A Father's Plea: The Persecution of John Walker Lindh

America's 'Detainee 001' – The Persecution of John Walker Lindh

Frank Lindh, father of 'American Taliban' John Walker Lindh, explains why his son is an innocent victim of America's 'war on terror'

By Frank Lindh

July 11. 2011 "The Guardian" -- John Phillip Walker Lindh, my son, was raised a Roman Catholic, but converted to Islam when he was 16 years old. He has an older brother and a younger sister. John is scholarly and devout, devoted to his family, and blessed with a powerful intellect, a curious mind, and a wry sense of humour.

Labelled by the American government as "Detainee 001" in the "war on terror", John occupies a prison cell in Terre Haute, Indiana. He has been a prisoner of the American government since 1 December 2001, less than three months after the terror attacks of 9/11.

John is entirely innocent of any involvement in the terror attacks, or any allegiance to terrorism. That is not disputed by the American government. Indeed, all accusations of terrorism against John were dropped by the government in a plea bargain, which in turn was approved by the US district court in which the case was brought.

Despite its proud history as a stable constitutional democracy, the US has, for 10 years, been affected by post-traumatic shock, following the horrific events of 11 September 2001. I can find no other explanation for the barbaric mistreatment and continued detention of a gentle young man like John Lindh.

John is blessed with a calm and curious nature. As a child, he was more sceptical than our other two children about such things as Santa Claus. When he was 12 years old, he saw the film Malcolm X, and was moved by its depiction of the pilgrims in Mecca. He began to explore Islam and, four years later, decided to convert.

What attracted John to Islam, I think, was the simplicity of its beliefs, and the authenticity of its source documents – the Qur'an and Hadith. It appealed to his intellect as well as his heart. To me and to John's mother, his conversion was a positive development and certainly not a source of worry. I once told him I felt he had always been a Muslim, and only needed to find Islam in order to discover this in himself. He remained the loving son and brother he had always been. There was never a breach of any kind between us.

John had always been a good student, but his study habits improved after his conversion. He immersed himself in Islamic literature, and quickly came to the conclusion that he needed to learn Arabic in order to continue his studies.

In 1998, at the age of 17, John left home in California and travelled to Sana'a, the ancient capital of Yemen, where he embarked on a rigorous course of study. He was determined not only to become fluent in Arabic, but also to pursue an education in the old traditions of Islam. He returned home briefly in 1999, and then returned to Yemen in February 2000, just before his 19th birthday. John's mother and I supported him, emotionally and financially. He remained in close contact with us and with his sister and brother while overseas.

In September 2000, John told me he intended to continue his studies in Pakistan, focusing on Arabic grammar and Qur'an memorisation. I wrote back: "I trust your judgment and hope you have a wonderful adventure." He arrived in Pakistan in November 2000 and enrolled in a Qur'an memorisation programme in a madrasa.

John's letters home showed passionate enthusiasm for both Yemen and Pakistan. He loved the cultures he discovered in both countries. He was a Muslim in a Muslim world.

In late April 2001, John wrote to me and his mother, saying he planned to go into the mountains to escape the oppressive summer heat. We had no further contact from him for seven months. Unbeknown to us, he crossed the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan, with the intent of volunteering for service in the Afghan army under the control of the Taliban government.

John's mother and I grew increasingly worried as the summer passed. John had warned us that there might be gaps in his contact with us, as there were no internet cafes in the mountains of Pakistan from which to send emails. But we did not anticipate such a complete lapse in correspondence from him. We also never guessed he was in Afghanistan rather than Pakistan. John's mother, especially, was frantic with worry as the months passed with no word from him.

At that time, the Taliban governed most of Afghanistan, and were engaged in a long-running civil war against a Russian-backed insurgency known euphemistically as the Northern Alliance. John was quickly accepted as a volunteer soldier, and received two months of infantry training in a Taliban military camp before being dispatched to the front lines.

Rohan Gunaratna, an international terrorism expert and author of the book Inside Al-Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, conducted a lengthy interview with John, and prepared a written report for the American court to which John was brought for trial. Gunaratna is an expert consultant to the US government itself on terrorism matters. "Those who, like Mr Lindh, merely fought the Northern Alliance," he wrote, "cannot be deemed terrorists. Their motivation was to serve and to protect suffering Muslims in Afghanistan, not to kill civilians."

John described his motivation in similar terms. "I felt," he later explained to the court, "that I had an obligation to assist what I perceived to be an Islamic liberation movement against the warlords who were occupying several provinces in northern Afghanistan. I had learned from books, articles and individuals with first-hand experience of numerous atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance against civilians. I had heard reports of massacres, child rape, torture and castration."

To the western world, and to me as John's father after I learned where he had been, this was misplaced idealism. John's decision to volunteer for the army of Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban was rash, and failed to take into account the Taliban's mistreatment of its own citizens. But his assessment of the Northern Alliance warlords was neither exaggerated nor inaccurate. The brutal human rights violations committed by the Northern Alliance were thoroughly documented in the US department of state's annual human rights reports throughout the 90s. They did indeed include massacres, rape (of both women and children), torture and castration.

John's impulse was to help. In doing so, he was responding not only to his own conscience, but to a central tenet of the Islamic faith, which calls upon able-bodied young men to defend innocent Muslim civilians from attack, through military service if necessary. This is not "terrorism" at all, but precisely its opposite.

From the time of the Soviet invasion in 1979, tens of thousands of young Muslim men from all over the world had volunteered, as John did, for military service in Afghanistan. It was comparable to the influx of young volunteer soldiers in support of the republic of Spain during the Spanish civil war.

These young soldiers performed heroically in the defeat of the Soviet Union. Their cause was openly supported by the American government itself, particularly during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, who took office two weeks before John's birth in early 1981.

In March 1982, President Reagan declared: "Every country and every people has a stake in the Afghan resistance, for the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability." In March 1983, he cited "the Afghan freedom fighters" as "an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence". In a March 1985 speech, he said: "They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help… They are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French resistance. We cannot turn away from them."

Given the history of US involvement in Afghanistan, it would seem absurd to suggest that John Lindh was being disloyal to America when he went into Afghanistan in 2001 and joined the army there. If the march of history could be arrested in the spring or summer of 2001, John's odyssey might be regarded as quixotic and unusual for a young American, but not in the least bit sinister, and certainly not criminal in nature. In fact, John's concern about the suffering of people in Afghanistan was shared by his own government. On 21 July 2000, for example, the US department of state issued a "fact sheet" that reported that the US was "the largest single donor of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people".

The US also provided substantial economic assistance directly to the Taliban government. In May 2001, for example, the American government under President George W Bush announced a grant of $43m to the Taliban government for opium eradication. Secretary of State Colin Powell personally announced the grant himself in a press release and pledged: "We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans." The New York Times called this "a first, cautious step toward reducing the isolation of the Taliban" by the new Bush administration.

This is not to suggest the US was entirely friendly with the Taliban. In 1999, President Clinton placed the Taliban government under economic sanctions as a consequence of its human rights violations, particularly against women. But there were no hostilities between the US and the Taliban, and by 2001 relations were improving.





In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a nightmarish world of perpetual war, in which two massive nations, Oceania and Eastasia, are aligned against a third nation state known as Eurasia. The alliance between Oceania and Eastasia ends, and Eastasia then begins fighting alongside Eurasia against Oceania. In what Orwell famously called "doublethink", the population of Oceania then is taught to believe "we have always been at war with Eastasia".

Something eerily similar happened in the US after 9/11. Thirty years of American policy abruptly changed and America swung to the opposite side. The Taliban became our enemy. "They have always been our enemy" is what people in America came to believe.

In October 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan and aligned itself with the Northern Alliance in order to oust the Taliban government. Colin Powell's April press release was quietly removed from the state department's website.

In early September 2001, days before the 9/11 attacks, John arrived at his military post in the province of Takhar in the far north-eastern corner of Afghanistan, near the border of Tajikistan. This was the frontline in the civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. John was issued with a rifle and two hand grenades – standard issue for an infantry soldier. He performed sentry duty and did some cooking for the Taliban troops. He never used his weapons. He served with a number of other foreign volunteer soldiers. They were called Ansar, an Arabic term meaning "helpers".

The training camp in Afghanistan where the Ansar received their infantry training was funded by Osama bin Laden, who also visited the camp on a regular basis. He was regarded by the volunteer soldiers as a hero in the struggle against the Soviet Union. These soldiers did not suspect Bin Laden's involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out in secret. John himself sat through speeches by Bin Laden in the camp on two occasions, and actually met Bin Laden on the second such occasion. John has said he found him unimpressive.

After 9/11, America's intelligence agencies came under intense scrutiny for their failure to anticipate and prevent the attacks, and their apparent inability to track down Osama bin Laden. It is a curious fact of history that John Lindh, an idealistic 20-year-old Californian, suspecting nothing of bin Laden's connections to terrorism, was able without difficulty to meet this notorious figure in the summer of 2001. Why American intelligence agents were unable to do so remains unexplained. John himself did not believe he was encountering a terrorist. John knew only that bin Laden had been generous in funding the military camp, and he was able to discern that Bin Laden was not a legitimate scholar or leader in the traditions of Islam.

The American invasion of Afghanistan commenced in October 2001. Few American troops were deployed in the northern reaches of Afghanistan. The Americans relied on Northern Alliance forces as their proxy, combined with aerial bombing, to displace the Taliban forces.

The front between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance in Takhar where John was stationed quickly dissolved after the bombing commenced. Taliban troops fled in panicked retreat to Kunduz. They marched without stop for two days, covering a distance of 50 miles of harsh, desert terrain. The conditions were hellish. The Northern Alliance troops killed all stragglers who fell behind, often castrating them before killing them.

The soldiers at Kunduz who wished to surrender faced a terrible dilemma. For years it had been the practice of the Northern Alliance to torture and murder prisoners of war. These crimes were legendary and well known to both the Taliban soldiers and the US government.

John's lawyers later obtained from the American government an unclassified cable sent from the US embassy in Kunduz on 20 November 2001, to Colin Powell and the joint chiefs of staff. The cable was labelled "priority". It bore the subject line: "Kunduz representatives appeal for a bombing halt during surrender negotiations." It said that, according to local authorities in Kunduz, Taliban soldiers trapped in Kunduz "wanted to surrender to someone who would not kill them". This was described as a "sticking point" in the surrender negotiations. The Taliban, according to the cable, had "proposed surrendering to the US or the UN". The cable confirmed that the American authorities had informed their counterparts in Kunduz that "neither was a realistic option and suggested that they seek the [Red Cross's] involvement if they had not done so already".

On 21 November 2001, the regional Taliban military leader, Mullah Fazel Mazloom, entered into face-to-face surrender negotiations with General Abdul Rashid Dostum of the Northern Alliance. The pact was destined not to end well. Dostum was a notorious figure who had served as an officer in the Soviet occupation government. Troops under Dostum's command were believed responsible for the mass execution of an alleged 2,000 Taliban prisoners captured near Mazar-i-Sharif in 1997. The New Yorker magazine has referred to Dostum as "perhaps Afghanistan's most notorious warlord", a man who is "viewed by most human rights organisations as among the worst war criminals in the country".

Nonetheless, a bargain was reached in which Dostum demanded and received a large cash payment, then agreed to grant approximately 400 disarmed Taliban soldiers safe passage through Dostum-controlled territory to the city of Herat. John, in haggard condition after the march through Takhar, was among those 400 troops.

The Taliban soldiers had no sooner laid down their arms when Dostum breached the agreement. Instead of the safe passage they had been promised, the soldiers were loaded into trucks and diverted to the ancient Qala-i-Jangi fortress on the outskirts of Mazar-i-Sharif. As the prisoners were being unloaded in the courtyard, John heard a loud explosion when one of the prisoners detonated a grenade that he had concealed. Two of Dostum's men were killed in the blast.

Dostum's soldiers quickly regained control, but they were infuriated. The prisoners were crowded into the basement of a sturdy, pink Soviet-built classroom building adjacent to a horse pasture. The "pink building", as it became known, was at the centre of the events that unfolded over the next seven days. It was dark in the basement rooms into which the 400 men were crowded. To retaliate for the earlier attack, Dostum's men dropped a grenade down an air duct that wounded or killed several prisoners, narrowly missing John, who spent the night crouched in a corner unable to sleep.

The next morning, Sunday 25 November, was sunny and warm at the Qala-i-Jangi fortress. Video footage shows a seemingly calm scene as the prisoners, with arms tied behind backs, are led out of the basement and made to kneel in rows in the horse pasture beside the pink building. The main sound on the film is the chirping of hundreds of birds. Dostum's men were rough. Some prisoners were kicked and beaten with sticks. John was hit in the back of the head and nearly knocked unconscious. Nonetheless, he hoped they would be released for the agreed upon journey to Herat.

Although there were no US or British troops at the fortress that morning, two American intelligence agents were present, dressed in civilian clothes. They circulated among the prisoners, occasionally giving instructions to Dostum's guards. One of them, Dave Tyson, was dressed in a long Afghan shirt and carried a large gun and a video camera. The other, Johnny "Mike" Spann, a former marine, was dressed in a black shirt and jeans. He was also armed. As they moved among the prisoners, they singled out captives for interrogation. They never identified themselves as American agents, and so they appeared to John and the other prisoners to be mercenaries working directly for General Dostum.

John was spotted and removed from the body of prisoners for questioning. The moment was recorded on video and later seen by millions on television.

In the video, John sits mutely on the ground as he is questioned about his nationality.

"Irish? Ireland?" Spann asks.

John remains silent.
American Among Taliban Prisoners John Walker Lindh at the Qala-i-Jangi fortress on 3 December 2001, awaiting treatment from the Red Cross, having been captured by US forces. Photograph: James Hill/Getty Images

"Who brought you here?… You believe in what you are doing that much, you're willing to be killed here?"

Still no reply.

Tyson to Spann [for John's benefit]: "The problem is, he's got to decide if he wants to live or die, and die here. We're just going to leave him, and he's going to [expletive] sit in prison the rest of his [expletive] short life. It's his decision, man. We can only help the guys who want to talk to us. We can only get the Red Cross to help so many guys."

I think it was apparent that Spann and Tyson were American agents, but because they were in the company of Dostum's forces, unaccompanied by American troops, it clearly was not safe for John to talk to them. They meant business when they said John might be killed by Dostum, and that the Red Cross could only "help so many guys". John was in extreme peril at that moment, and he knew it.

John was then returned to the main body of prisoners, while others were still being brought out of the basement and forced to kneel in the horse pasture. Then, suddenly, there was an explosion at the entrance to the basement, shouts were heard, and two prisoners grabbed the guards' weapons. According to Guardian journalist Luke Harding's account: "It was then… that Spann 'did a Rambo'. As the remaining guards ran away, Spann flung himself to the ground and began raking the courtyard and its prisoners with automatic fire. Five or six prisoners jumped on him, and he disappeared beneath a heap of bodies."

Spann's body was later recovered by US special forces troops. He was the first American to die in combat in the American–Afghan war. He was buried with full military honours at Arlington National Cemetery, near Washington.

As soon as the uprising began, the Northern Alliance guards turned their weapons on the 400 bound prisoners, killing or severely wounding scores of them. Some prisoners tried to stand and run; they were gunned down. It was a slaughter. John tried to run, but he was shot in the right thigh and fell to the ground. For the next 12 hours he lay motionless, pretending to be dead.

There were two groups of Taliban prisoners in the fortress: those who chose to fight and those who hunkered down in the basement of the pink building and tried to survive. John was in the latter group. The prisoners who fought put up a fierce resistance, looting buildings for weapons and ammunition, firing from windows, rooftops, and ditches. Using a satellite phone, Dave Tyson, who had just seen his colleague killed, telephoned the US embassy in Tashkent, shouting: "We have lost control. Send in helicopters and troops." US air controllers stationed outside the fortress walls called in air strikes, which struck with devastating impact inside the fortress.

More air raids were staged the next day, Monday, when a massive 2,000lb bomb was dropped. It missed its intended target, the pink building, and hit Dostum's soldiers. This "friendly fire" incident brought an end to the air strikes. For John and the other Taliban soldiers holed up in the basement of the pink building, the percussive effect of the bomb shook them to their bones and left them trembling.

By Wednesday, the last of the resisting Taliban fighters had been killed, and Dostum's soldiers were once again in full control of the fortress. Luke Harding was allowed into the compound along with some other journalists, and he found a horrific scene: "We had expected slaughter, but I was unprepared for its hellish scale… It was hard to take it all in. The dead and various parts of the dead… turned up wherever you looked: in thickets of willows and poplars; in waterlogged ditches; in storage rooms piled with ammunition boxes." Harding observed that many of the Taliban prisoners had died with their hands tied behind their backs.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Dostum's troops engaged in a sustained effort to kill the Taliban survivors who remained in the basement of the pink building, which they were afraid to enter themselves. More grenades were dropped down the air ducts and RPGs were fired directly into the basement. John received shrapnel wounds in his shoulder, back, ankle and calf, in addition to the bullet still lodged in his thigh. At one point, fuel was poured down the air ducts and a fire was ignited in which some fuel-drenched prisoners were burned to death. John, choking on the black smoke, lost consciousness. He awoke with the taste of gasoline in his mouth and loud explosions in the hall, as more rockets and grenades ricocheted through the basement.

On Friday, Dostum's troops tried yet another tactic. They flooded the basement with cold water. Unable to stand on his own, John braced himself on a stick and a fellow soldier for the next 24 hours to avoid drowning in the waist-deep water, which was full of blood and waste. The next morning no one inside the fortress thought it possible that anyone was still alive in the pink building, but 86 of the prisoners had managed to survive the week-long ordeal. One of them was John Lindh.



On Saturday 1 December, the Red Cross arrived at the fortress and the survivors, who for several days had been trying to surrender, were finally allowed to exit the basement. When they emerged into the bright sunlight, they encountered a confusing horde of journalists, Red Cross workers, Dostum's soldiers, and British and American troops.

That evening John and the other survivors were taken to a prison hospital in Sheberghan. Although wet and cold from the flooding of the basement, they were transported in open bed trucks in the frigid night air. At Sheberghan, John was carried on a stretcher and set down in a small room with approximately 15 other prisoners. CNN correspondent Robert Pelton came in accompanied by a US special forces soldier and a cameraman. Despite John's protests, Pelton persisted in filming John and asking questions as an American medical officer administered morphine intravenously. By the time he departed a short time later, Pelton had captured on videotape an interview in which John said that his "heart had become attached" to the Taliban, that every Muslim aspired to become a shahid, or martyr, and that he had attended a training camp funded by Osama bin Laden.

The CNN interview became a sensation in the US. By mid-December, virtually every newspaper in America was running front-page stories about the American Taliban, and the broadcast media were saturated with features and commentary about John. Here was a "traitor" who had "fought against America" and aligned himself with the 11 September terrorists. Newsweek magazine published an issue with John's photograph on the cover, under the caption "American Taliban".

Beginning in early December, President Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, members of the cabinet and other officials then embarked on a series of truly extraordinary public statements about John, referring to him repeatedly as an "al-Qaida fighter", a terrorist and a traitor. I think it fair to say there has never been a case quite like this in the history of the US, in which officials at the highest levels of the government made such prejudicial statements about an individual citizen who had not yet been charged with any crime.

I will offer only a small sample of these statements. In an interview at the White House on 21 December 2001, President Bush said John was "the first American al-Qaida fighter that we have captured". Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, told reporters at a press briefing that John had been "captured by US forces with an AK-47 in his hands". Colin Powell, secretary of state, said John had "brought shame upon his family". Rudy Giuliani, New York mayor, remarked: "I believe the death penalty is the appropriate remedy to consider."

John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, staged two televised press conferences in which he accused John of attacking the US. "Americans who love their country do not dedicate themselves to killing Americans," he declared.

A federal judge took the unusual step of writing to the New York Times criticising the attorney general for violating "Justice Department guidelines on the release of information related to criminal proceedings that are intended to ensure that a defendant is not prejudiced when such an announcement is made".

Even the ultra-conservative National Review thought Ashcroft had gone too far in making such prejudicial comments about a pending prosecution. It criticised the comments as "inappropriate" and "gratuitous", stating that in the future "it would be better for the attorney general simply to announce the facts of the indictments, and to avoid extra comments which might unintentionally imperil successful prosecutions".

I am a lawyer, trained in the law, with more than 25 years of experience. Never have I seen or read about a case in which a person accused of a crime was so conspicuously deprived of what we call "the presumption of innocence". On the contrary, my son was presumed guilty, not only by government officials but by the entire mainstream journalism and media establishment in America. It was – and still is – widely reported in America that John Lindh is a "terrorist" who fought against the US.

Our lives back home were completely upturned by the sudden and pervasive notoriety of John's case. We found ourselves dodging television cameras and reporters. In the first couple of days after John's capture, I appeared on several news programmes in an effort to explain who John was and to ask for mercy. My sense of privacy and anonymity were at least temporarily destroyed.

All of us in John's family also were wracked with anxiety about John's own physical and emotional wellbeing. We had no source of information about John from within the government itself. They were holding our son incommunicado, even as President Bush and other officials made repeated statements about him. Anything we were able to learn about John came from the news media, not from the government.

Happily, our neighbours, friends, co-workers and even strangers in California were uniformly warm and supportive towards me, John's mother and our other children. One Sunday, on my way to church, a friendly stranger stopped his car and shouted to me: "How's John?"
John Walker Lindh’s father and mother John Walker Lindh’s father, Frank, and mother, Marilyn, outside the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, 2002. Photograph: Hillery Smith Garrison/AP

Another enormous source of comfort to us came from James Brosnahan, a distinguished and courageous trial lawyer in San Francisco who agreed to represent John. On 3 December, Brosnahan took up his case, and from that day forward we had a valiant defender in him and the other lawyers who worked on the defence team. It felt as if a protective shield had been constructed around John and all of us in the family.





Once John was in the custody of the US military, the US government had to decide what to do with him. The FBI has estimated that during the 90s as many as 2,000 American citizens travelled to Muslim lands to take up arms voluntarily, and that as many as 400 American Muslims received training in military camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. None of these American citizens was indicted, or labelled as traitor and terrorist. They were simply ignored by their government, which made no attempt to interfere with their travel. But the 9/11 attacks changed everything, and it was the timing of John's capture that contributed to his fate. It soon became apparent to me that, rather than simply repatriate my wounded son, the government was intent on prosecuting him as a "terrorist".

In the days and weeks that followed, John endured abuse from the US military that exceeded the bounds of what any civilised nation should tolerate, even in time of war. Donald Rumsfeld directly ordered the military to "take the gloves off" in questioning John.

On 7 December, wounded and still suffering from the effects of the trauma at Qala-i-Jangi, John was flown to Camp Rhino, a US marine base approximately 70 miles south of Kandahar. There he was taunted and threatened, stripped of his clothing, and bound naked to a stretcher with duct tape wrapped around his chest, arms, and ankles. Even before he got to Camp Rhino, John's wrists and ankles were bound with plastic restraints that caused severe pain and left permanent scars – sure proof of torture. Still blindfolded, he was locked in an unheated metal shipping container that sat on the desert floor. He shivered uncontrollably in the bitter cold. Soldiers outside pounded on the sides, threatening to kill him.

After two days in these circumstances, John was removed from the shipping container and taken into a building at Camp Rhino. When his blindfold was removed, John found himself in front of a man who identified himself as an FBI agent and then read from an advice-of-rights form. When the agent reached the part that concerned right to counsel, he said: "Of course, there are no lawyers here." John was not told his mother and I had retained an attorney for him who was ready and willing to travel to Afghanistan. Worried that he would be returned to the shipping container if he did not sign the form, John signed the waiver.

A lengthy interrogation followed, after which US military personnel put John back in the metal shipping container, although this time his leg restraints were loosened and he was no longer bound by duct tape or blindfolded. On 14 December, he was placed on board the USS Peleliu, where navy physicians observed that he was suffering from dehydration, hypothermia, and frostbite, and that he could not walk. On 15 December, the bullet was finally removed from his leg in a surgical procedure – more than two weeks after he had been transferred to the custody of the US military. The doctor who removed the bullet later told John's lawyers there had been little or no healing of the wound, which he attributed to malnutrition and cold.

In June 2002, Newsweek obtained copies of internal email messages from the justice department's ethics office commenting on the Lindh case as the events were unfolding in December 2001. The office specifically warned in advance against the interrogation tactics the FBI used at Camp Rhino, and concluded that the interrogation of John without his lawyer present would be unlawful and unethical. This advice was ignored by the FBI agent who conducted the interrogation.

Interestingly, in an 10 December email, one of the justice department ethics lawyers noted: "At present, we have no knowledge that he did anything other than join the Taliban."





The government brought 10 counts against John in its overblown indictment. "If convicted of these charges," attorney general Ashcroft boasted, "Walker Lindh could receive multiple life sentences, six additional 10-year sentences, plus 30 years." The most serious count was a charge of conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the death of Mike Spann. The charge was groundless: the prisoner uprising at the Qala-i-Jangi fortress had been spontaneous and John was also a victim, not a participant.

John arrived back in the US on 23 January 2002 in chains aboard a military plane that landed at Washington Dulles International airport. The government selected Dulles so they could bring charges against John in northern Virginia, near the Pentagon (one of the 9/11 targets), where hostility against John was assured. He was flown by helicopter to the Alexandria City Jail. John's mother and I tried to visit him that night, along with the lawyers we had retained for him, but we were turned away. We finally were able to see our son the next morning in a holding cell on the first floor of the US courthouse. His lawyers met him only briefly before his first appearance in the court that morning.

The case of United States of America v John Philip Walker Lindh was set for trial before Judge T S Ellis III. On 24 January, the judge announced he was setting a trial date for late August. We were horrified, as this would ensure that John would be on trial on the first anniversary of 9/11. It would be hard to conceive of a more prejudicial circumstance for a criminal defendant, especially in the wake of the intemperate statements attorney general Ashcroft had made in his two press conferences.

John's lawyers filed a motion to "suppress" the statements that had been extracted him under duress at Camp Rhino. A hearing was scheduled in July 2001, which would have included testimony by John and others about the brutality he had suffered at the hands of US soldiers. On the eve of the hearing, the government prosecutors approached John's attorneys and negotiated a plea agreement. It was apparent they did not want evidence of John's torture to be introduced in court.

In the plea agreement John acknowledged that by serving as a soldier in Afghanistan he had violated the anti-Taliban economic sanctions imposed by President Clinton and extended by President Bush. This was, as John's lawyer pointed out, a "regulatory infraction". John also agreed to a "weapons charge", which was used to enhance his prison sentence. In particular, he acknowledged that he had carried a rifle and two grenades while serving as a soldier in the Taliban army. All of the other counts in the indictment were dropped by the government, including the terrorism charges the attorney general had so strongly emphasised and the charge of conspiracy to commit murder in the death of Mike Spann.

At the insistence of defence secretary Rumsfeld, the plea agreement also included a clause in which John relinquished his claims of torture.

The punishment in the plea agreement was by any measure harsh: 20 years of imprisonment, commencing on 1 December 2001, the day John came into the hands of US forces in Afghanistan. The prosecutors told John's attorneys that the White House insisted on the lengthy sentence, and that they could not negotiate downward.

On 4 October 2002, the judge approved the plea agreement as "just and reasonable" and sentenced John to prison. Before the sentence was pronounced, John was allowed to read a prepared statement, which provided a moment of intense drama in the crowded courtroom. He spoke with strong emotion. He explained why he had gone to Afghanistan to help the Taliban in their fight with the Northern Alliance, saying it arose from his compassion for the suffering of ordinary people who had been subjected to atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance. He explained that when he went to Afghanistan he "saw the war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance as a continuation of the war between the mujahideen and the Soviets".

John strongly condemned terrorism. "I went to Afghanistan with the intention of fighting against terrorism and oppression." He had acted, he said, out of a sense of religious duty and he condemned terrorism as being "completely against Islam". He said: "I have never supported terrorism in any form and never would."

After a brief recess, the judge granted a request by John Spann, the father of Mike Spann, to address the court and express his dissatisfaction with the plea agreement. He began by saying that he, his family, and many other people believed that John had played a role in the killing of Mike Spann. Judge Ellis interrupted and said: "Let me be clear about that. The government has no evidence of that." Spann responded: "I understand." The judge politely explained that the "suspicions, the inferences you draw from the facts are not enough to warrant a jury conviction". He said that Mike Spann had died a hero, and that among the things he died for was the principle that "we don't convict people in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt".



Osama bin Laden is dead. John Lindh, now 30 years old, remains in prison. He spends most of his time pursuing his study of the Qur'an and Islamic scholarship. He also reads widely in a variety of nonfiction subjects, especially history and politics. He remains a devout Muslim.

As a father, I am grateful that John survived his ordeal, and I am pleased that he maintains his good-natured disposition. I am especially proud of the dignity he displayed throughout his ordeal overseas and in court.

Other than his lawyers, the only visitors John has been permitted during all his years in prison are those of us in his immediate family. We treasure these visits. We are not allowed any sort of physical contact with John, and are kept separated from him by a glass partition. We must speak via telephones, and everything we say is monitored and recorded by a government agent who sits in an adjoining room. Despite these constraints, our conversations are free-flowing and punctuated with humour.

A commentator at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University called this "a petty prosecution" that was "unworthy of a great country". But it was more than petty, in my view; it was brutally inhumane.

My hope and prayer is that at some point rational, fair-minded officials in the American government will see the wisdom in releasing John from prison, rather than making him serve the entire 20-year sentence. His continued incarceration serves no good purpose. Releasing John from prison would help restore America's image in the world, and particularly among Muslim people, as a humane country committed to the rule of law.

The author has donated the fee for this article to charity.

Missouri Rages, Threatening Ft. Calhoun and Cooper Nuclear Facilities

Bombed levee, major flooding event above Cooper Nuclear Site (Video)

by Deborah Dupre
Human Rights Examiner

The bombed levee near Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station in Nebraska Friday caused a more than significant flood event downriver according to County Attorney Matt Wilbur, as it rose the swollen and raging Missouri River three to four inches when only "a half-inch rise is significant." Downriver 70 miles south of Omaha, Nebraska is Cooper Nuclear Facility, still online and posing a bigger threat than Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, but no Fukushima according to CNN's interview with veteran nuclear expert, Arnie Gundersen.

Private citizens representing Vanman #30 levee detonated the privately owned levee, according to News 6 WOWT that reports that the bombing breached a half-mile stretch of the levee from river mile marker 637 to 637.5, around 10 a.m. Friday. As long as the bomber was properly licensed, it appears no laws were broken since the land is private.

Before Friday, as reported by the Examiner, "officials' efforts failed to prevent flooding the farmlands in the area. Then the levee there broke. Crops were flooded."

In the week that followed, there had been discussions with local government about lowering the new levee according to KETV News, but "no clear answers" had been forthcoming.

"These levees are saturated," said County Attorney Matt Wilbur on News 6 WOWT News, Friday evening. "We have the most water on them for the longest period of time we've ever had.

"This levee gets blown and we saw a several inch rise in the river shortly thereafter, so even a three or four inch pulse coming down the river when we're looking at every half inch as being significant, is a fairly big event."

Because of decay heat at Cooper Nuclear Plant, Gundersen told CNN Thursday that it poses a bigger threat than Fort Calhoun Nuclear. Both nuclear energy facilities are on the banks of the now swollen and raging Missouri River. (See video on page left)

Although believing Cooper Nuclear facility to be safe on Thursday, Gundersen also said on CNN that if a dam north of the facility broke, causing extra water to come downstream to Cooper, "all bets are off."

Gavin Dam - 'High risk operation'

North of Cooper Nuclear Plant is one of the nation's largest reservoir systems comprising six Army Corps of Engineer dams, each swollen and feeding into the now raging Missouri River. Eyes are on Gavin Point Dam in Yankton, South Dakota the last dam downstream. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to know what locals downstream, especially near the two nuclear energy plants fear, "What if Gavin's Dam breaks?"
Advertisement

Gavin Point Dam has been "experiencing water levels three and one half feet higher than they should be."

"Since Gavin's Point is the last dam on the Missouri before the St. Louis area – it's a high risk operation," reported Operations Manager David Becker. (KCAUTV )

"It is really important right now because we are one of the major components, we are probably the major river, so our releases are important to try and minimize flood damage," said Becker, who then explained that the flooding will last longer than previously predicted.

According to Becker, the dam releases will alleviate flooding, the public needs to expect "high waters on the Missouri until at least this fall."

Because of issues with the dams, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office issued an official request on Wednesday to the Corps for its 2009 and 2010 analyses of what would happen if a dam fails, as reported by Nancy Gardner for World-Herald. (Gardner's article had been reported by Omaha World-News and was online but now, "can not be found.")

Gardner reports that Anton Vegel, director of the division of reactor safety for Arlington, Tex. office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested that Col. Robert J. Ruch, commander of the Omaha District of the corps supply the "what if a dam fails" information. Omaha district oversees the dams.

"The dams themselves have had some issues, according to the corps, but nothing that affects their integrity, said John Bertino, head of dam safety for the Omaha district. While the amount of water being released from them is a record, the amount of water being held behind the is not, he said."

As for the deliberately breached levee and the extra water pulse it sent downstream, it appears no law was broken since the levee is private according to County Attorney Matt Wilber reporting to News 6 WOWT.

"There are tens of thousands of citizens on both sides of the river who are affected by the flooding on the Missouri River and private activities such as this, which have the potential to affect those lives should not be undertaken without a full consideration of the consequences," Wilbur said.
Video: Arnie Gundersen Discusses Situation at flooded Ft. Calhoun and Cooper Nuclear Power Plants.

Gundersen Discusses the Situation at the flooded Ft. Calhoun and Cooper Nuclear Power Plants.

Video: Arnie Gundersen Discusses Situation at flooded Ft. Calhoun and Cooper Nuclear Power Plants.

By Deborah Dupre
Human Rights Examiner

Deborah Dupre' holds American and Australian science and education graduate degrees plus thirty years human rights, environmental and peace...

Continue reading on Examiner.com Bombed levee, major flooding event above Cooper Nuclear Site (Video) - National Human Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/bombed-levee-major-flooding-event-above-cooper-nuclear-site-video#ixzz1RB38VyR3

Omega Air Crash at Mugu Air Force Base

Minor injuries reported in plane crash at Point Mugu
http://m.vcstar.com/news/2011/may/18/plane-down-pt-mugu-no-injuries/
By John Scheibe
Updated Thursday, May 19, 2011
A Boeing 707 burns after crashing during takeoff at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, Wednesday afternoon. Three people on board escaped with minor injuries, authorities said.

Photo by Stephen Osman

A military contractor's Boeing 707 military tanker carrying 150,000 pounds of fuel crashed and burned on takeoff at the Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu late Wednesday afternoon, sending a thick plume of smoke into the sky visible from miles away.

The three civilian crew members on board, including the pilot and co-pilot, suffered minor injuries in the 5:25 p.m. crash, according to base officials. The crew members were taken to a local hospital, where they were treated for their injuries, according to the Ventura County Fire Department.

The plume of smoke stretched southward toward Malibu and Santa Monica. A helicopter dumped several loads of water on the plane as the flames and black smoke filled the air. The fire was knocked down at 9:09 p.m., according to the base.

Base spokeswoman Teri Reid said the tanker is used for fleet operations support and transporting fuel.

County firefighters were called to the base about 5:30 p.m. to assist base crews in putting out the flames. The two agencies have a mutual aid agreement, said Bill Nash, a spokesman for the county fire department. The county sheriff's department also provided a fire helicopter to the base to help fight the blaze.

FAA records show Omega Air as the plane's owner.

The plane went off the south end of the runway, authorities said. The plane came to a rest within a few hundred feet of the Pacific Ocean, though it was not clear whether any fuel had gone into the ocean.

Omega is a civilian company under contract by the Navy to provide fleet operations support on Point Mugu's sea test range, base officials said.

The National Air Transportation Board was investigating the cause of the crash on Wednesday, base officials said.

The Federal Aviation Administration also was investigating the crash, since the plane was a civilian one, said Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the FAA. A local FAA investigator was on the scene on Wednesday night, Gregor said, and another FAA investigator from Washington, D.C., is scheduled to serve as the agency's lead investigator today.

A person working at the Navy Exchange on base said he noticed something might be amiss when he saw customers taking pictures of something with their phones. When he went outside about 5:50 p.m., he saw the smoke and could smell fuel burning.

The smoke drew curiosity seekers to Missile Park, located just outside Mugu's northern perimeter. The plume of smoke was still clearly visible at 8 p.m., hours after the crash.

Officials at Omega could not be reached for comment. But according to its website, the 7-year-old company has corporate offices in Virginia and provides refueling services to the U.S. armed forces and its allies. Key management at the company include former naval aviators, and many crew members and other employees have a background with the Air Force, the company's website says.

The 707-321B aircraft that crashed was manufactured in 1969 by Boeing, according to an FAA registry.

Omega's fleet includes two 707 tankers and a DC-10, each capable of flying up to 1,200-plus hours each year, according to the company's website. Omega can carry from 156,000 to 160,000 pounds of fuel, depending on type and temperature, the website says.

The two 707s fly the majority of the company's missions. Seven Q Seven, a subsidiary of Omega Air, is responsible for maintaining the planes, the website says. Planes are based out of Seven Q Seven's facility at the San Antonio International Airport.

It's not known where the tanker was headed at the time of the crash.

According to Boeing's website, the 707 series was based on a prototype that ushered America into the jet age when it made its maiden flight on July 15, 1954.

"Much larger, faster and smoother than the propeller airplanes it was replacing, it quickly changed the face of international travel," the Boeing website states.

After Pan Am inaugurated trans-Atlantic 707 jet service between New York and Paris, jetliners rapidly entered service throughout the world, the website states.

Staff writer Cheri Carlson and The Associated Press contributed to this article

Put a Snap in CANSEC War Profiteer's Bazaar

PROTEST the CANSEC WEAPONS FAIR: Wednesday June 1 (tomorrow!)

Fukushima: Lethal Doses Count Increases Dramatically

Dr Scampa’s Lethal Doses Count Increases Dramatically
by Bob Nichols

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/

(San Francisco) – The world’s second big nuclear disaster occurred at Chernobyl Reactor No. 4 in the Ukraine on Apr 26, 1986. Simply tagged as “Chernobyl,” it is what the next big and well known nuke disaster, after the American Three Mile Island, on March 28, 1979 came to be called. “Chernobyl” ejected 30% of one 192-ton, three-month old reactor core. That’s 57.6 radioactive tons thrown into the air by fire and explosions.
Startling NHK Image of Japanese Television

Startling NHK Image of Japanese Television

The tiny radioactive and burning smoke particles have traveled around the world many times since 1979, killing an estimated one million people to date from radiation caused illnesses and cancers. This is according to Editor Dr Janette Sherman’s exhaustive and widely acclaimed book on 5,000 Chernobyl scientific papers recently published by the New York Academy of Sciences [1].
Fukushima Daiichi Equals 50 Plus Chernobyls

As Dr. Michio Kaku, a world renowned CUNY theoretical physicist pointed out on CNN March 18, 2011, Chernobyl involved one reactor and only 57.6 Tons of the reactor core went into the atmosphere. In dramatic contrast, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster immediately involved six reactors and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN Agency) documented 2,800 Tons of highly radioactive old reactor cores.
Dr Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist FavStocks

Dr Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist FavStocks

Simple division tells us there are at least 48.6 Chernobyls in the burning old reactor cores pumping fiery isotopes into the Earth’s atmosphere. It is no stretch to say Fukushima Daiichi’s six reactors and the dry holding pools for old reactor cores are equal to more than 50 Chernobyl disasters.

Further clarification is needed, of course, and it is being worked out now by independent physicists. Note that the lethality of radioactive reactor cores goes up the first 250,000 years they are out of the reactor – not down.

Looking at the current Japanese meltdown as more than 50 Chernobyls is just the start. In addition, the fate of the four nearby reactors at Fukushima Daini is as yet unknown by the outside world. Working at the nearby reactors, only 10 km (6 miles away) is a quick, painful death sentence. They are inside the mandatory evacuation zone.

This much is known. All radioactive exposures are cumulative for each human, animal and plant. What’s more, mutated genetic codes are passed on to offspring forever. This means all Japanese and all Northern Hemisphere inhabitants are suffering internal radioactive contamination from Fukushima Daiichi reactors already.
Fukushima Equals 3,000 Billion Lethal Doses

Dr Paolo Scampa, a widely know EU Physicist, single handedly popularized the easily understood Lethal Doses concept. “Lethal Doses” is a world wide, well understood idea that strips Physics bare and offers a brilliant, understandable explanation for all the physics gobbledygook Intelligence agencies and their respective governments use to disguise the brutal truths of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster.
Fukushima from 21,000 ft TKY

Fukushima from 21,000 ft TKY

Three thousand billion (3,000,000,000,000) Lethal Doses of Radiation means there are 429 Lethal Doses chasing each and every one of us on the planet, to put it in a nutshell. This is up from about 70 Billion Lethal Doses March 23, 2011. It is getting worse everyday without any intervention by the US and the other nuclear powers.

VeteransToday calls on the world’s nuclear powers to intervene sooner rather than later. It is up to the world’s only remaining Super Power, the United States, to get the Japan Reactor Disaster Intervention meeting officially underway.
The Fukushima Kill

The Fukushima Kill, already underway world wide, will certainly dwarf that of Chernobyl. All US Super Power President Obama’s delay does is increase the numbers of The Kill. That is a clear Choice. We call on President Obama to re-visit that Choice.

Further, the Genetic and DNA changing aspects of the radioactivity now in the air, spreading worldwide within a year, will spawn a grotesque new assortment of radiation-degraded mutants; both human and of other life forms.
USS Nautilus in 1955 surfacing www nautilus571 Website US Navy (converted) (converted) (converted)

USS Nautilus in 1955 surfacing www nautilus571 Website US Navy (converted) (converted) (converted)

Many of these creatures in the animal world will not survive long outside the womb, if carried to term. What’s more, future Human Genetic Mutants of ever-lower intelligence and greater, more grotesque physical deformities are the genetic legacy of Humanity forevermore. That is the new starting point for any rational and reality-based national or foreign policy.
What We Know Now about Fukushima

Here is what is known more than 75 days after six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor Plant started a disastrous and lethal nuclear meltdown on March 11, 2011.

- March 11, 14:46, a One Million Kiloton Earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter Scale hammered Japan off-shore near the six Japanese reactors. The reactors attempted to shut down automatically when electronic sensors detected the earthquake. The huge earthquake dropped the reactors three feet, moved Japan 8 inches to the West and altered the tilt of the Axis of planet Earth.

- March 11, about 15:30, the giant Earthquake caused a tsunami up to 30 meters (98.4 Ft) high washed away all the fuel tanks for the reactors Emergency Generators and all the reactors’ outside electrical feeds. This was the Death Blow to the reactors.

The six Fukushima Daiichi reactors were dead in the water and their fate sealed. Without an external source of electricity for the water pumps and hot reactors, they are just so much radioactive scrap iron – good for nothing. The internal temperature of the reactors started climbing immediately.

- March 11, about 18:00, only two and a half hours later, multiple reactor cores started melting down as the reactors internal temperatures skyrocketed to the melting point of uranium and beyond – a measured 1,718 Deg C (3,124.4 Deg F) past the melting point.

Uranium melts at 1,132.2 Deg C (2,069.9 Deg F.) The internal reactor temperatures reached at least 2,850 Deg C, (5,162 Deg F.) The millions of 1 mm Uranium fuel pellets in the reactors and in the core pools had no defense at all without the powerful water pumps and billions of gallons of cooling water against those temperatures.

The Uranium pellets simply melted forming a white hot lava-like radioactive uranium isotope blob that was and probably still is super heated by the power of the uranium atom itself. The highly radioactive blob then burned through the graphite seals of the General Electric Mark 1 Reactor Control Rods at the bottom of the American submarine based reactor design of US Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover, now deceased.

General Electric copied the US Government financed Navy nuclear reactor design for many commercial nuclear reactors. The Radioactive Blobs trickled out of hundreds of control rod holes instead of melting together to form a single giant, highly radioactive, burning lava blob like that of Chernobyl.
The Solution, Then and Now, has Changed

World famous theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku caught the world’s attention on a March 18, 2011 CNN broadcast when he suggested the Prime Minister of Japan immediately choose the “Chernobyl Option” for the Fukushima Daiichi General Electric reactors.

Kaku said the Japanese PM should order the Japanese Air Self Defense Force to bomb the reactors into submission with boron, sand, water and concrete like the Red Army did to kill the out-of-control Chernobyl reactor on orders of USSR President Gorbachev. Boron absorbs neutrons, the radioactive heart of the reactors.

The time for Dr. Kaku’s “Chernobyl Option” has passed. Multiple explosions destroyed the reactors and the swimming pools holding old reactor cores weeks ago. Hundreds to thousands of tons of burning highly radioactive reactor cores are scattered all over the Fukushima Daiichi site. The reactors are releasing as much as a Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) measured 10 Quintillion (10,000 Trillion Bq) radioactive counts per hour of deadly radioactive smoke particles into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The invisible, killing Radioactive Smoke is already all over the Northern Hemisphere and everyone in it – each and every one – is radiologically contaminated. The scope of Dr. Kaku’s once brilliant former solution is unfortunately, now too small and ineffective.

Generally speaking, most Radiation cannot escape into the atmosphere if it is covered by water. Honshu, Japan is an island and the Pacific Ocean is conveniently located nearby.
US President Barack Obama, Official Portrait US Gov

US President Barack Obama, Official Portrait US Gov

Subsidence charges from multiple nuclear weapons buried by drilling rigs 500 ft (152.4 meters) below and inland of the string of six reactors must be engineered to slide the reactors into the sea. This method works best if there is igneous or volcanic rock behind the subsidence charges, to “bounce” the blast and pressure wave from and “push” the trashed reactors area of the beachfront into the sea.

Specially equipped submarines can then pick up the pieces of reactor cores from under water. The surface of the ocean blocks the escape of radiation. The submarines must work fast to limit killing more of the Earth’s Oceans.

Veterans Today calls on President Obama to authorize the disposal of the six reactors at sea and the collection of the deadly radioactive metals with submarines. We conclude there are no other options left.
The “Do Nothing Option”


The “Do Nothing Option” allows the deaths and maiming of many millions of people to rapidly proceed. Doing nothing, by default, allows the Fukushima Kill to ruthlessly continue unabated. Doing nothing is also not acceptable from a practical standpoint; because, Japan does not own the nuclear weapons to use themselves.

Nuke the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi right into the sea, Mr. President.

Sources and Notes:
It is 76 days since the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster:
From and including: Friday, March 11, 2011
To and including: Tuesday, May 24, 2011
It is 75 days from the start date to the end date, end date included
Or 2 months, 14 days including the end date.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by A. V. Yablokov, V. B. Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in December 2009, translated and edited into a book by Dr. Janette Sherman. Dr. Sherman’s Website. http://janettesherman.com/about/
From Dr Sherman’s website: http://janettesherman.com/books/
“This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Although there has been discussion of the impact of nuclear accidents and Chernobyl in particular, never before has there been a comprehensive presentation of all the available information concerning the health and environmental effects of the low dose radioactive contaminants, especially those emitted from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations’ agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments.”
To Order Click Here

“Meltdowns also likely occurred at No. 2, No. 3 reactors of Fukushima plant,” Asahi, Japanese newspaper, May 18, 2011,
Picture of The Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant seen from about 38 kilometers west of the facility and at an altitude of 7,300 meters (Eiji Hori)

Press Release (May 15,2011), “The Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1,” TEPCO (The Tokyo Electric Power Company. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11051509-e.html
Attachment:Tokyo Electric Power Company: Reactor Core Status of Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (PDF 92.6KB)

“Power company says smoke spotted at another Japanese nuclear plant,” March 30, 2011, By the CNN Wire Staff, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-30/world/japan.daini_1_nuclear-power-plant-turbine-building-cooling-system?_s=PM:WORLD
Ecological Development Biology: Intergrating Epigenetics, Medicine and Evolution Scott F. Gilbert and David Epel, December 2008, 459 pages, 182 illustrations, Sinauer

10,000 terabecquerels from Tepco Press Release in Koyodo News. tera is a trillion, 10,000 trillion = 10 Quintillion.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

John Perkins on the international economic order. (video)

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/extended-confessions-economic-hit-man?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

Let's Talk About Jewishness

Let Us Talk About Jewishness
by Gilad Atzmon

One of the main differences between my work and and the writings of other humanists within the peace movement is that I am willing to move beyond the political discussion -- I dig into the ideological and philosophical roots of the Jewish state, Jewish politics and Jewish identity politics. I look into the meaning of 'Jewishness.'

In my work I clearly identify a continuum between Israel and 'Jewish ideology' ('Jewishness'). And since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, then suhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifrely --we must be brave enough to question what Jewishness stands for.

And clearly, Israelis are proud about their Jewishness -- They are far from being shy about it all.

In the following video Judeo-Centric Israeli Law Professor Ruth Gavison spreads some Jewish Tribal ideas at AIPAC conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrpClg2Tn4A




If you fail to understand what motivates the Israeli pilots to drop bombs on civilians from aeroplanes decorated with Jewish symbols, law professor Gavison provides the answer;

“Israel will do whatever it takes to remain a Jewish state for as long as it takes.”

If you ask yourself, how is it that 94% of Israeli Jews supported the IDF genocidal measures at the time of Operation Cast Lead, then Gavison may have some insights to offer.

“The Jewishness of Israel is the meaning of which the state of Israel is enabling Jews for the first time in many years, to take control of all aspects of their lives”

They certainly do: Israeli brutality is beyond comparison.

Gavison concludes, “Israel is the place where Jewish and Hebrew culture is the majority culture; this is the meaning of the Jewishness of Israel”

We have to agree with the Law Professor -- Hebrew culture is, indeed, a majority culture in Israel -- because the indigenous people of the land are locked behind walls in open air prisons.

If Israel is the meaning of Jewishness, and vice versa, Jews do have a serious ethical problem to deal with. 
Gilad Atzmon
www.gilad.co.uk
www.myspace.com/giladatzmon
www.jazzaproductions.squarespace.com

Artie Fischel and the Promised Band

What Are They Afraid of?
by Gilad Atzmon
UK Zionist network, together with half a dozen Sayanim* within the Jewish Palestinian solidarity network, seem to be strongly united this week.

http://soundcloud.com/gilad-atzmon/lipstick-artie-fishel-and-the-promised-band

Acting as a joint effort, they are trying to stifle freedom of speech: they seem to be horrified by the idea that a panel of intellectuals, journalists and an artist plan to explore the intriguing bond between Israel, Zionism and ‘Jewishness’, and thus far they have harassed panelists, threatened an academic institute and have spread lies, smears and defamation.

And yet in doing so they have unwittingly provided us with a tremendous glimpse into a contemporary Jewish secular tribal operation.

And what is at the root of their hysteria? For some peculiar reason, both Zionists and UK Jewish so-called ‘anti Zionists’, insist that discussing ‘Jewishness’ is a taboo which should never be explored, certainly not in public, and definitely never outside of the ghetto.

But isn’t it all just more than a little suspicious? After all, please consider that the Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ operate politically under a Jewish banner; they also clearly carry their Jewish identity with pride; and, like the ‘Jews only state’, they also run a ‘Jews only club’ -- yet they want to try to stop us from questioning what this club actually stands for. They want to take it further and even try to stop us from discussing and grasping what the Jewishness of Israel is all about.

Why are they so concerned about others questioning their ideology, an identity which they themselves are clearly and openly so proud of?

Is it that we are not allowed to question ideologies and political precepts? Should we, then, also have stopped Max Weber from looking into the role of Protestantism in the context of the rise of capitalism? And if Israel proudly defines itself as the Jewish State, then are we not entitled to also wonder what its Jewishness actually means?

And shouldn’t we also be entitled to refer the exact same questions to the UK Jewish ‘anti Zionists’?

It seems clear to me that we do have that right to know.

A few years ago I invented a spoof character. His name was Artie Fishel. Artie was a satirical, fictional Jewish American musician, a rabid Zionist, convinced that jazz was Jewish. He believed that jazz music also had nothing to do with America or Africa. He wanted it back, and thus founded ‘Artie Fishel & The Promised Band’.

Artie Fishel was obviously a parody of the Zionist enterprise: if we can take Palestine from the Arabs, then surely we can take jazz from the Americans.

To listen to Artie click here

The Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ here in the UK were the first to oppose the project. The first night on the road, we played in Nottingham. As the gig finished, a 'Jewish progressive' promoter (who was and still is a friend of mine) approached us. She stood there with tears in her eyes : “Everything you say is so true; but why do you have to share it with the Goyim,” she said, in a broken voice.

She wasn’t amused by the satirical Artie.

We realised that we must have touched a sensitive nerve.

Jewish humour is based on self mockery; yet it is very clear to Jews where the boundaries of mockery are. Jewish comedians know where to stop. To a certain extent Jewish humour is a very sophisticated form of ‘discourse management.' It is there to define the template of self-reflection. In some regards, it openly admits to a certain level of Jewish cultural essentialism; but it insists that such a phenomena is nothing but charming.

Sadly enough though, I myself do not really find the Jewish State a ‘charming concept’: I cannot see what is so charming about a society that collectively supports carpet bombardment of civilians**.

I also fail to see what is so charming about relentless Jewish lobbying. And when I look at the reality of Jewish political dissidence here in the UK; and when I read about Jewish campaigners harassing a fellow Palestinian academic or solidarity activists ( in the ‘name of Palestine’ no less ) it really begins to make me feel sick.

I often ask myself : what is it that they are so afraid of ? Why are they so desperate to stop us from looking into the meaning of their flag?

I can think of two possible answers:

1. It could be that they may not even know themselves what their ‘Jewishness’ stands for -- but they are certainly clever enough to grasp that they had better not find out: they clearly realise that the concept may turn out to be a 'Pandora box'. Such an answer is consistent with Judaic teaching, for in Judaism, observance is primary; comprehension is secondary. In other words, Judaism demands blind acceptance.

2. It could also be that they know very well what ‘Jewishness’ means, yet they know how sinister it may look for the outsider. Hence they use different tactics, just to stop the rest of us from looking into it. If that is the case, such an answer might mean that their apparent attempt to stifle a debate may be inherent to their conception of ‘Jewishness’.

Yet, considering the crimes that are committed by the Jewish state, and considering the measures that are taken by some elements within the Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network, the time is clearly overdue for us to look into the true meaning of Jewish ideology -- what does it stand for; what does it preach; what does it promise, and essentially, what does it insist to take away from us (namely, freedom of speech and expression)?

But here is the good news : it is apparent that many Jews, and even Jewish spiritual leaders are now breaking away from the Jewish ‘left’ in order to find a meaningful path into true universal empathy as equal and ordinary human beings. I know that is the case, because they ask to meet me. I know, because they talk to me. I know, because they ask questions, rather than repeating ready-made answers.

And most of all I know because I myself left the ghetto many years ago and I see them trying to do the same.

Panel Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160038250722935

Time: Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm - 8:30pm

Location: University Of Westminster - Cavendish Campus

A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.

Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon and others


* Sayanim- Diaspora Jews subservient to Israeli interests. Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky describes how Sayanim function in “By Way Of Deception”. ‘They are usually reached through relatives in Israel… They perform many different roles. A car Sayan, for example, running a rental car agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment Sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank Sayan could fund someone in the middle of the night if needs be, a doctor Sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police.’


** At the time of Operation Cast Lead (2008-9), Israeli polls showed that 94 per cent of Israel's Jewish population backed the war and IDF tactics.

Atomic Apologia

Seven Double Standards
Posted on March 31, 2011 by George

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/31/seven-double-standards/


Why don’t we judge other forms of energy generation by the standards we apply to nuclear power?


By George Monbiot. Published on the Guardian’s website, 31st March 2011

The accusations have been so lurid that I had to read my article again to reassure myself that I hadn’t written the things that so many of my correspondents say I had. So, before I begin the counter-attack, here’s what I didn’t say about nuclear power.

I did not claim that there is no alternative to atomic energy, or any such thing. Nor did I suggest that it should replace renewables, or produce any higher proportion of our electricity than it does already. But I did point out that most of the countries that might abandon nuclear power are likely to replace it not with renewables but with fossil fuel, and that this is a major change for the worse. Mark Lynas has shown how phasing out planned nuclear programmes in a number of countries as a result of the Fukushima disaster could add another degree to global warming. Chris Goodall estimates that if the planned construction of new nuclear power stations in the UK stalls in response to the crisis, the result will be an increase of 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide for every year we delay.

Replacing current nuclear generation when the power stations reach the end of their lives is a tough decision. So is not replacing it. Not replacing it is a decision to do one of two things:

A. To switch to coal or gas, which means greatly increasing the rate of industrial deaths and injuries, levels of pollution and the impacts of climate change.

B. To add even more weight to the burden that must be carried by renewables.

Response A is far more likely, and appears to be taking place already: for example in Germany.

Like most environmentalists, I want renewables to replace fossil fuel, but I realise we make the task even harder if they are also to replace nuclear power.

I’m not saying, as many have claimed, that we should drop our concerns about economic growth, consumption, energy efficiency and the conservation of resources. Far from it. What I’m talking about is how we generate the electricity we will need. Given that, like most greens, I would like current transport and heating fuels to be replaced with low-carbon electricity, it’s impossible to see, even with maximum possible energy savings, how the electricity supply can do anything other than grow. All the quantified studies I have seen, including those produced by environmental organisations, support this expectation. Ducking the challenge of how it should be produced is not an option.

Nor have I changed my politics (and nor for that matter am I an undercover cop, a mass murderer, a eugenicist or, as one marvellous email suggested, “the consort of the devil”). In fact it’s surprising how little the politics of energy supply change with the mass-generation technology we choose. Whether or not there is a nuclear component, we are talking about large corporations building infrastructure, generating electricity and feeding it into the grid. My suspicion of big business and my belief that it needs to be held to account remain unchanged.

Nor is the Fukushima crisis anything other than horrible: dangerous, traumatic and disruptive. I’m urging perspective, not complacency.

OK, that’s the record-setting done. Now for the counter-attack. Here is a list of what I believe are the double-standards that some of us who have opposed nuclear power (I include myself in this) have used when arguing against it.

Double Standard 1: Deaths and Injuries.

We rightly lament the horrible consequences of industrial exposure to radiation. Two workers at Fukushima have so far received radiation burns and 17 have been exposed to levels of radiation considered unsafe. This is and should be a cause for serious concern. It is also worth remembering that no one has yet received a dose of radiation that is known to be lethal as a result of the Fukushima disaster. But if we are concerned about industrial injuries, why do we say nothing about the deaths and injuries in the industry most likely to replace nuclear power?

In China alone, the government estimates that 2,433 people died in coal mining accidents last year. That’s not injuries or exposures. It’s deaths. Human rights activists believe that official figures might have been underestimated by a factor of four.

What this means is that, in the normal course of operations, at least 6 people are killed in Chinese coal mines every day. Even if you accept the official figure, Chinese coal mining alone kills as many people every week as the worst nuclear power accident in history – the Chernobyl explosion – has done in 25 years.

And this is to say nothing of the far larger number of injuries that coal mining inflicts, in particular the hideous lung diseases which plague so many miners and cause long, lingering and terrible deaths. When was the last time you heard an anti-nuclear campaigner drawing attention to this daily carnage? No really, when was it?

Double Standard 2: The Science.

We emphasise, when debating climate change, the importance of the scientific consensus, and reliance on solid, peer-reviewed studies. As soon as we start discussing the dangers of low-level radiation, we abandon that and endorse the pseudo-scientific gibberish of a motley collection of cranks and quacks, who appear to have begun with the assumption that it must be killing thousands of people every year, and retrofitted the evidence to match it.

Such people exist in every field, especially those that are politically contentious. We should, by now, have learnt to be wary of them. But it seems that the temptation, for people hoping to make the case against nuclear power, is overwhelming.

For a good summary of the scientific consensus on the effects of exposure to both high and low levels of radiation, see the new post by Chris Goodall and Mark Lynas: two environmentalists who have kept their heads in this crisis.

Double Standard 3: Radioactive Pollution

If low-level radiation really was the problem that some environmentalists say it is, the focus of their campaign should be coal plants, not nuclear power. As Scientific American notes:

“the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.”

This is because coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, which are concentrated in the ash. Not only does this expose people living around coal plants to higher doses of radiation than people living around nuclear plants receive; but the regulations for disposing of fly ash are far weaker than the regulations for disposing of low-level nuclear waste. You may remember the controversy about RWE npower’s plan to dump the fly ash from Didcot power station into a lake between the villages of Radley and Abingdon. Where were the anti-nuclear campaigners then? Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if a corporation had planned to fill it with low-level waste from a nuclear plant?

Double Standard 4: Mining Impact

Anti-nuclear campaigners emphasise the damage and pollution inflicted by uranium mines. They are right to do so. Some of these mines are hideous, and they are one of the many reasons why we should urgently develop new reactor technologies which sharply reduce the need for fresh supplies. But the impacts of coal mining are massively greater. There are hundreds of times more coal mines than uranium mines, including opencast sites, and a lot of them of them are many times bigger and more destructive than the largest uranium operations. This doesn’t make uranium mining right, but it makes the likely switch to coal even more wrong.

Double Standard 5: Costs

One of the most frequent arguments against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Many environmentalists claim that, when all the hidden costs, especially the massive decommissioning liabilities, are taken into account, electricity from atomic plants could cost as much as 5p per kilowatt hour or even more. The highest figure I have come across was the top end of the range of estimates produced by the New Economics Foundation – 8.3p. If this is correct – and I should emphasise that it’s an extreme outlier – it suggests that nuclear is an extravagant means of generating low-carbon electricity.

So why do the same people support a feed-in tariff scheme under which we pay 41p per kilowatt hour for rooftop solar electricity?


Double Standard 6: Research

Last week I argued about these issues with Caroline Lucas. Caroline is one of my heroes, and the best thing to have happened to Parliament since time immemorial. But this doesn’t mean that she can’t be wildly illogical when she chooses. When I raised the issue of the feed-in tariff, she pointed out that the difference between subsidising nuclear power and subsidising solar power is that nuclear is a mature technology and solar is not. In that case, I asked, would she support research into thorium reactors, which could provide a much safer and cheaper means of producing nuclear power? No, she told me, because thorium reactors are not a proven technology. Words fail me.


Double Standard 7: Timing

Anti-nuclear campaigners point out that it takes ten years or so to build a new nuclear power station, and we haven’t got that long, if we are serious about preventing climate breakdown. They are of course quite right: it’s too little, too late. But the same problem affects every significant move to decarbonise the energy supply. By the time it has gone through the planning process, a major new grid connection to support an offshore wind farm will take roughly as long to develop as a new nuclear power station. The same goes for the pumped storage facilities required to support a largely renewable power system and for the carbon capture and storage required to reduce the impacts of fossil fuels. As for growing trees …

My point is that we have to take responsibility for every component of our energy supply and the consequences it carries; not just the section of it that’s produced by nuclear reactors. And we should apply the same standards to all generating technologies. Otherwise, in the name of reducing risks to people and the planet, we will unwittingly increase them.

www.monbiot.com

Cermaq Sues Salmon Farming Activist Org.

Mainstream Canada begins legal proceedings against Don Staniford
source: Cermaq

Mainstream Canada has begun legal proceedings against Mr. Don Staniford and his organization The Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture, for defamatory statements that have been made regarding the company’s fish farming operations. Mainstream and Cermaq views his statements as false and misleading.
Source: http://www.gaaia.org/press-releases

The statements made by Mr. Staniford (illustration) are a direct attack on Mainstream Canada’s and parent company Cermaq’s reputations as responsible company engaged in sustainable aquaculture.

- For a number of years certain environmental activists in British Columbia, Canada, have been attacking our company and the industry with false and misleading statements. We have a responsibility towards our employees, that is why Mainstream Canada is acting now, says Lise Bergan, Corporate Affairs Director of Cermaq

-Our employees are working hard every day ensuring responsible aquaculture. We adhere to strict regulations and our company code of conduct. Comparing fish farming with cancer is an offence to all our employees, but also disrespectful to all those who suffer from cancer, comments Lise Bergan.

Statements made by Mr. Staniford have gone beyond logic and defy the conclusions of many well respected researchers and third party experts who have documented and reported on fish farming practices and their impact on individuals, the environment or other industries.

Mr. Staniford’s intention seems to be to frighten and convince consumers to turn away from eating farmed salmon. Contrary to his statements, the health benefits of eating fat fish like farmed salmon are broadly encouraged. The American Heart Association recommends eating fish at least two times (two servings) a week.

For Mainstream Canada this is not only a question of protecting our reputation, but an obligation to employees, and to their partners like suppliers, the communities where Mainstream operates and Mainstream’s First Nations partners. The objective of Mainstream and Cermaq is a business environment where issues are discussed with fair arguments based on knowledge, and not a situation where individuals or organizations such as Mr. Staniford‘s obstruct with defamatory actions.
24.03.2011

GAAIA

Thanks to BCEN you can now read online GAAIA's letter to Cermaq and the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry (who are the largest shareholders in Cermaq - which owns Mainstream Canada and EWOS Canada):

Letter to Cermaq and Norwegian Ministry of Trade & Ownership from GAAIA (23rd March):
http://www.ecobc.org/~DOCUMENTS/Documents_2011/To_Norway_Staniford.pdf

Notice of Civil Claim by Cermaq (23rd March):
http://msc.khamiahosting.com/sites/default/files/Staniford_Notice%20of%20Civ il%20Claim.pdf

Reminds me of a line from the film Braveheart: "I'd say that was rather less cordial than he was used to"

British Columbian Environmental Network, 26th March 2011


Cermaq, a conglomerate of companies with activities in fish farming, production of salmonid feed and research in aquaculture, claims Staniford motivated by ideology. Threatened lawsuit letter: Download.
letter_18th_March.pdf>

http://www.ecobc.org/%7EDOCUMENTS/Documents_2011/Don_Staniford_free_speech.jpg


Invokes defense of Mother Earth in response to Fish Farm suit for defamation

Read response

by Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture to Norwegian Government and Industry

"Salmon farming, like smoking, seriously damages public health, our environmental health and the health of wild salmon...the smoking gun of the Cohen Inquiry in Canada is primed to pull the trigger on damning details of how Norwegian-owned salmon farms are spreading infectious diseases to wild salmon".

"GAAIA finds it particularly curious that Cermaq chooses to fight the fact that "Salmon Farming Spreads Disease" when data sourced from Cermaq's own farms and peer-reviewed scientific papers co-authored by EWOS/Cermaq staff support GAAIA's position. "

http://ecobc.org/


The Straight, 25th March 2011

Norwegian-owned B.C. fish-farm company sues salmon activist

http://www.straight.com/files/imagecache/wide_article/images/wide/WEB_Don_St
aniford_110325.jpg

Mainstream Canada seeks injunction against claims by Scottish industrial-aquaculture foe
By Martin Dunphy
, March 25, 2011


Online comments about salmon farming land environmentalist in court http://www.mainstreamcanada.com/mainstream-canada-begins-legal-proceedings-a
gainst-mr-don-staniford

web-site: http://www.gaaia.org

Notes to Editors:

[1] In reply to a letter dated 18th March 2011 from Cermaq's lawyers, GAAIA sent a letter dated 23rd March addressed to Geir Isaksen (CEO, Cermaq); Trond Giske (Norwegian Minister of Trade and Industry); Mette Wikborg (Director General, Ownership Department, Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry); Kjell Bjordal (Managing Director, EWOS) and King Harald IV of Norway


http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_trondelag/1.6736705

A copy of a letter sent to the King of Norway in 2010 is also available via:

http://www.georgiastrait.org/files/King-Harald-Letter-Jan10.pdf

[2] "Smoke on the Water, Cancer on the Coast" will be published soon via
http://www.gaaia.org/smoke-water

Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture, 24th March 2011
Salmon Farming Kills Free Speech!

- Norwegian Government abuses the Canadian Court system to crush criticism

fino, British Columbia - The Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture (GAAIA) is fighting a lawsuit being threatened by the Norwegian Government via the Norwegian-owned company Cermaq (which operates in Canada via Mainstream and EWOS). GAAIA will strongly defend itself from any legal threats from the Norwegian Government and litigation which seeks to expand Norwegian-owned salmon farming in British Columbia in particular. GAAIA is campaigning to stop the farming of alien Atlantic salmon in the pristine waters of the Pacific by Norwegian-owned companies (Cermaq, Marine Harvest and Grieg Seafood) who now control 92% of BC salmon farms.

"Bring it on!" said Don Staniford, global coordinator for GAAIA. "Where there's smoke there's fire or as they say in showbusiness 'where there's a hit, there's a writ'. GAAIA relishes the opportunity to prove in court that 'Salmon Farming Kills'. Cermaq are blowing smoke and are all smoke and mirrors when it comes to their claims of 'sustainable aquaculture'.

Norwegian companies may have a monopoly on salmon farming but the Norwegian Government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Salmon farming, like smoking, seriously damages public health, our environmental health and the health of wild salmon. For the sake of our global ocean we need to quit salmon farming now and stub out farmed salmon from the face of the blue planet".

In response to the threat of legal action from Cermaq, GAAIA yesterday fired off a smoking hot letter to Cermaq, the Norwegian Government and the King of Norway [1]. GAAIA will be seeking to file a private prosecution and other legal remedies against the Norwegian Government and Cermaq. GAAIA will soon be publishing a new report 'Smoke on the Water, Cancer on the Coast' lifting the lid on the can of worms that is the Norwegian-owned global salmon farming industry [2].

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it Geir Isaksen (CEO of Cermaq) and Trond Giske (Norwegian Minister of Trade and Industry)!" said Staniford. "Norwegian-owned companies have blood on their hands and are responsible for the deaths of millions of salmon, hundreds of marine mammals as well as even their own workers. Cermaq's disease-ridden feedlots have left a trail of tragedy in their wake especially in Chile and in British Columbia where they are spreading infectious diseases around the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, the Broughton Archipelago and the Wild Salmon Narrows.

Even more alarmingly, the smoking gun of the Cohen Inquiry in Canada is primed to pull the trigger on damning details of how Norwegian-owned salmon farms are spreading infectious diseases to wild salmon".

GAAIA finds it particularly curious that Cermaq chooses to fight the fact that "Salmon Farming Spreads Disease" when data sourced from Cermaq's own farms and peer-reviewed scientific papers co-authored by EWOS/Cermaq staff support GAAIA's position. GAAIA yesterday wrote to the Canadian Fisheries Minister on the ISA issue in particular.

"The Norwegian Government - who are the largest shareholder and controlling interest in Cermaq - must not be allowed to get away with murder in British Columbia, Chile, Scotland and at home in Norway," said Staniford. "Is the Cermaq Board of Directors and Cermaq shareholders, including the Minister of Trade and Industry, fully aware of the potential implications of the disease problem in Canada on not just the health of wild salmon stocks but also the health of Cermaq's stocks? Cermaq may be fuelled by billions of dollars of dirty Norwegian oil-money but GAAIA is armed with the sword of truth and shield of virtue and has GAIA, the goddess of Mother Earth, in our corner. Cermaq and the Norwegian Government - see you in court."

GAAIA is seeking to support shareholder resolutions at this year's Cermaq AGM (taking place in Oslo, Norway, on 11th May) calling for the resignation of CEO Geir Isaksen and the full and transparent public disclosure of disease records in Canada as well as Chile, Scotland and Norway.

A photo of Don Staniford handing a letter to the King of Norway in 2009 is
available above and online (with video) via:

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_trondelag/1.6736705

Also online as a news story in Canada via:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/fish-farm-sues
-activist-for-defamation/article1955940/


In Norway (in English):
http://www.4-traders.com/CERMAQ-476705/news/CERMAQ-Mainstream-Canada-begins-
legal-proceedings-against-Don-Staniford-13588104/


In Norwegian: http://www.dagbladet.no/a/15943844/

Unfinished: Waiting for Justice from Toronto's G20 Police Riot

Op-Ed: The Unfinished G20 Story
March 9th, 2011
by: Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
James Clancy, National Director, National Union of Public and General Employees

source

There are events in Canadian history that have become symbols of the fragility of our democratic rights: the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War or the imposition of the War Measures Act, to name a few. In our view, the policing at the G20 Summit in Toronto last summer will be remembered as one of them.

We know that over 1105 people were arrested, that less than 100 charges are proceeding, that peaceful protests were violently dispersed, that thousands of people were searched, that some people were assaulted, detained for extended periods of time, denied their right to a lawyer or insulted . However, we still do not know why such conduct was allowed to take place and why the right to protest peacefully was not fully protected.

Vandalism is condemnable but it does not give the right to the police to unleash brutal treatment on other peaceful protesters. The right to peacefully protest is an integral part of a democratic order and is as important as the right to vote. The government and security responses to the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly is a test of whether a government is a democracy or an autocracy, as events around the world demonstrate. Violent disruptions of peaceful protests are unacceptable no matter where they occur.

In November 2010, the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association held public hearings on the policing of the G20 Summit. The purpose of these hearings was not to replace the public inquiry which we absolutely need, but simply provide a space for people to tell their story and to raise awareness about what happened at the G20. Many people came to describe what they had seen, what they experienced or make suggestions for improvements to public order policing. Many people described how their rights to peaceful assembly were breached, how they witnessed police abuse and how they were left wondering why this happened. There is no doubt that the scale of civil rights violations goes beyond the actions of a few misbehaving police officers: hundreds of police officers removed their badges, many told protesters that martial law had been declared, that protesters no longer had any rights and that they could be held at the detention centre for as long as necessary. The failure to train police officers properly, to instruct them on the need to respect and protect the right to peaceful assembly, the misleading information about the Public Works Protection Act – all this need to be investigated properly.

A public inquiry is needed. Although many shiver at the thought of spending more money on an enterprise that has already cost more than one billion dollars for a three day event, not doing it will be more costly. The G20 security effort was multifaceted: it involved police officers and security efforts from many police forces, from different provinces and from both the federal and provincial police. This renders the accountability mechanisms that we have which are jurisdictionally bound ill-suited for the exercise. Although many processes are now under way, their scope is limited by the mandate that they have. No one can look fully at the interplay between the RCMP and the provincial and municipal forces, no one has the capacity to assess whether there were communications, training or leadership failures that led to the large-scale violations. A federal-provincial public inquiry is needed so that the full story is told. Canadians deserve to know what went wrong and whether it could have been avoided. If we do not get to the bottom of this issue, the lack of trust will linger on.

Trust in public institutions and in the police are essential to a well- adjusted society. When police officers misbehave, they hurt their victims, they hurt the people who witnessed the illegal behaviour, they hurt themselves and the institution of policing, and they hurt all of us because it is in our name that they carry out their powers of arrest and detention. Police brutality affects us all: it is a betrayal of the rule of law as people bound to maintain the law abuse it. A public inquiry is an investment in better policing for the future, in ensuring that the right people are blamed for what went wrong and not the police officers that acted appropriately. Not knowing why orders were given to disperse the people quietly sitting at Queen’s Park, not knowing why police officers pulled off Mr. Pruyn’s artificial leg, why they pushed and shoved many bystanders, why horses were called, why rubber bullets were fired, why people were kettled for hours not knowing what to do, why people were arrested with tasers in their face while they were in their pajamas, why fire trucks did not come to extinguish the cars on fire, why a group of vandals were left free to continue their destruction while close to 20,000 police officers were in town, not knowing what went wrong is a disservice to us all.

The G20 was a moment of truth for Canadian democracy. The response to the security displayed at the G20, like the War Measures Act forty years ago, will be a turning point for our democracy: either we will emerge with stronger democratic institutions, regulatory regimes, accountability frameworks and better policing , or we will have tolerated mass violations of civil liberties with callous indifference.