US Abuses, Sense of Irony Missing in Rights Report

US Abuses, Sense of Irony Missing in Rights Report

NEW YORK - Noah S. Leavitt, an attorney who has worked with the International Law Commission of the United Nations in Geneva and the International Court of Justice in The Hague, told IPS: "The sad reality is that because of the [George W.] Bush administration's haughty unilateralism and its mockery of international prohibitions on torture, most of the rest of the world no longer takes the U.S. seriously on human rights matters."

How can it now be seen as anything more than a sham when the Bush administration consistently breaks our own laws -- from illegal wiretaps at home to renditions abroad -- yet still tries to portray itself as the protector of freedom, democracy and liberty for all?

Patricia Kushlis, retired official of the U.S. Information Agency

While most of the experts contacted by IPS found little fault with the accuracy of the so-called Country Reports, whose 2005 edition ran to more than 3,000 pages, they question whether U.S. human rights abuses committed in the "global war on terror" have diminished Washington's authority to speak out on this issue.

"The State Department's annual human rights report was once a beacon of truth for American policy-makers as well as the rest of the world," said Patricia Kushlis, a retired official of the U.S. Information Agency.

"But how can it now be seen as anything more than a sham when the Bush administration consistently breaks our own laws -- from illegal wiretaps at home to renditions abroad -- yet still tries to portray itself as the protector of freedom, democracy and liberty for all?" she said in an interview.

An Egyptian activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because her views are at odds with those of her government, told IPS, "We're used to the iron fist of government in Egypt. We expect it. We used to have someone we could count on to show our leaders how to lead by setting an example of good governance without the iron fist. It was America."

"Now that's gone," she said. "Now, the only people who are motivated by what America is doing are the very people it's trying to defeat -- Muslim extremists."

The report, released in Washington Mar. 8, reviewed human rights achievements and setbacks in some 190 countries and regions around the world. It called the human rights records of key Arab allies poor or problematic, citing flawed elections and torture of prisoners in Egypt, beatings, arbitrary arrest and lack of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, and floggings as punishment for adultery or drug abuse in the United Arab Emirates.

Iraq's performance was said to be ''handicapped'' by insurgency and terrorism that affected every aspect of life, the State Department said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) last month. She praised these nations for being "strategic partners" in U.S. anti-terror operations.

The relationship between the U.S. and the UAE became the centre of a political firestorm last week regarding a Dubai company's plans to take over terminal management operations at six U.S. seaports. Despite strong support from Pres. Bush, the UAE ultimately backed out of the deal under pressure from Congress to block it.

Introducing the Country Reports, Rice said, ''How a country treats its own people is a strong indication of how it will behave toward its neighbours. The growing demand for democratic governance reflects a recognition that the best guarantor of human rights is a thriving democracy,'' with rights such as accountable government and a free press.

But Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab Politics at the Centre for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, told IPS, "The U.S. has lost a tremendous amount of credibility in any discussion of human rights and rule of law. I can't imagine anyone in the Middle East or the 'Muslim World', for example, taking the State Department report seriously."

"After all, how can you take a report on human rights seriously written by a nation-state that is currently perceived to be among the most egregious violators of human rights and rule of law in the world?" Precisely.

"Everyone remembers Abu Ghraib and no one has forgotten about Guantanamo, especially not in the Middle East," he added.

A similar view was expressed by Dr. Jack N. Behrman, emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina and a former senior official in the administration of President John F. Kennedy (1961-1963).

He told IPS, "The U.S. has forfeited its leadership on human rights as a result of the maxim that 'You must be careful whom you select as your enemy, for you will become like them'."Indeed. We became worse.

"Washington has adopted fundamentalist religious views in its opposition to Muslim fundamentalism. It has practiced torture, deceived and dissembled, promised to assist those harmed by its policies (or lack thereof) and done little or nothing, and harmed and killed many innocents in an effort to dictate how others should live. All of these are practices by 'autocratic and evil empires' that this administration has copied extensively."

Members of the religious community have also raised doubts about U.S. authority in the human rights area. George Hunsinger, McCord professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and coordinator of Church Folks for a Better America, told IPS, "It is tragic that the United States has so recklessly squandered the moral authority it once had in the field of human rights."

"Nothing could be more urgent than for us to reaffirm our historic commitment to international law. A democratic nation that refuses to cry out against its government's complicity in torture and abuse -- and to ban them without loopholes -- is approaching spiritual death."

Some commentators have raised questions about the report's completeness, as well as the issue of U.S. credibility. Neil Hicks, director of international programmes for the legal advocacy group Human Rights First, expressed concern about what he termed "a blind spot" in the reports -- reporting on states that send people to countries where they are at risk of torture.

He told IPS, "Numerous governments have apparently cooperated with the U.S. in rendering detainees to countries that are known for their use of torture. This is a clear violation of the U.N. torture convention but it is not mentioned in the report." It should be

The State Department report does not include U.S. policies and practices. You've broken every other rule, law, treaty, policy and amendment, what is one more?

Hicks called the report "admirable and comprehensive", but told IPS it is "regrettable that U.S. violations of human rights undermine their credibility and effectiveness, and make it easy for governments rightly criticised in the reports to point the finger back at the U.S."

Some foreign governments are also using Washington's diminished authority to criticise the State Department report. The Chinese government-controlled People's Daily Online accused the U.S. of "posing once again as the world's judge of human rights".

It said, "The State Department pointed the finger at human rights situations in more than 190 countries and regions, including China, but kept silent on the serious violations of human rights in the United States."

U.S. Military Plans to Make Insect Cyborgs

U.S. Military Plans to Make Insect Cyborgs

WASHINGTON - Facing problems in its efforts to train insects or build robots that can mimic their flying abilities, the U.S. military now wants to develop "insect cyborgs" that can go where its soldiers cannot. ( Dan Brown wasn't far off in his book Deception Point)

The goal is to create technology that can achieve 'the delivery of an insect within five meters of a specific target located at hundred meters away, using electronic remote control, and/or global positioning system.' Once at the target, 'the insect must remain stationary either indefinitely or until otherwise instructed ... (and) must also be able to transmit data from (Department of Defense) relevant sensors ... includ(ing) gas sensors, microphones, video, etc..'

The Pentagon is seeking applications from researchers to help them develop technology that can be implanted into living insects to control their movement and transmit video or other sensory data back to their handlers.

In an announcement posted on government Web sites last week, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, says it is seeking "innovative proposals to develop technology to create insect cyborgs," by implanting tiny devices into insect bodies while the animals are in their pupal stage.

As an insect metamorphoses from a larva to an adult, the solicitation notice says, its "body goes through a renewal process that can heal wounds and reposition internal organs around foreign objects, including tiny (mechanical) structures that might be present."

The goal is to create technology that can achieve "the delivery of an insect within five meters of a specific target located at hundred meters away, using electronic remote control, and/or global positioning system." Once at the target, "the insect must remain stationary either indefinitely or until otherwise instructed ... (and) must also be able to transmit data from (Department of Defense) relevant sensors ... includ(ing) gas sensors, microphones, video, etc."

The move follows challenges the agency says it has encountered in its efforts to train insects to detect explosives or other chemical compounds, and to mimic their flight and movement patterns using small robots.

Several years ago, DARPA launched a $3 million project to train honeybees to find landmines. According to a report by the American Forces Press Service, scientists used sugar-soaked sponges treated with explosives to get the bees to identify the smell as a possible food source.

But last week's solicitation says the project didn't work out.

"These activities have highlighted key challenges involving behavioral and chemical control of insects... Instinctive behaviors for feeding and mating -- and also for responding to temperature changes -- prevented them from performing reliably," it says.

As far as the development of purely robotic or mechanical unmanned aerial vehicles -- so-called micro-UAVs -- the solicitation says that developing energy sources both powerful and light enough "present(s) a key technical challenge."

Both sets of challenges "might be effectively overcome" by the development of insect cyborgs, says the solicitation.

The devices DARPA wants to implant are micro-electro-mechanical systems, or MEMS. MEMS technology uses tiny silicon wafers like those used as the basis for computer microchips. But instead of merely laying circuits on them, MEMS technology can actually cut and shape the silicon, turning the chip into a microscopic mechanical device.

The solicitation envisages the implanted device as a "platform" onto which "various microsystem payloads can be mounted ... with the goal of controlling insect locomotion, sens(ing) local environment, and scaveng(ing) power."

"Possible methods of locomotion control may be sensory manipulation, direct muscle interface, or neural interface to the insect," says the document, known as a Broad Agency Announcement. It goes on to say that sensory manipulation, for instance by projecting ultrasonic vibrations or ejecting pheromones, is likely to be species-specific, whereas technology to directly control insect muscles or brains "may be more general."

DARPA believes that the heat and mechanical power generated by the insects themselves as they move around "may be harnessed to power the microsystem payload" eliminating the need for batteries or other power systems.

The objective is to transform the insects into "predictable devices that can be used for various micro-UAV missions requiring unobtrusive entry into areas inaccessible or hostile to humans."

Among potential missions, says the solicitation, would be the collection of "explosive signatures from within buildings, caves, or other inaccessible locations."

Although flying insects like dragonflies and moths are "of great interest," the document says, "Hopping and swimming insects could also meet final demonstration goals."

Implanting the devices during pupation is key, says the document, because "the insects are immobile and can be manipulated without interference from instinctive motion."

As part of their honeybee training project, DARPA glued tiny radio transmitters to the bees, to help track their movement.

The solicitation says that the healing processes which insects go through as they change from larvae into adults "are expected to yield more reliable bio-electromechanical interface... as compared to adhesively bonded systems to adult insects."

Inserting the devices in pupae could also "enable assembly-line like fabrication of hybrid insect-MEMS interfaces, providing a considerable cost advantage," says the solicitation.

DARPA will hold a day-long conference for contractors interested in submitting proposals on March 24.

So who is paying for this?

Bush Plan to Sell off U.S. National Forests under Attack by Former Officials

Bush Plan to Sell off U.S. National Forests under Attack by Former Officials

WASHINGTON - The U.S. administration formalized its plan to sell more than 120,000 hectares of national forest to help pay for rural schools in 41 states, submitting legislation to Congress on Thursday to funnel $800 million to the schools over the next five years.

The schools would receive $320 million next year but the figure would drop sharply after that, to just $40 million in its final year, officials said. That would be a 90-per-cent decrease from current spending - a figure some legislators called unacceptable.

The legislation came as four former U.S. Forest Service chiefs blasted the land sale plan as contrary to more than a century of agency practice.

"Selling off public lands to fund other programs, no matter how worthwhile those programs, is a slippery slope," the retired chiefs said, calling the land sale "an unwise precedent."

The letter was signed by Max Peterson, Dale Robertson, Jack Ward Thomas and Michael Dombeck, who headed the Forest Service from 1979 to 2001. The men led the agency under four presidents from both parties.

U.S. agriculture undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service, said he welcomes advice from the former chiefs but they must be "suffering from selective memory loss."

Contrary to their letter, the Forest Service has proposed - and Congress has enacted - dozens of land-conveyance bills, Rey said.

"It's not a precedent of any sort, one way or another," Rey said, noting the proposed sales total less than one-half of one per cent of the 78-million-hectare national forest system. Parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet forest system needs, he said.

Legislators from both parties have challenged the land sale, saying short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands. They also said profits would fall far short of what's needed to help rural governments pay for schools and other services.

Josh Kardon, chief of staff to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said the land sale should not distract from the real harm of a severe funding cut for rural schools.

"I am beginning to suspect that the administration is working overtime to keep land sales the issue that everyone debates, so that the public never focuses on the massive loss of funding for rural counties," Kardon said.

The administration's plan would result in a 55-per-cent cut over five years, compared with current spending, which totalled nearly $400 million this year.

Republican senators were more open to the administration plan. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, who had sharply opposed the land sale at a hearing last month, had moved toward a more neutral position by Thursday.

"At this point, he appreciates the administration's continued willingness to fund the program but doesn't have any specific comments on the proposal until he has more time to review it," said spokesman Dan Whiting.

A spokesman for Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and chairman of the Senate energy and natural resources committee, said Domenici was "keeping an open mind on the proposal and will do a full review."

Rey said the question for legislators is not whether they like the land sale plan but whether they have a better alternative in a tight budget year.

"Students don't go to school on promises. They go to school on resources," he said. A**HOLE

Rice Defends Iraq, Protesters Cry "War Criminal"

Rice Defends Iraq, Protesters Cry "War Criminal"

SYDNEY - To Australian protesters' cries of "war criminal" and "murderer", U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended her government's role in Iraq on Thursday and said patience and sacrifice were needed to finish the job.

Protesters are blocked by police officers at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music during an address by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Sydney Thursday, March 16, 2006. Rice is in Australia to attend the Trilateral Strategies Dialogue with her Australian counterpart Alexander Downer. (AP Photo/Andrew Caballero-Reynolds)

Speaking to students at the University of Sydney's Conservatorium of Music, Rice said she understood why people found it hard to be positive about Iraq when all they saw on their television screens was violence.

"I am confident that the Iraqis will triumph, that we will win in Iraq but we must be patient with these people," said Rice, who repeatedly thanked Australia for being among the first allies to send troops to Iraq.

There has been a new wave of sectarian killings in Iraq since the February 22 bombing of a major Shi'ite shrine, raising concern the country is edging closer to civil war. Soon after Rice began her speech, two protesters were removed from the room after shouting "Condoleezza Rice you are a war criminal" and "Iraqi blood is on your hands and you cannot wash that blood away".

Rice, who is on a three-day trip to Australia, immediately shot back she was glad democracy was alive at the university, where she said people were free to speak their minds. "I am also especially glad to note that democracy will now also be alive and well at the University of Kabul and the University of Baghdad," she said. About 15 minutes into her address another protester interrupted her speech when she referred to freedom. "What kind of freedom are you talking about, you are a murderer", said the demonstrator before being led away. Several protesters were moved away from outside the auditorium before Rice began. Sharp-shooters were positioned on on surrounding buildings and security forces looked on from boats in Sydney Harbor. Australia was among one of the first countries to offer troops to help with the U.S. war effort in Iraq and still has about 1,300 in and around Iraq, with a promise to stay into 2007. But with support dwindling for the war in Australia, Rice sought to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and said Iraqis were now more free. Earlier, at a news conference with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Rice said it would take several years for Iraqis to build a stable and secure Iraq but she was confident they would do it. "We are going to look one day at a stable and secure Iraq and be very grateful to those like Australia and the United States who were determined to see the Iraqi people have this chance," she added. Rice will visit Australian troops at Victoria Barracks in Melbourne on Friday to personally thank them for their help in Iraq. She will also lay a wreath at the Shrine of Remembrance. One student asked about abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to which Rice said it had made her "sick to her stomach". However, she defended the use of the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where human rights groups say detainees are being held in inhumane conditions and their continued detention flouts international laws.

Boost for Google in Internet Privacy Case

Boost for Google in Internet Privacy Case

Kool.

Boost for Google in Internet Privacy Case

by Suzanne Goldenberg

Privacy campaigners in the US hailed a victory of sorts for internet search engine Google yesterday after a court case focusing on demands from the Bush administration for access to its data appeared to swing in Google's favour. The White House had served a subpoena on several web search giants demanding data on billions of search requests and website addresses as part of its defence of an online pornography law. But a US district judge in San Jose, California, indicated repeatedly on Tuesday that he shared Google's concerns about privacy, and he did not want to create the impression government could keep track of individuals searching the internet. Although Judge James Ware said he would probably ask the search engine to turn over some of its records, it is highly unlikely the Bush administration will see more than a sliver of Google's vast data trove. "The judge is clearly quite sensitive to the privacy issues that are raised by this," said Barton Carter, a communications and law tutor at Boston University, adding that it seemed the judge would give the government much less than it wanted. Judge Ware may rule within days on how much data Google must share. But it was clear yesterday the administration will not be granted a week of search requests, which would have numbered in the billions, and a million web addresses. Earlier on Tuesday the department of justice said it had scaled back its demand to a random sampling of 5,000 search requests, and 50,000 website addresses contained in the Google archive. The struggle between Google and the Bush administration, played out at a time of heightened sensitivities after a domestic wiretapping scandal, has been seen as a test case for privacy safeguards in the age of the internet. "It is the leading search company in the world, and the implications for Google if the government is able to routinely make these requests would have a big impact on business and internet privacy," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre. The administration demanded the data as part of an unrelated lawsuit involving online pornography. Justice department lawyers argue the search records demonstrate how easy it is for children to circumvent internet filters. The administration did not ask for information that would identify individual internet users, or their internet protocol addresses. Some search giants including Yahoo!, Microsoft and AOL, complied, handing the administration billions of internet search records. Google alone has fought the subpoena, arguing the demand violates the privacy of its users, and could expose trade secrets about the operations of its search engine.

Legal Gag on Bush-Blair War Row

Legal Gag on Bush-Blair War Row

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.

Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that the US president last year planned to attack the Arabic television station al-Jazeera, which has its headquarters in Doha, the capital of Qatar, where US and British bombers were based.

Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".

Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.

The Mirror said the memo turned up in May last year at the constituency office of the former Labour MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke. Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.

Mr Clarke said yesterday that Mr O'Connor "did the right thing" by drawing the document to his attention. Mr Clarke, an anti-war MP who lost his seat at the last election, returned the document to the government. "As well as an MP, I am a special constable," he said.

Both men were released on police bail last Thursday to appear at Bow Street magistrates court on November 29. When they were charged, newspapers reported that the memo contained a transcript of a discussion between Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

The conversation was understood to have taken place during a meeting in the US. It is believed to reveal that Mr Blair disagreed with Mr Bush about aspects of the Iraq war. There was widespread comment at the time that the British government was angry about US military tactics there, particularly in the city of Falluja.

Charges under the secrets act have to have the consent of the attorney-general. His intervention yesterday suggests that the prosecution plans to ask the judge to hold part, if not all of the trial, in camera, with the public and press excluded.

U.N. Creates New Watchdog Over U.S. Opposition

U.N. Creates New Watchdog Over U.S. Opposition

UNITED NATIONS - A running gag at the United Nations is that whenever the United States takes a defiant stand against an overwhelming majority of the 191 member states, there are only three countries that predictably vote with Washington most of the time -- whether it is right or dead wrong.

No country with such a record of torture, secret detentions, 'extraordinary renditions,' rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), denial of due process and generations of capital punishment, even for minors and the mentally disabled -- all as a matter of official policy -- should be allowed to serve on the new Human Rights Council.

Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies

As expected, this incongruous voting pattern was repeated Wednesday when the three loyal U.S. allies -- Israel and the two tiny Pacific Island nations of Palau and the Marshall Islands -- were the only member states to stand in unison with the United States when it rejected a resolution calling for the creation of a new Human Rights Council.

The vote in the General Assembly was 170 in favour and four against (United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau), with three abstentions (Venezuela, Iran and Belarus).

Seven member states -- Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Papua New Guinea and Seychelles --were deprived of their votes because they had not paid their dues to the world body.

Since the United States has no veto in the General Assembly, the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority. The U.S. opposition couldn't block the establishment of the new Human Rights Council.

"With the exception of the usual additions of two tiny dependent island-states, the United States and Israel stand alone in defying virtually the entire world's support for the new Human Rights Council," says Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.

As the work of selecting the first group of members for the new Council begins, each candidate state must agree to being vetted before membership as well as being examined fully at some point during its three-year term, she said.

"The United States, despite its opposition to the Council, has claimed it will 'work with' the Council, and we can anticipate it will expect to win a seat in the first term," Bennis told IPS.

But such an effort should be rejected, she said, as countries evaluating human rights records keep in mind the continuing patterns of U.S. human rights violations both within the United States itself and internationally, where U.S. military or political officials are in power.

"No country with such a record of torture, secret detentions, 'extraordinary renditions,' rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), denial of due process and generations of capital punishment, even for minors and the mentally disabled -- all as a matter of official policy -- should be allowed to serve on the new Human Rights Council," said Bennis, author of "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the U.N. Defy U.S."

If the General Assembly does indeed allow the United States a seat, she argued, special care should be taken to insure that the mandatory human rights evaluation carried out of all members be taken very seriously when it comes to the U.S., so that the claim that the so-called "indispensable nation" should be somehow exempt from human rights scrutiny will be rejected.

The proposed new Council will have 47 members compared with 53 in the outgoing Human Rights Commission, which has been criticised for accommodating "habitual human rights abusers" as some of its members.

The membership in the new Council shall be based on equitable geographic distribution and seats shall be distributed among regional groups: 13 for the African Group; 13 for the Asian Group; eight for the Latin American and Caribbean group; six for the Eastern European Group; and seven for the Western European and Other States Group.

All members, who will have term limits, will serve for three years but will not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms.

The General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Human Rights Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights.

Since a two-thirds majority for membership was opposed by an overwhelming majority of states, General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who crafted the draft resolution, opted for a compromise: an "absolute majority" -- meaning 96 votes in a 191-member General Assembly.

After the voting in the Assembly, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said that too many countries sought membership in the outgoing Commission primarily "to protect themselves against criticism, or to criticise others".

He agreed with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had initially proposed that the new Council be elected by a two-thirds majority.

"That would have made it harder for countries not committed to human rights, to win seats on the new body. The United States had also proposed exclusive criteria to keep gross human rights abusers off the Council, to exclude the worst violators," he added..

Sadly, Bolton said, those suggestions had not been included in the text. The resolution merely required member states "to take into account" a country's human rights record when voting.

"And suspension of a member required a two-thirds vote, a standard higher than that required when electing new members," he added.

Bolton also said the real test would be the quality of membership that emerged on the Council -- "and whether that would include countries like the Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Belarus and Burma, to name a few".

In a statement released Wednesday, Annan said: "This is only the first step in a process of change." In the coming weeks, he said, states wishing to be elected to the new Council will put forward their pledges and commitments to protect and promote human rights.

"It will be up to their fellow member states to evaluate these promises, and to hold the successful candidates to them. The General Assembly will vote on all candidates, and thereafter will have the responsibility to suspend any of the Council's members that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights," Annan said.

He also said that the universal review mechanism will allow the Council to hold all member states to their human rights obligations fairly and equally, without selectivity or double standards.

The Council will meet regularly throughout the year, and can hold special sessions when needed. This should enable it to deal with human rights crises immediately, whenever they arise, Annan added.

The creation of the new Council was also hailed by virtually all human rights organisations.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the new council should be a great improvement over the old Commission on Human Rights.

"Today's resolution marks an historic step towards enhanced human rights protection within the U.N. system," he added.

"The challenge now is to make the Human Rights Council function effectively, so human rights victims around the world will gain the forum they urgently need to seek relief from abuses," Roth said, in a statement released Wednesday.

Yvonne Terlingen, U.N. representative for Amnesty International, said her organisation welcomes "the overwhelming vote" by the General Assembly in favour of establishing a new Human Rights Council.

She said the U.S. government's decision to vote against the resolution was "regrettable". However the result, 170 in favour, four opposed and three abstaining, demonstrates unambiguous international support for the Council.

Although the hard work is only just beginning, she said, it is encouraging to hear that, despite voting against the resolution, the U.S. government will cooperate with the Council and support it.

Military Expenditures

by Anup Shah
Wednesday, February 08, 2006

• This page: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp.
• To print full details (expanded/alternative links, side notes, etc.) use the printer-friendly version:
  • http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp?p=1

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

This web page has the following sub-sections:

• World Military Spending
• U.S. Military Spending
• In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

World Military Spending

Global military expenditure and arms trade form the largest spending in the world at over $950 billion in annual expenditure, as noted by the prestigous Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SPIRI), for 2003. Furthermore:

World military spending in 2003 increased by about 11 per cent in real terms. This is a remarkable rate of increase, even more so given that it was preceded by an increase of 6.5 per cent in 2002.

• Over two years world military spending increased by 18 per cent in real terms, to reach $956 billion (in current dollars) in 2003.
• High-income countries account for about 75 per cent of world military spending but only 16 per cent of world population.
• The combined military spending of these countries was slightly higher than the aggregate foreign debt of all low-income countries and 10 times higher than their combined levels of official development assistance in 2001.
• … There is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status, on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on the other.

The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total…. In the absence of [appropriations for the new war on terror, and on Iraq], US military expenditure would still show a significant increase, but at a much slower rate, and world military spending would show a rise of 4 per cent rather than 11 per cent in 2003.

… While US military expenditure is set to continue to grow and will continue to propel world military spending, the pace is likely to fall back somewhat in the next few years. In the longer term it is doubtful whether current levels will be economically and politically sustainable.

— Elisabeth Skons, Catalina Perdomo, Sam Perlo-Freeman and Petter Stalenheim, Military expenditure, Chapter 10, SPIRI Yearbook 2004, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 9, 2004

What comes second? »

The illegal international drugs trade is estimated to be worth more than $400 billion, coming second only to military expenditure.

And consider a few more items:

Global priorities in spending in 1998.Source: Consumerism, Volunteer Now! (undated)

Global Priority	$U.S. Billions
Basic education for everyone in the world	6
Cosmetics in the United States	8
Water and sanitation for everyone in the world	9
Ice cream in Europe	11
Reproductive health for all women in the world	12
Perfumes in Europe and the United States	12
Basic health and nutrition for everyone in the world	13
Pet foods in Europe and the United States	17
Business entertainment in Japan	35
Cigarettes in Europe	50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe	105
Narcotics drugs in the world	400
Military spending in the world	780

It would seem ironic that the world spends more on things to destroy each other (military) and to destroy ourselves (drugs, alcohol and cigarettes) than on anything else.

U.S. Military Spending

The United States, being the most formidable military power, it is worth looking at their spending.

The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and “other” which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)

• For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
• For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
• For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
• For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
• This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

These figures typically do not include combat figures, so 2001 onwards, the Afghan war, and 2003 onwards, the Iraq war costs are not in this budget. As of early 2006, Congress had already approved an additional funding total of $300 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are indeed staggering.

In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

Consider the following:

The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, however, a comparison can be made here of the US Fiscal Year 2005 spending against other equivalent data:

• The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
• The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
• The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
• It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
• The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
• The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

Some of the above statistics come from organizations such as the Center for Defense Information, and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. They often include a global comparison. The one for Fiscal Year 2007 has been produced as a graph here:

Military spending in 2005 ($ Billions, and percent of total)

Country	Dollars (billions)	% of total	Rank
Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 6, 2006 Notes: Figures are for latest year available, usually 2005. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending. * 2004 Figure. Source uses FY 2007 for US figure (and includes Iraq and Afghan spending). I have used 2005 to try and keep in line with other countries listed (but I have NOT included the Iraq and Afghan operations cost which would be another $75 billion). Due to rounding, some percentages may appear as zero. If you are viewing this table on another site, please see http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp for further details.
United States	420.7	43%	1
China*	62.5	6%	2
Russia*	61.9	6%	3
United Kingdom	51.1	5%	4
Japan	44.7	4%	5
France	41.6	4%	6
Germany	30.2	3%	7
India	22	2%	8
Saudi Arabia	21.3	2%	9
South Korea	20.7	2%	10
Italy	17.2	2%	11
Australia	13.2	1%	12
Brazil	13.1	1%	13
Canada	10.9	1%	14
Turkey	9.8	1%	15
Israel*	9.7	1%	16
Netherlands	9.7	1%	17
Spain	8.8	1%	18
Taiwan	8.3	1%	19
Indonesia*	7.6	1%	20
Myanmar	6.9	1%	21
Ukraine*	6	1%	22
Singapore	5.6	1%	23
Sweden	5.6	1%	24
North Korea*	5.5	1%	25
Poland	5.2	0%	26
Iran	4.9	1%	27
Norway	4.7	0%	28
Greece*	4.5	0%	29
Kuwait	4.3	0%	30
Colombia*	3.9	0%	31
Switzerland	3.8	0%	32
Pakistan	3.7	0%	33
Vietnam	3.5	0%	34
Belgium	3.4	0%	35

Compare the military spending with the entire budget of the United Nations:

The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year, or about $1.70 for each of the world’s inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a debilitating financial crisis and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds. As of November 30, 2005, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $695 million, of which the United States alone owed $587 million (84% of the regular budget).

— UN Financial Crisis, Global Policy Forum (as of February 2006)

The UN was created after World War II with leading efforts by the United States and key allies.

• The UN was set up to be committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security.
• Yet, the UN’s entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military expenditure, approximately 1%
• While the UN is by no means perfect, and there are many, many issues to be addressed regarding the UN itself, that the world can spend so much on their military but contribute so little to the goals of global security, peace, international cooperation etc, is revealing.
• For more info about the United Nations »
• • This web site’s section on the United Nations and Development looks at its role in fighting poverty and other issues, plus some of the problems it faces.
    
    
  • The United Nations web site is huge itself, with lots of sub-sites.
    
    
  
  
  

Generally, compared to Cold War levels, the amount of military spending and expenditure in most nations has been reduced. For example, global military spending declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998, though in 2005 has risen to almost one trillion. The United States’ spending, while reduced compared to the Cold War era, is still close to Cold War levels.

In 1997 alone, half of USA’s aid was related to military aid/trade—and most of that was to countries that are already wealthy, like Israel, or Turkey (which has often been one of the largest recipients of US military aid and has often been criticized for its human rights violations and crackdowns). Compare that to very poor countries like Sub-Saharan African nations that received very little aid.

During his 2000 election campaign, President George Bush had promised an an additional 45 billion dollars over nine years to the military budget. Yet, that increase was seen in just the Fiscal Year 2003 request alone. This large increase is attributed to the “War on Terror”.

Some regions around the world are also beginning to see an increase in spending. Especially in Asia.

For those hoping the world can decreaes its military spending, a research for SPIRI suggests that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000

And, of course, this will come from American tax payer money. Many studies and polls show that military spending is one of the last things on the minds of American people.

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending in 1997, for example, amounted to 51% of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social secuity benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). This has been similar in recent years too. For example,

• For 2003
  • The total budget request for discretionary spending was $767 billion, of which 51.6% was the military budget — $396 billion.
  • The next two largest items were education and health, getting $52bn and $49bn dollars, (6.8% and 6.4% of discretionary budget) respectively.
• For 2004
  • It is similar to the previous year.
  • The total budget request for discretionary spending was $782 billion, 51% of which was the military budget — $399 billion.
  • The next two largest items were education and health, getting $55bn and $49bn (7% and 6.3% of discretionary budget) respectively.
• For 2005
  • It is also similar to previous years.
  • The total budget request for discretionary spending was $820 billion, 51% of which was the military budget — $421 billion.
  • The next two largest items were education and health, getting $60bn and $51bn (7% and 6.2% of discretionary budget) respectively.
• For 2006
  • It is also similar to previous years.
  • The total budget request for discretionary spending is $840.5 billion, 52% of which is the military budget — $438.8 billion.
  • The next two largest items are education and health, getting $58.4bn and $51bn (6.9% and 6.1% of discretionary budget) respectively.
• For 2007
  • It is also similar to previous years.
  • The total budget request for discretionary spending is $873 billion, 52.7% of which is the military budget — $460 billion.
  • The next two largest items are education and health, getting $56.8bn and $53.1bn (6.5% and 6.1% of discretionary budget) respectively.

For facts, statistics, research and news on US military spending, also visit the Center for Defense Information (CDI) web site. They have a section on US Military Spending.

But it is not just the U.S. military spending. In fact, as Jan Oberg argues, westerm militarism often overlaps with civilian functions affecting attitudes to militarism in general. As a result, when revelations come out that some Western militaries may have trained dictators and human rights violators, the justification given may be surprising, which we look at in the next page.

Document History

Select a date or option from the list below. Then, scroll through the page to see those updated areas highlighted. (New feature for updates in 2004, onwards).

Date	Reason
February 8, 2006	Updated military spending figures based on U.S. fiscal year 2007 request
June 01, 2005	Updated military spending figures based on U.S. fiscal year 2006 request
June 16, 2004	Updated world military spending numbers
April 04, 2004	Updated military spending figures based on U.S. fiscal year 2005 request

Highlight all updates

Turn off all highlighted updates

Alternatives for broken links

Sometimes links to other sites may break beyond my control. Where I can, I try to provide alternative links to backups or reposted versions here.

The following link takes you to

• 'Highlights of the FY'05 Budget Request', Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February, 2004http://64.177.207.201/static/budget/annual/fy05/

If the above link has expired, please try the following alternative

1. http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_490.html

• The Arms Trade is Big Business
• Next Page Training Human Rights Violators >

Other pages in this section

These are the pages within this section on this web site that you can also read.

• Arms Trade—a major cause of suffering
  • The Arms Trade is Big Business
  • You are here: High Military Expenditure in Some Places
  • Training Human Rights Violators
  • Military Propaganda for Arms Sales
  • Small Arms—they cause 90% of civilian casualties
  • A Code of Conduct for Arms Sales
  • Landmines
  • Links for more information

“Bad ideas flourish because they are in the interest of powerful groups”
— Paul Krugman

© Copyright 1998–2006

Translated Middle East News Source/Link Correction for Mosaic Arabic News Translations

Dahr Jamail Iraq is happy to announce new daily video streams of
translated Middle East News on line. The daily Mosaic streams, produced by LinkTV, features selections from daily TV news programs produced by national broadcasters throughout the Middle East. The news reports are presented unedited and translated, when necessary, into English. Mosaic includes television news broadcasts from selected national and regional entities listed on the right. These news reports are regularly watched by 280 million people in 22 countries all over the Middle East.

Thus, people unable to speak or understand Arabic or Persian are now able to get news directly from the Middle East. You are no longer forced to rely on people who can read Arabic to give you the information, as you can watch or read the news yourself and make up your own mind. Between the Mosaic and MidEastWire daily Iraq news feeds, www.dahrjamailiraq.com is now a daily source of fresh news directly from major Middle Eastern news agencies, all translated into English.

*How to watch Mosaic:* Please watch the quicktime stream while
reviewing the information about the broadcasters linked to from the
DahrJamailIraq website. Mosaic represents a diversity of media sources
from state controlled to US funded to private networks affiliated with
political factions. Mosaic is best understood, appreciated and digested within the context of the specific news outlets being watched.

You can see the News Broadcasts here:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mosaic/

And subscribe to our Mosiac RSS feed here:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mosaic/mosaic.php?id=213&con=256

Translated Daily News Feeds from the Middle East

Dahr Jamail Iraq is happy to announce new daily video streams of
translated Middle East News on line. The daily Mosaic streams, produced
by LinkTV, features selections from daily TV news programs produced by
national broadcasters throughout the Middle East. The news reports are
presented unedited and translated, when necessary, into English. Mosaic
includes television news broadcasts from selected national and regional
entities listed on the right. These news reports are regularly watched
by 280 million people in 22 countries all over the Middle East.

Thus, people unable to speak or understand Arabic or Persian are now
able to get news directly from the Middle East. You are no longer forced
to rely on people who can read Arabic to give you the information, as
you can watch or read the news yourself and make up your own mind.
Between the Mosaic and MidEastWire daily Iraq news feeds,
www.dahrjamailiraq.com is now a daily source of fresh news directly from
major Middle Eastern news agencies, all translated into English.

*How to watch Mosaic:* Please watch the quicktime stream while reviewing
the information about the broadcasters linked to from the DahrJamailIraq
website. Mosaic represents a diversity of media sources from state
controlled to US funded to private networks affiliated with political
factions. Mosaic is best understood, appreciated and digested within the
context of the specific news outlets being watched.

You can see the News Broadcasts here <http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mosaic/>

And subscribe to our Mosiac RSS feed here
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mosaic/rss.php>

Want to Know Headlines

Below are one-paragraph excerpts of important news articles you may have missed. Each excerpt is taken verbatim from the major media website listed at the link provided. If any link fails to function, click here. These news articles include revealing information on weapons in space, huge war profits, a boom in billionaires, Tamiflu riches flowing into the pockets of a high government official, and more. Key sentences are highlighted for those with limited time. By choosing to educate ourselves and to spread the word, we can and will build a brighter future.

With best wishes,
Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info Team
Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton

Pentagon eyeing weapons in space
March 14, 2006, Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/14/pentagon_eyeing_weapons_in_space/

The Pentagon is asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step toward creating a space battlefield since President Reagan's long-defunct ''star wars" project. The Defense Department's budget proposal...includes money for a variety of tests on offensive and defensive weapons. Arms-control specialists fear the tests will push the military closer to basing weapons in space than during Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s -- without a public debate of the potential consequences. The descriptions included in the budget request mark only what is publicly known about the military's space warfare plans. Specialists believe the classified portion of the $439 billion budget, blacked out for national security reasons, almost certainly includes other space-related programs. Under President Bush, the White House has emphasized what's known as ''space dominance" -- the notion that the United States must command space to defend the nation, but the budget request marks a transition from laboratory theory to reality. The Bush administration has sought to keep the military's options open despite international opposition to weapons in space.

The War Dividend: The British companies making a fortune out of conflict-riven Iraq
March 13, 2006, Independent (one of the UK's top newspapers)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article350959.ece
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13385

British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago. The company roll-call of post-war profiteers includes some of the best known names in Britain's boardrooms. The evidence of massive investments and the promise of more multimillion-pound profits to come was discovered in a joint investigation by Corporate Watch, an independent watchdog, and The Independent. The findings show how much is [at] stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come. A total of 61 British companies are identified as benefiting from at least £1.1bn of contracts and investment in the new Iraq. But that figure is just the tip of the iceberg. It could be as much as five times higher, because many companies prefer to keep their relationship secret. The waters are further muddied by the Government's refusal to release the names of companies it has helped to win contracts in Iraq. The report acknowledges that British business still lags behind the huge profits paid to American companies. In five years, the £1.1bn of contracts identified in the report will be dwarfed by what Britain and the US hope to reap from investments. Highly lucrative oil contracts have yet to be handed out.

Note: For more powerful information on war-profiteering revealed by a highly decorated U.S. general see http://www.WantToKnow.info/warisaracket

Defending the party of Davos
March 13, 2006, CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/international/pluggedin_2_fortune/

I went to hear Jeff Faux talk recently about his new book "The Global Class War," an account of how the corporate elite has been selling out American workers. I don't entirely buy his argument. Faux is founder of the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank...which I think is best described as "gloomy." There is no economic news that the EPI can't find a way to spin negatively. That said, the work the group does is always meticulous and usually thought-provoking. The same can be said of Faux's book. His main point is that there now exists a global "party of Davos" (the Swiss ski resort where politicians, businesspeople, journalists, and scholars gather every January for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum), whose members have more in common with each other than with the peoples of their home countries. I can testify that there is truth to this. I am a member of the junior auxiliary of the party of Davos. Faux's point is not that people like me are sinister and evil -- there's no Trilateral Commission/Council on Foreign Relations/Bilderberg Group conspiracy nonsense in his book -- just that the interests of corporate America aren't necessarily the same as America's interests. My chief solace is that Faux doesn't seem to have an obviously better alternative. Or maybe that shouldn't be a solace -- because Faux is right that a global economic system designed entirely by corporations, without any democratic input to speak of, isn't what anybody really wants.

Note: This is a heartening article from one who rubs elbows with the power elite. It is also one of the rare times I've seen the powerful Bilderberg Group mentioned in mainstream media. If you don't know about this secret gathering of the global elite, I most highly recommend two revealing BBC articles you can find at http://www.WantToKnow.info/051115secretsocietiesbilderberg

Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug
March 12, 2006, Independent (one of the UK's leading newspapers)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350787.ece
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060313114723970

The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease. More than 60 countries have so far ordered large stocks of the antiviral medication - the only oral medicine believed to be effective against the deadly H5N1 strain of the disease - to try to protect their people. The United Nations estimates that a pandemic could kill 150 million people worldwide. The drug was developed by a Californian biotech company, Gilead Sciences. Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding. The 2005 report showed that, in all, he owned shares worth up to $95.9m, from which he got an income of up to $13m. The firm made a loss in 2003, the year before concern about bird flu started. Then revenues from Tamiflu almost quadrupled, to $44.6m, helping put the company well into the black. Sales almost quadrupled again, to $161.6m last year.

Note: For many more strange coincidences and facts around the avian flu scare, take a look at our summary of eye-opening news articles at http://www.WantToKnow.info/avianflu

Forbes reports billionaire boom
March 10, 2006, BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4791848.stm

A worldwide economic boom has yielded a record number of dollar billionaires in the past year, according to Forbes. Their number rose by 15%. Microsoft's Bill Gates tops the list for the 12th year running, with a net worth of $50bn (£29bn). The combined net worth of the 793 is $2.6 trillion and US billionaires account for just under half the amount. The figures were conservative estimates for different reasons. While New York has the highest number of resident billionaires with 40, Moscow is second with 25, and London comes third with 23. Steve Forbes, Forbes' chief executive and editor-in-chief, attributed the global rise in the number of billionaires to an economic boom.

Note: Yet a recent New York Times article shows that the income of 90% of citizens is basically stagnant or even decreasing. See http://www.WantToKnow.info/060306newsarticles#1

The Dubai Deal You Don't Know About
March 9, 2006, Time
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1171773,00.html

Dubai Ports World, the firm at the center of the controversy, announced today that it would give up its bid to manage U.S. ports, agreeing to transfer the contracts to a “U.S. entity." Yet while one Dubai company may be giving up on U.S. ports, another one shows no signs of...giving up a contract with the Navy to provide shore services for vessels in the Middle East. The firm, Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS)...was sold to a Dubai government investment vehicle for $285 million. Why is a Dubai shipping services company doing business with the Pentagon when handing over U.S. port operations to the emirate would supposedly compromise national security? ISS “will be responsible for providing all the logistics requirements of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships in ports throughout the [Middle East] region.” The release also notes that ISS may be asked to provide services for U.S. military training exercises and “contingency operations inland.” ISS’s partner for those services? None other than KBR, the division of Halliburton — Vice President Dick Cheney’s old firm — that has won billions of dollars in contracts for the Iraq war and reconstruction. Ironically, Halliburton's name has come up as a possible candidate to be the "U.S. entity" to take over the U.S. ports management from Dubai Ports World.

Moussaoui Jury Riveted by 9/11 Transcript
March 8, 2006, CBS/Associated Press
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/08/ap/national/mainD8G7AG300.shtml

The details of what happened to the four hijacked jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, have been known for years, but when a prosecutor read a simple minute-by-minute account of the attacks, the jury deciding the fate of confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui hung on every word. In a similar vein, the missed opportunities of the FBI and other agencies to prevent Sept. 11 have been known for years, but when FBI agents are forced to admit them on cross-examination, they seem fresh to the jury. FBI agents have been forced to admit under cross-examination that the FBI knew years before Sept. 11 that al-Qaida had plans to use planes as missiles to destroy prominent buildings. They also had to acknowledge numerous missed opportunities in the months before Sept. 11 to catch two of the hijackers with terror links known to the government, even though the pair frequently used their own names in this country to rent cars, purchase plane tickets and even, once, to file a police report after getting mugged.

Note: What all of the media articles on this important case fail to mention is the laptop computer of Moussaoui was confiscated weeks before 9/11, yet FBI headquarters systematically undermined requests by Minneapolis FBI agents to search the computer. See http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg#moussaouilaptop. And a full two weeks before 9/11 an FBI Minnesota supervisor said he was trying keep Moussaoui from “taking control of a plane and fly it into the WTC," yet his investigation was repeatedly blocked by top officials. See http://www.WantToKnow.info/9-11cover-up10pg#moussaoui

Battery power as good as gas?
March 6, 2006, Toronto Star (one of Canada's leading newspapers)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1
&c=Article&cid=1141599010468&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

A much-shrouded idea could give portable power a real charge, for a change—and change, well, everything. Imagine the day when cellphones charge up in seconds, laptop batteries never degrade, and electric cars have the same power, driving range and purchase price as their gas-powered cousins. Such a battery—a superbattery—doesn't exist today, but a tiny company out of Austin, Texas, is getting remarkably close, and the possibilities have caught the attention of the U.S. army, the former vice-chairman of Dell Computer, and one of the most respected venture capital firms in North America. Among EEStor's claims is that its "electrical energy storage unit" could pack nearly 10 times the energy punch of a lead-acid battery of similar weight and, under mass production, would cost half as much. It also says its technology more than doubles the energy density of lithium-ion batteries in most portable computer and mobile gadgets today, but could be produced at one-eighth the cost. The company...is weeks away from seeking independent verification of the product's performance. Adding more intrigue to the story is the fact that Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, joined Kleiner Perkins last summer as a strategic partner.

Ministers back 'terminator' GM crops
March 5, 2006, Independent (one of the UK's leading newspapers)
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article349331.ece
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0305-04.htm

Ministers are trying to scrap an international agreement banning the world's most controversial genetic modification of crops, grimly nicknamed "terminator technology", a move which threatens to increase hunger in the Third World. The Government is to push for terminator crops to be considered for approval on a "case-by-case basis" at two meetings this month; its position closely mirrors the stance of the United States and other GM [genetically modified organisms]-promoting countries. Terminator technology...would stop hundreds of millions of poor farmers from saving seeds from their crops for resowing for the following harvest, forcing them to buy new ones from biotech companies every year. The technique is officially known as genetic use restriction technology (Gurt), making crops produce sterile seeds. It could be applied to any crop, including maize and rice, widely grown in developing countries. The UK working group on terminator technology...says: "It could destroy traditional farming methods, damage farmers' livelihoods and threaten food security, particularly in developing countries." [Former UK Minister of Environment Michael] Meacher said: "For the first time in the history of the world, farmers would be stopped from using their own seeds."

Note: For more on this alarming development: http://www.WantToKnow.info/deception10pg

Pay too much and you could raise the alarm
February 23, 2006, Providence Journal (the leading newspaper in Rhode Island)
http://www.projo.com/news/bobkerr/projo_20060224_frico24.1d2c026b.html
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06

Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher. What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522. And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable. After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed. They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted. Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act. "The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Obsession: Mr. Singh’s Search for the Holy Grail
October 2004, Popular Science
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurecar/19b09aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

[Somender Singh] claims that his invention makes an engine cleaner, quieter and colder...while using up to 20 percent less gas. So far, all Singh’s invention has earned him is a few polite rejection letters from presidents, professors and auto manufacturers. “I am...no man with letters after his name or fancy institutions, and what I have invented is really very simple,” he admits. Remember that the internal combustion engine is itself hardly rocket science. The internal combustion engine (ICE) has been with us for about 200 years. The basic concept—the boom that turns a crank—has not really changed at all. The efficiency of that bang had stalled out at around 28 percent. The vast majority of the fuel was dissipated as engine heat or exhaust. Singh knew that...the combustion chamber [was where] fuel was turned to bang. He modified a motorcycle, then a two-stroke, then a four-stroke, then a car, then 50 cars. Singh applied for a patent in January 1999, and the U.S. Patent Office issued him No. 6237579 in May 2001. Finally he was allowed to bring his engines and hook them to a Benz EC-70 dynamometer with a five-gas analyzer and a Benz gravimetric fuel-measuring device. At between 2,000 and 2,800 rpm, Singh’s modified engine used between 10 and 42 percent less fuel than its unmodified twin, with no appreciable losses in torque or power.

Note: After posting a message on a group of high-school students who achieved dramatic improvements in car engine efficiency two weeks ago, I received emails from more than ten people claiming to have made or know of similar inventions. The above article was sent to me as evidence in one case. I know dozens of other cases that could be real. For lots more, see http://www.WantToKnow.info/newenergyinformation