewer blood banks needed.

53. Less scar tissue.

 

Working Together

Wednesday, November 20th, 2002

The following article was written by a research associate of the World Policy Institute on December 17, 2001. It  is reposted here from Reaching Critical Will.


“Afghanistan hasn´t had a direct impact on sales yet.”

Peter Simmons, Spokesman for Lockheed Martin 


A Good Time to be in the War Business!

Frida Berrigan

Companies like General Electric and IBM, which cashed in on the tragedy of September 11th through tax breaks in the Economic Stimulus Bill, have drawn the ire of fiscal conservatives and progressive corporate watchdogs alike. But scant attention has been paid to the biggest war profiteers, the weapons manufacturers and the Pentagon.

Congress is debating a Bush administration defense budget of $343.2 billion, an increase of $32.6 billion over last year. This increase would mean that military spending would account for more than half of all discretionary spending (money that Congress must allocate each year).

This is good news to the weapons industry and while pink slips and hiring freezes are spreading like an epidemic from sector to sector, the top weapons manufacturers are awaiting new orders, holding job fairs, planning Initial Public Offerings, raising new capital and gaining new attention on the stock market.

As Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, remarked “the whole mind set of military spending changed on Sept. 11. The most fundamental thing about defense spending is that threats drive defense spending. It´s now going to be easier to fund almost anything” (1).

So, what better time to be Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman or even the beleaguered Boeing? The war in Afghanistan is an unequivocal success- despite friendly fire incidents, bombing accidents, mounting civilian casualties and the recent crash of a $280 million B-1 bomber- and the Bush administration is already listing new countries targeted for military action, with Somalia, Yemen and Iraq topping the list. It is a good time to be in the war business.

“For a long timeÖ[the defense industry] just didn´t seem like a sexy area that has a lot of legs to it,” said a partner at one options trading firm. Well look again, because these former “wallflowers” are ready to go (2). Responding to investor interest, stock exchanges are thinking about creating a new Defense Index. The American Stock Exchange has its 15- stock index up and running, Philadelphia and Chicago are not far behind (3).

That is music to the ears of weapons manufacturers. And they have not wasted any time capitalizing on Congress´ new generosity. As a lobbyist for a major defense contractor boasted, “There are 150 programs on Capitol Hill that we are actively working” (4).

Congress is still working out the wrinkles of their versions of the military budgets, but weapons manufacturers and their supporters are confident that it will be big. “With the [Bush] administration, we´ll see a rebuilding of the military to bring it back to where it was eight years ago,” said defense analyst Paul Nisbet. “We´ll see a considerable appreciation in defense stocks, as we saw in the Reagan years” (5).



 

This Los Angeles-based company manufacturers planes and bombers dropping munitions on Afghanistan, including the B-2 bomber, the F-14 fighter. The company also makes the much-praised unmanned Global Hawk. The $10 million per copy Global Hawk has been deployed to Afghanistan despite the fact that it had not completed its testing requirements.

The company boasts that it has the capability to “meet current and emerging national defense needs, including anti-terrorism and homeland security” (6). And analysts like Loren Thompson agree, “the most immediate hardware demand that this crisis will generate is for intelligence gathering and command and control. Those are Northrop´s strengths.”

In addition to its planes and bombers, the company´s Maryland based Electronic Systems division makes high tech systems like the Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS), a control center and a huge radar disc mounted atop a Boeing 707, which serves “as the airborne nerve center for a military air campaign.” Northrop Grumman is also responsible for ALQ-15 jamming device, used to protect jets from enemy radar-guided missiles. As David Steigman, senior defense analyst for the Teal Group, boasts, “Northrop Grumman´s role is supplying the command control communications and the intelligence surveillance systems to find the bad guys and bop them in the head” (7).

When Wall Street opened again on September 17, 2001, Northrop Grumman was ready to bob those bad guys and its stock had risen 16% to $94 a share in anticipation of the coming war. Two days after bombing in Afghanistan began; Northrop Grumman´s stock had reached a three-year high of $107.60 a share on the New York Stock Exchange (8). The future looks bright and the company has job openings from more than 1,000 employees (9). According to a recent article in the financial magazine Barrons, Northrop Grumman is now seeking $2 billion in loans and equity investment to expand business opportunities and acquisitions (10).

It doesn´t hurt that Northrop Grumman has friends in high places, like Secretary of the Air Force James Roche, former Northrop Grumman Electronics Systems chief. Since September 11th, Roche has emphasized the need for more spending on intelligence systems, specifically mentioning Northrop Grumman´s AWACS plane (11). Not content to rest on its laurels, the company is lobbying Congress for a $300 million to upgrade the $1.3 billion B-2 Stealth Bomber, which has successfully completed bombings run in Afghanistan (12).



The Lexington, MA based company is best known for its Tomahawk missile. About 100 of these million dollar land-attack cruise missiles have been lobbed at Afghanistan from U.S. Navy ships since October 7th, fifty in the opening salvo alone (13).

Orders for Tomahawk missiles are already coming in from allies like Britain, which signed a contract for 48 Tomahawk missiles in a $87 million deal. And Raytheon is confident that significant Pentagon orders will follow. As David Polk, Raytheon spokesman, proudly said, “we are prepared to meet the urgent needs of our customers.” (14)

Raytheon also makes the “bunker buster” GBU- 28, a 5,000-pound bomb and missiles like the TOW, Maverick and Javelin, all being used in Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition to missiles, Raytheon also builds sensors and radars used on unmanned and manned reconnaissance airplanes used extensively in Afghanistan. This diversity is part of what makes Raytheon the biggest stock percentage gainer since the war began; on September 10th the company´s stock stood at $26.85, now it is holding at about $32.80 (15). Raytheon is looking to hire 1,400 new college graduates this year (16).

The company has been raising money recently. In mid-October, the company doubled its equity sales program with a major offering. The company raised about $1 billion by selling 29 million shares (17). Raytheon says the money will be used to reduce debt and for general corporate purposes (18).

In the never ending quest for more contracts, Raytheon has been pushing its agenda on Capitol Hill; $677 million to work on the next generation of Patriot cruise missiles and an undisclosed amount to upgrade Tomahawk cruise missiles (19).

 


Lockheed Martin is the world´s largest weapons contractor, a major player in the areas of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense. The company was recently awarded the world´s largest weapons contract ever, a $200 billion deal to build the Joint Strike Fighter, a “next-generation” combat jet that eventually will replace aircraft used by the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Lockheed Martin did not win the contract on force of personality alone, or fighter plane design. During the calendar year 2000, Lockheed Martin spent more than $9.8 million lobbying members of Congress and the Clinton administration, more than double the $4.2 million the company spent during 1999. Among the company´s newest lobbyists: Haley Barbour, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Lockheed Martin contributed just over $2.7 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties. More than two-thirds of that money went to Republicans (20). Lockheed Martin spends more on lobbying Congress than any of its competitors, spending a whopping $9.7 million last year. Only General Electric and Philip Morris reported more lobbying expenses last year (21).

Since September 11th, the weapons giant has been steaming along. Stock prices rose almost $10, from $39.39 on September 10th to a high of $48.11 on November 12th , the stock is now steady above $46 (22). Lockheed Martin makes the ubiquitous F-16 fighter plane, the Hellfire missile, “bunker buster” munitions and the massive C-130 transport plane. The F-16 plant in Ft. Worth, Texas expects to hire as many as 1,200 factory workers to increase production. They have more than 200 orders to fill from foreign governments for 1999-2000 (23).

As the largest military contractor, Lockheed Martin has a lot of jobs in the pipeline. The company wants to go highest tech with its “combat Internet system,” a rugged handheld computer, that will put a “dot-com face on the modern battlefield” (24).The company is hiring in Silicon Valley, looking to replace “Rosie the Riveter” with “Suzie the Software Programmer.” A recent Lockheed Martin job fair attracted 1,300 applicants for 290 new positions in the company´s missile defense division (25). Even while Lockheed Martin celebrates its JSF successful, it is trying to shore up support for an additional $3.9 billion for development the F-22 Raptor (26).

 

The Chicago-based Boeing Company, manufacturer of commercial and military aircraft, has not had an easy time since September 11th. While other weapons manufacturers are picking up new orders for weapons, Boeing announced the lay off of 39,000 workers in its commercial aircraft division.

On the military side, despite losing of the coveted Joint Strike Fighter contract, Boeing has a lot to be grateful for. Boeing´s JDAM (joint direct attack munitions) is the most widely used smart bomb in the war. The JDAM kit fits over a “dumb” missile and coverts it into a satellite-guided weapon using movable fins and a satellite positioning system. According to Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, of the 12,000 bombs the U.S. has dropped on Afghanistan, 7,200 (about 60%) were precision-guided. Of these, 4,600 were Boeing´s Joint Direct Attack Munitions. The rest were laser-guided bombs or satellite-guided Raytheon Co. Tomahawk cruise missiles (27). But there was a downside, the precision JDAMs have repeatedly missed their targets; crashing into a residential neighborhood near the Kabul airport on October 12th and killing at least 10 civilians, falling off target and killing three American soldiers on December 5th, and wounding five Special Forces soldiers a week earlier. The Pentagon maintains there is no problem with the weapon, and insists it will continue to use it.

Since the United States began bombing Afghanistan, Boeing has received two separate orders for more than 1,074 JDAMs, to be delivered by December 2001 and March 2002. Boeing spokesman Robert Algarotti said the company expects to receive an additional contract soon. “We don´t have anything officially from the government yet, but we are expecting a new order to come in and we´ll be producing them faster than we have before” (28). As David Baker, retired Air Force General now with Schwab Washington research, said approvingly, “Boeing has taken a thrashing, but their military sector is pounding away like a Ferrari on all cylinders” (29).

JDAMs and Ferraris notwithstanding, the Pentagon´s award of the Joint Strike Fighter contract to rival Lockheed Martin was a major setback for Boeing. Panicked about commercial losses and military snubs, Boeing has dispatched an army of lobbyists to Washington and their wish list is a mile long and more expensive. Boeing is looking for Congress´ help in the form of approval for:

– Air Force purchase of 60 Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft under a special “commercial” provision that removes financial oversight; 

– Air Force leasing of 100 Boeing 767 planes to be converted into surveillance planes and mobile command centers for the military;

– Protection from billions in potential liability claims stemming from the 9-
11 attacks;

– Measures to encourage Lockheed Martin to share its Joint Strike Fighter contract.

These proposals make sense if the goal is saving Boeing, but they make neither military nor financial sense.

The C-17 Globemaster is Boeing´s jumbo military transport plane, which performed high altitude food drops in Afghanistan. As recently as March 2001, Boeing tried unsuccessfully to make the plane available to commercial buyers. This time around it seems the company is capitalizing on widespread sympathy for its commercial losses, but the proposal is still a bad ideal. Selling the military planes as though they were commercial would allow the Air Force to bypass important pricing oversight. In addition, the $232 million per copy C-17s aren´t all they promised to be. A General Accounting Office report found that Boeing´s failure to rigorously test the C-17 before production resulted in increased costs of more than $2 billion to the program (30).

The plan to lease 100 converted Boeing 767 air-refueling aircraft for a period of 10 years is a big rip-off for taxpayers too. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the lease plan would cost $22 billion, while purchasing the aircraft outright would cost just over $15 billion–that is a difference of $7 billion that Boeing can pocket. The aircraft is even less of a bargain when the $600 million cost of modifying existing hangers to house the plane is taken into account (31).

Some officials at the Congressional Budget Office and in the House and Senate budget committees oppose the leasing plan, contending it is a scam that adds to the long-term costs. “This would be a first,” said G. William Hoagland, minority staff director on the Senate Budget Committee, of Boeing´s plan. “We´ve got to maintain some discipline. This just isn´t the time to be adding in this way” (32).

But, cool heads like Mr. Hoagland´s might have a hard time prevailing, given Boeing´s political weight. The 767 plan goes before a House-Senate conference committee next week and Boeing has a lot of well-connected and important people looking out for its interests. John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is on the Boeing board. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Rudy de Leon heads Boeing´s Washington office. After September 11th Boeing beefed up its political connections by hiring former Senator Bennett Johnson (D-LA) and former Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY) (33). Former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Boeing´s senior vice president for international relations since January, uses his forty years of experience to generate business for Boeing with foreign governments and corporations.

Also on the Boeing agenda is more money for its portfolio of major contracts. Boeing is currently working on more than a dozen contracts– including the expensive F/A-18 fighter jet, the crash prone V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter and the Airborne Laser for the Pentagon´s Ballistic Missile Defense Organization– that account for well over $10 billion in the 2002 Pentagon budget alone (34).


End Notes:

(1) Brody Mullins, “Defense firms push for big increases in procurement spending,” Government Executive Magazine, October 10, 2001.
(2) Kopin Tan, “Exchanges Create Defense-Sector Indexes,” Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2001.
(3) Tan, Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2001.
(4) Mullins, Government Executive Magazine, October 10, 2001.
(5) Mark Gongloff, “Defense industry gets a boost,” CNN Money, October 8, 2001.
(6) Northrop Grumman website, www.northropgrumman.com
(7) Seth Sawyers, “War on Terrorism: Northrop Gadgets Lay the Foundation, The Capital, November 2, 2001.
(8) Peter Pae, “Defense Buildup Is Expected to Be Gradual and Targeted,” Los Angeles Times, October 9 2001.
(9) Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2001.
(10) Jack Willoughby, “Offerings in the offing: The war dividend,” Barron´s, October 29, 2001.
(11) Sawyers, The Capital, November 2, 2001.
(12) Mullins, Government Executive Magazine, October 10, 2001.
(13) Shalal-Esa, Yahoo News, December 12, 2001.
(14) Boston Globe, October 14, 2001.
(15) Peter Pae, Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2001.
(16) Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2001.
(17) Willoughby, Barron´s, October 29, 2001.
(18) Raytheon Press Release, October 22, 2001.
(19) Mullins, Government Executive Magazine, October 10, 2001.
(20) Opensecrets.Com
(21) Mullins, Government Executive Magazine, October 10, 2001.
(22) Elena Molianari, Reuters, December 5, 2001.
(23) Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2001.
(24) Greg Schneider, “High-Tech Gear To Get Workout In Afghanistan,” Washington Post, October 14, 2001.
(25) Scott Thurman, Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2001.
(26) Mullins, Government Executive Magazine, October 10, 2001.
(27) “Boeing Co. JDAM Most Widely Used Precision Bomb In Afghanistan,” Bloomberg, December 10, 2001.
(28) Andrea Shalal-Esa, “War shows shift in U.S. military weapons of choice,” Yahoo News, December 12, 2001.
(29) James Dao, “Beneficiaries of Military Build Up are Awaiting their Orders,” New York Times, September 11, 2001.
(30) “Fighting with Failures Series: Case Studies of How the Pentagon Buys Weapons C-17 Airlifter,” Project on Government Oversight, April 20, 2001.
(31) “The Pentagon Attempts to Quietly Push Two Sweetheart Deals for Boeing Through Congress,” Project On Government Oversight, November 26, 2001.
(32) Dan Morgan, “Boeing Lobbies Hill to Buy Converted 767s for Military,” The Washington Post, November 13, 2001.
(33) National Journal, November 17, 2001.
(34) James Dao and Laura Holson, “Lobbyists Are Its Army, Washington Its Battlefield,” New York Times, December 12, 2001

Read Dr. Timothy Wilken: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment, 2) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children, 3) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale, 4) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community and 5) Synergic Disarmament

Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman: 1) Aggression and Violence 2) Evolution of Weaponry and 3) Psychological Effects of Combat
 

Working Together

Tuesday, November 19th, 2002

As I explained in last month’s SafeEarth Series, protecting humanity as individuals and humanity as community requires intelligent actions. Today, humanity is interdependent. We share the same planet and that planet grows smaller every day. We are really one nation. We will live together or die together, there are and will be no separate solutions.

The following article is reposted from Common Dreams.


Protecting Ourselves Requires America to Change

Chris Siebert

Realistic solutions to increasing our security involve radical ideas. These ideas will be denounced as impossible, utopian, or unnecessary. But such proposals, which all have positive value apart from their importance to security, would actually work.

We are either in dire danger, or we are not. If the threat is as serious as the administration would like us to believe, than the response must be equally serious. Opposition to the following proposals can therefore be taken as either a lack of seriousness or as evidence of conflicts of interest between personal profit and real national security.

A preamble to a radical security program should eliminate the fascistic term “Homeland Security”, to be replaced, perhaps, with “Domestic Security”. The following proposals could be realistically implemented over the next few years. Most of them are already in place in some form, either at the local level in the United States or elsewhere.

1. Eliminate nuclear power, the single most scary terrorist target.

2. Build a world-class passenger rail system to provide redundency in our transportation networks. An attack on our aviation system would never again shut the country down.

3. Increase fuel economy standards for all vehicles, especially S.U.V.’s and passenger vans. Let’s stop sending our money to the terrorists via our gasoline purchases. In addition, we should fund non-profit car-sharing schemes like City Car Share in San Francisco, which allows members to drastically reduce car usage, at least in urban areas.

4. Adopt a national energy policy that provides for alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuel production, both domestic and foreign. We should increase funding for clean, renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind power. This can be done by subsidizing local efforts to provide alternative power such as the $100 million solar bond measure recently passed in San Francisco. We should also fund programs to increase energy efficiency in all aspects of the economy, and to improve energy conservation efforts. Finally, we should move away from private energy companies and towards the sort of democratic, local public power generation represented by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).

5. Enact universal, single-payer health insurance. This would improve public health and our ability to respond to an attack with biological weapons. The significant number of Americans who are uninsured or under-insured are particularly vulnerable, but a large outbreak would threaten even those suburbanites who vote Republican and think that they are safe in their gated enclaves.

6. Encourage Israel to withdraw immediately from the territories occupied in 1967, and support the establishment of a Palestinian state within these borders. We should work with both sides to assure the security of each state and validity of the borders.

7. End the client-state system of American empire. We must cease all funding and arming of non-democratic governments, with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt at the top of the list. After all, it should be assumed that whoever funds and arms dictatorships will be the object of resentment and reprisal from those who suffer under such regimes. We should then immediately announce a plan to provide economic development aid (not loans) for those nations and political organizations willing to democratize and observe international human rights standards.

8. Start to observe democracy and human rights standards in our own domestic and foreign policy (see the Amnesty International report on human rights in the United States). This will improve the sort of good will necessary for international cooperation in police work. International good will toward the U.S. was prominent in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. It has been completely squandered by the Bush administration, who have succeeded in the dubious achievement of uniting most of the world against us.

You won’t hear the Bush administration or the Democrats talk about these types of solutions, because they are not serious about reducing terrorism. Their primary goals are political and economic power for themselves and their clients in corporate America, who fund their campaigns. First in importance among these corporate donors are the energy companies, who help so much to put the “conflict” in “conflic of interest.” Terrorism is the natural outcome of such arrangements, and is seen as worth the price.

These proposals would cost money, but probably not as much money as will be spent on useless weapons systems like “Star Wars” (not very helpful in fighting fanatics armed with box cutters) and perpetual wars involving the bombing of brown-skinned people. Needless to say, in addition to increasing our security dramatically, radical policies would have tremendous environmental and economic benefits. In the end, they would likely generate revenue and help to democratize our economy.

We know that anyone driving an S.U.V. while waving a flag is either ignorant or in serious denial concerning world politics. But how many Americans would consider the above solutions? How scared are we? How serious are we? What are we willing to give up?

When we see the opposition to the above proposals in congress, we can conclude at the very least that our problems are not technical, but political. A necessary first step to the realization of the above program would therefore be to implement real democracy in America. This would involve, among other reforms, public financing of political campaigns, as the citizens of Maine have done, and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which recently passed in San Francisco.

If terrorism is a long-term threat to the innocent citizens of the United States, and it will be as long as we continue with our imperial policies, than we should be looking at long-term solutions, not short-term bombing campaigns. Let’s demonstrate a seriousness about a subject that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal refuse to take seriously. Let’s admit that the only serious solutions are utopian.


Chris Siebert is a blues and jazz piano player and the bandleader for Lavay Smith and her Red Hot Skillet Lickers. He lives in San Francisco when he’s not on tour in the U.S., Canada, or Japan. He can be reached at lavay@lavaysmith.com. Reposted from Common Dreams.

Read Dr. Timothy Wilken: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment, 2) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children, 3) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale, 4) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community and 5) Synergic Disarmament

Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman: 1) Aggression and Violence 2) Evolution of Weaponry and 3) Psychological Effects of Combat
 

Working Together

Monday, November 18th, 2002

As I explained in last month’s SafeEarth Series, guns are tools made for killing humans. They cause much more harm than they do good. We need less guns not more. In our present world, most humans are seeking money. They get money by selling products. When guns are products, they get sold to anyone who can afford them.

The following article was published in the December 2, 2002 issue of The Nation .


The Guns of Opa-Locka:
How US Dealers Arm the World

Jake Bergman and Julia Reynolds

A few years ago, the government of Colombia asked the United States to trace nearly fifty MAK-90 rifles it had seized from the National Liberation Army, or ELN. It turned out these rifles had been obtained by Colombian gun traffickers after being purchased at retail stores in the Miami area. The ELN is on the State Department’s foreign terror watch list. Yet, like many other underground armies around the world, it buys its weapons in one of the world’s freest arms markets. “The United States has for many years been a warehouse, a shopping center, if you will, for firearms,” says retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (AFT) resident agent in charge Daniel McBride, “because of the ease of acquisition, not just in the state of Florida but typically throughout the United States. We are a very easy place from which to obtain firearms for transshipment back home.”

Law enforcement officials describe the United States as a one-stop shop for the guns sought by terrorists, mercenaries and international criminals of all stripes. And September 11 has not changed that in any significant way. In fact, Attorney General John Ashcroft has refused to permit the use of gun purchase records to track crimes, a practice that the FBI had previously used and that conceivably could help to identify terrorists. Nor did Ashcroft propose closing gun loopholes as part of the USA Patriot Act. The result of the lax US system, says McBride, is “an ongoing cycle” in which weapons bought here end up fueling violence abroad, and in which America is regarded as the firearms “shopping center for the world.”

Lobster Air and Gun Land

The story of a ragtag South Florida outfit called Lobster Air International illustrates just how easy US gun purchases can be. In the summer of 1998 Stephen Jorgensen began buying the first of what were eventually more than 800 MAK-90 semiautomatic rifles at a store called Gun Land in Kissimmee, Florida. He did not have a resale permit–known as a Federal Firearms License, or FFL–and he was not required to present one. But Jorgensen wasn’t stockpiling the guns for his personal use; he was taking them to Opa-Locka airport near Miami and loading them aboard a light airplane headed for airstrips in Venezuela and Colombia, via Haiti.

Jorgensen’s South American clients originally wanted AK-47s, but in the United States, the fully automatic AK-47 can be purchased from a dealer only with a Class 3 permit, which is difficult to obtain. The AK was modified in 1990 to get around the California Assault Weapons Ban–hence MAK-90, or “Modified AK 1990.” It is virtually identical to the AK-47 but costs only $200 to $300, compared with $1,000 to $3,000 for a Russian-made AK-47. It is exempt from the national Assault Weapons Ban, enacted after the California ban, because it has slight alterations that give it a hunting-rifle appearance. Jorgensen, a hefty man with an easygoing manner, says the distinction is absurd. “These weapons happened to be a loophole because they didn’t have a pistol grip on the stock. They had a thumbhole. How ridiculous!” The MAK-90 can use the same caliber bullet as the AK-47, and it can be converted to fully automatic with rudimentary mechanical skills; a number of websites offer kits and instructions.

The smuggling operation began when a lieutenant colonel of the Venezuelan Air Force asked Rafael Ceruelos if he knew anyone who could buy guns. Ceruelos, of Cuban origin, is a self-described import-export businessman who had already been doing business with the colonel, selling him aircraft parts through connections he had with an aircraft broker from Texas. Ceruelos speaks in a raspy voice, a more sophisticated version of Al Pacino’s gruff Tony Montana character from Scarface. He likes to use words like “friggin’” a lot. He says that he just wanted to keep his clients happy.

Ceruelos says the Texan hooked him up with Jorgensen, an old Vietnam War buddy in Tampa who could get weapons at a discount. In 1998 several meetings took place in Dallas, Miami and Caracas to orchestrate a deal, which included setting up Lobster Air to import lobsters to the United States from Haiti. According to Jorgensen, the Venezuelan colonel and the interests he represented put up the money to buy an Aero Commander aircraft. Jorgensen contracted boat operators to circle Haiti and collect lobsters from remote villages, but that part of the plan never went forward. Lobster Air was apparently not in the business of selling lobsters.

On January 3, 1999, US Customs agents, acting on what they thought was a drug tip, stopped the Aero Commander, bound for South America, on a runway at Opa-Locka. But there were no drugs; instead, the plane was loaded with seventy-eight disassembled MAK-90s inside blue gym bags, along with 9,000 rounds of ammunition. Customs and ATF sources now say that Lobster Air’s weapons were headed to Colombia’s FARC rebels, another group on the State Department’s terror list. But McBride, the retired ATF agent, says that “when guns are going into Colombia, there are a number of potential sources they could be going to, including the drug cartels, the various insurgency groups, paramilitary forces over there…. [It's] very difficult to tell exactly where those guns were going to go, unless you were fortunate enough to get some confiscated and then have the traces run back.”

Jorgensen was detained and interrogated. Facing indictment on weapons and conspiracy charges, he quickly agreed to cooperate with what was now a US Customs-ATF investigation. Meanwhile, Ceruelos proceeded to concoct more business. Jorgensen, however, was recording their conversations for federal prosecutors. The Venezuelan customers needed 200,000 rounds of ammunition, so Ceruelos agreed that Jorgensen would buy the ammo at a local gun shop in 10,000-round increments, so as not to arouse suspicion. Jorgensen assured Ceruelos, “They don’t monitor buying the ammunition; you don’t sign, nobody knows you bought it. So that’s a fairly low risk.”

With the secret recordings in prosecutors’ hands, Jorgensen and Ceruelos were soon indicted–not for buying the guns, but for violating the Arms Export Control Act. Ceruelos served fifteen months and Jorgensen received only probation, thanks to his cooperation and what he describes as a “sterling military record.” It may be surprising to learn that buying hundreds of MAK-90s and thousands of rounds of ammunition that could supply US-designated terrorist organizations doesn’t raise any eyebrows. But there is simply no requirement for gun stores to report suspicious activity. If a customer buys more than one handgun in five days, the store must report the sales to ATF, but the MAK-90 comes with no such restriction. Nor does ammunition. Some gun-store owners say they voluntarily tip off ATF to suspicious buyers, usually after the sale is made and the money collected.

‘Bubba Did It’

When Gun Land’s owner, William Ben Woodall, answers the phone, he doesn’t use his real name. “Tell ‘em Bubba did it,” he laughs. “Bubba” says there’s no limit to the number of guns that someone can buy in Florida. He says he’d probably call ATF if someone came in to buy hundreds of semiautomatic rifles, but that if the person “looked right and acted right” and passed the NICS test–the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which requires gun-shop owners to call ATF and check whether a client is a felon or is otherwise prohibited from buying guns–he’d have no problem. Such a purchase, he says, is ultimately a customer’s right. “Cars kill more people than guns,” he says.

Weapons sold over the counter can quickly find themselves bound by air for distant countries. Since September 11, 2001, Customs has stepped up its monitoring of outbound small aircraft, but such inspections are aimed more at stopping the delivery of components used in weapons of mass destruction, like triggering devices or plutonium, than at halting gun shipments. McBride says we should also be concerned about guns. Recalling a 1985 rampage by one guerrilla group, he says, “The M-19 raided and assaulted the Palace of Justice in Colombia, killing 115 people, eleven Supreme Court justices, and wiped out the Supreme Court of the country of Colombia. And these were guns that were subsequently traced back to the United States.”

McBride says South Florida investigators came to see a connection between purchases here and violence abroad. “We would see, all of a sudden, a rash of large gun purchases, a large quantity of gun purchases throughout South Florida. We would find that then, a month or two months later, we would see a coup take place in Haiti.” McBride adds that Florida is especially attractive to South and Central America, “because of our geographic location [and] the ease with which firearms can be secured here.”

Guns and the War on Terror

After September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft told the nation, “It’s our position at the Justice Department and the position of this Administration that we need to unleash every possible tool in the fight against terrorism, and to do so promptly.” The resulting USA Patriot Act includes broad changes in surveillance, information sharing and intelligence tools available to law enforcement. Although the “Patriot” part of the act’s title refers to “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” the act contains no new provisions for the monitoring or control of firearms.

One tool became apparent in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, when agents from ATF asked the FBI to cross-check a list of terrorist suspects against NICS records of approved gun purchasers. The records ATF wanted the FBI to examine were the normal background check records of potential gun purchasers, which are kept for ninety days. But when the FBI began its NICS checks, Attorney General Ashcroft and Justice Department officials stepped in and told the FBI it was out of bounds.

“This decision by the Attorney General was surprising in that he didn’t place officer safety and the security of the American people first,” says a former official at the Treasury Department, which oversees ATF. Kenneth James, recently appointed to the firearms committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, agrees. “If we have some form of identifying who of these terrorists may have had guns, that just makes our investigation and the people who are out there on the frontlines that much safer.”

Ashcroft defended his decision on legal grounds. “It’s my belief,” he said, “that the United States Congress specifically outlaws and bans the use of the NICS database–and that’s the use of approved purchase records–for weapons checks on possible terrorists or on anyone else.” But an internal Justice Department memo shows that Ashcroft’s own office of legal counsel believed otherwise and supported the longtime FBI practice of using NICS records in criminal investigations. “We see nothing in the NICS regulations,” the memo read, “that prohibits the FBI from deriving additional benefits from checking audit log records.”

Mathew Nosanchuk once worked for the Justice Department, where he became an expert on law enforcement’s use of NICS. He now works for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun-control group. Ashcroft, Nosanchuk says, is forcing the FBI and ATF to “conduct the post-September 11 investigation with one hand tied behind their backs.” Nosanchuk says Ashcroft’s stance “really underscores his allegiance to the agenda of the gun lobby.” The National Rifle Association’s position is that NICS “has serious flaws that must be corrected.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA and related pro-gun lobbyists contributed $48,900 to Ashcroft’s failed 2000 Senate re-election bid. Federal Election Commission filings indicate the NRA also spent $239,000 on independent TV and radio ads, billboards and bumper stickers supporting Ashcroft’s campaign. Later, the NRA Political Victory Fund spent more than $100,000 on an endorsement letter and $19,000 on bumper stickers at the time of Ashcroft’s Justice Department confirmation.

Law enforcement has increasingly found guns to be a critical source of evidence in its investigations of terrorists and other criminal groups. It was the suspects’ outdoor shooting activities that led to the October arrests of four alleged Al Qaeda trainees in Oregon and Michigan. As Ashcroft himself pointed out, members of the group “acquired various firearms and engaged in weapons training and physical training in preparation to fight a jihad.” Among the detainees swept up in the weeks after 9/11 were several members of Al-Fuqra, a domestic group suspected of at least seventeen firebombings and thirteen homicides in the United States. Three Al-Fuqra members were arrested and convicted of illegally buying assault rifles, pistols and AK-47 ammunition in rural Virginia. A prior weapons-violation warrant was used to detain last month’s Washington-area snipers until murder charges could be filed. (The Bushmaster rifle the snipers used is another modified weapon designed to avoid the Assault Weapons Ban.)

Even international criminals criticize America’s lax gun laws and say they inevitably lead to international trafficking. Conor Claxton, who was convicted of smuggling more than 100 guns from Florida to the Irish Republican Army in 1999, said the group did its shopping near Fort Lauderdale because “we don’t have gun shows in Ireland. You see things here like you never imagined.” Rafael Ceruelos, who has lived in Spain since serving time for his offenses, says, “The right to bear arms made sense 200 years ago but not now.” He adds, “As long as people can buy weapons in gun shops, there will be people from other countries who want to do business with them.”

Copyright © 2002 The Nation


Jake Bergman is a reporter for public radio KQED in northern California. Julia Reynolds, a reporter with the Center for Investigative Journalism, is the editor of El Andar magazine.

Reposted from Common Dreams.


Read Dr. Timothy Wilken: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment, 2) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children, 3) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale, 4) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community and 5) Synergic Disarmament

Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman: 1) Aggression and Violence 2) Evolution of Weaponry and 3) Psychological Effects of Combat
 

Working Together

Sunday, November 17th, 2002

Reposted from The Moscow Times.


Taking the Fifth

Chris Floyd

Since last we met, George W. Bush has been enthroned in near-absolute power by a whopping, er, 21 percent of the American electorate, which narrowly voted in a slate of congressional Republican rubber-stamps — who bid fair to outdo Baghdad’s parliamentarians in their cringing obedience to the all-wise Leader.

Now, you might think that a government unsupported by a full 79 percent of the voters — the 60 percent who opted out altogether plus the 19 percent who held their noses and voted for the tub of wriggling, gutless jellyfish the Democrats offered — could hardly claim a “mandate” for its extremist program of permanent war, environmental destruction, tycoon coddling and savage rapine of the nation’s liberties. But you, boychik, would be wrong.

After all, the Bush junta had already seized the White House against the clearly expressed will of the people. They certainly wouldn’t blanche at claiming a mandate from God after capturing Congress as well, even with a vicious campaign of unprecedented sleaze (and record-breaking oodles of fat-cat boodle) that, among countless other things, smeared a war-crippled Vietnam veteran as an Osama-loving traitor (for lack of proper zeal in supporting the Oval One), threatened black voters in Baltimore with jail or eviction if they dared cast their ballots, kept tens of thousands of illegally “purged” voters off the rolls in Florida (again!) and romped home to several “surprising upsets” by razor-thin margins in places using new computer voting gizmos owned — and programmed — by private companies run by Republican donors who refuse to allow any public scrutiny whatsoever of the “proprietary” software that processes the now-paperless, recordless votes.

No, 21 percent means Mandate City for the mud-slinging mullahs, and they are now advancing their extremist agenda on every front: a Blitzkrieg designed to gut the remaining vestiges of genuine democracy and install a monolithic state based on militarized nationalism and the spoils of empire. In addition to giving even more tax cuts to the rich, rolling back even more environmental safeguards and lining up even more bagmen and religious cranks for the federal judiciary, they’ve also been busy knee-capping an international treaty outlawing torture — wouldn’t want to upset the eager viceroys in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc., who “vigorously interrogate” prisoners for the Regime. (Like his corporate cronies, Bush likes to move his more dubious activities to off-shore havens).

Then of course there’s the new penchant for “targeted assassination.” Brays of teeth-baring triumph greeted the killing of a carload of suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen by a remote-controlled CIA drone. (Yes, we know there’s a remote-controlled CIA drone currently residing in the Oval Office, but this was a different one.) This adventure in extra-judicial, extra-territorial execution is only the beginning, excited security officials told an enthralled media. There was, of course, one little problem: the missile blast apparently left all the victims burned beyond recognition; even the identity of the primary target, an alleged bin Laden lieutenant, was disputed by witnesses.

As for the other five men in the car — including, apparently, an American citizen, although nobody knows for sure — who cares? In fact, that was the general consensus all around. Either it was bin Laden’s guys or it wasn’t, either they were hardcore gangbangers or they weren’t — guilt or innocence is beside the point. The point is that Bush can now aim and fire his drones anywhere in the world he damn well pleases, and nothing — certainly not law, or that stinking rag, the U.S. Constitution — is going to stop him.

There was also the final scene in the drawing-room comedy being played out in the UN, where Bush pretended to consult with the Security Council and Council members pretended they were acting to “prevent war and preserve the UN’s credibility.” Meanwhile, the Bush boys were backstage twisting arms and issuing threats over oil deals and debt servicing. The whole pantomime was merely a time-killer, something to do while the Generalissimo continues his massive build-up for the already-announced “optimum invasion window” of late December to mid-February.

Finally, if that don’t float your boat, try this: The Pentagon announced last week that it’s building a computer system to give government spies and federal cops “instant access to electronic information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents — without a search warrant,” the New York Times reports (italics added). This global eye will be aimed not only at international terrorists but also at the United States — whose citizens will at last be stripped of their remaining rights to privacy.

But rest assured, the spy program “won’t be abused,” says the Pentagon honcho in charge of the plan. And who is this comforting, fatherly figure? None other than Vice Admiral John Poindexter. That would be the same John Poindexter who was convicted on five felony counts in the Iran-Contra affair — including lying, under oath, to Congress and the American people.

Poindexter was a key operator in the Reagan-Bush scam that funneled deadly weapons to the terrorist-succoring regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, in exchange for blood money that the Reagan-Bush team then used to pay off the terrorist army it was running in Nicaragua — an army schooled with CIA manuals on torture and assassination. Poindexter and the other thugs also threw some drug-running into the mix, just to keep the kitty flush.

But hey, we’re sure the convicted oathbreaker is telling the truth this time. How sure, you ask? Oh, about 21 percent sure.


Chris Floyd is a regular columnist for The Moscow Times