Missing the Point: Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Moveon.org Movement
I recently tried to go and see Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Unfortunately, I was not able to see the movie due to the fact that only one theatre in the entire area is showing the movie. That means there was a line about a block long an hour before the movie even started. I figure I’ll wait another week and see if when the theatre is less crowded.

It seems the majority of people are either a) dying to see the movie or b) avoiding the movie at all costs. Of course these are merely generalizations and some people may fit into my category, which is “I’m not in a big hurry to see the movie.” I neither hate nor love Michael Moore. “Roger and Me” was a great movie, but I haven’t seen “The Big One.” I remember seeing “Bowling for Columbine” and noticing that there was a lot of fact-stretching and careful editing. Several websites are devoted to pointing out those careful edits such as "Truth About Bowling for Columbine" etc. Here’s where I draw the line on Moore: Michael Moore is a great American satirist but not a great reporter. This is evident in all his movies and his TV show “The Awful Truth.” Anyone remember the “Rabbit Lady” from “Roger and Me”? How about the scene in “Bowling for Columbine” where he proposes to the Cops show producer a new show that focuses on busting corporate criminals? All great satire. However, in “Bowling for Columbine” he tries to give the impression that Charlton Heston is somewhat of racist, when Heston marched on Washington with Martin Luther King Jr. and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

My biggest hope when I heard about Fahrenheit 9/11 is that it would get people talking about 9/11 and start asking questions that the official commission avoids or barely touches on in the hearings. When I first heard the full title of the movie, which is, or at least used to be, “Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature at Which Truth Burns,” I got pretty worried. Why? It sounds like a really cocky title that implies that it will have all the answers to what happened on 9/11. Moore spoke in Munich, Germany awhile before the movie came out and said to the audience: “See, I’m American, we don’t learn foreign languages. But that’s why we’re smiling all the time - you can see us coming down the street, you know. Hey! Hi! How’s it going? We’ve got that big shit-eating grin on our face all the time because our brains aren’t loaded down.” That comment is great satire and commentary on America. However, when people in the audience started asking Moore questions, he begins to flop around. One person said, “…organized crime has a profound influence on the Bush family. Can you comment?” Moore’s comment was simply, “I don’t want to comment on that right now. I’m making a movie and I’ve been looking into some of the things you’re discussing. The film’s called ‘Fahrenheit 9/11 – the temperature at which truth burns.” Why not comment on that right then and there? An informed public is the biggest catalyst for change. Is he simply “saving” all the information for his movie and then you have to spend $10 to go see the movie?

At the Munich performance another person in the audience asked Moore to comment on the Pearl Harbor theory that the Americans provoked Japan into attacking and let it happen so America could enter the war. Again, Moore did not directly answer that man’s question. He turned it around and asked how many people thought Bush knew exactly what was going to happen on 9/11. He then asked if anyone thought the American government had a role in the attacks. Moore then answered his own questions: “Well, I don’t believe that the Bush administration had something to do with September 11th. I do believe that were a lot of warning signals, but I don’t think they were ignored on purpose – Bush just wanted to go to the ranch for a month.” Instead of talking about Pearl Harbor – which would give a great insight into why governments let terrorist acts and acts of war happen and don’t stop them, sometimes even carrying them out themselves or funding them – Moore turns it all around and says there could have been warnings about 9/11, but doesn’t discuss what they were and makes a joke about Bush’s vacationing habits.

Alternative news journalists and thousands of people on the internet have been asking very important questions since 9/11. Some of which are (and I do not think these will be featured in “Fahrenheit 9/11”): Why were Israeli Mossad agents doing in New York on 9/11 taping the collapse of the towers? What is Pakistani intelligence’s role in 9/11? Why was the CIA visiting Bin Laden right before 9/11? Why did WTC 7 collapse even though it wasn’t even hit by a plane? This is just a small list and thousands more questions remain. Alex Jones, who runs the sites Infowars and Prison Planet, released a movie called “9/11: The Road to Tyranny,” long before Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” came out. He focuses on the history of state sponsored terrorism, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 WTC bombing (where one of the terrorists was actually an FBI informant and told by the FBI to switch a false bomb with a real one), and then finally 9/11. Jones allows people to view the first 40 minutes of the film for free at his website and encourages people who buy it to copy it and distribute to everyone they know.

I heard that www.moveon.org was hosting a discussion about “Fahrenheit 9/11” and an interactive conference call with Michael Moore. I decided to attend the event to see if the movie had made people start asking questions about 9/11 and share with the crowd some of the information I had uncovered about 9/11.

I had been to a Moveon.org event before while I was at college in the spring. Moveon.org was showing their documentary film “Uncovered: The Truth about the Iraq War.” I and about 50 people were huddled in the room of the local library watching the movie. The documentary, presented a lot of great evidence on why the war was unnecessary and how several layers of the government had messed with intelligence to get the war going. Sure, it left out some information, but for the majority of the people in the room it was probably the first time they had heard someone important like Scott Ritter speak. A discussion was supposed to follow but instead what followed was people either a) said nobody should die for the war b) expressed how much Bush had messed up the country and/or c) told everyone to vote for Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, or John Kerry. I was disappointed that no discussion of facts took place to educate people further and instead all the energy in the room was focused on being mad that war was going on and centered on the mindset “Anybody but Bush.”

After that experience I was little put off by Moveon.org, but still respected the documentary they put out. I hoped this new event focusing on “Fahrenheit 9/11” would be more constructive. I did not go this event as a reporter, but merely a participant. Therefore the quotes are not entirely accurate. They are just what I remember from the night since I did not have a pad and pen with me, or a tape recorder. I entered the meeting place: a restaurant in town. As soon as I sat down at a table a woman sitting next to me introduced herself and said “You want to put this on?” It was a pin that said “Patsy Keever for Congress.” I told the lady thanks, but no thanks. She said to me “Why not? You know who she’s running against right?” I must have had a memory lapse. I said, “No.” She replied, “Charles Taylor.” “Oh,” I replied, “One of the richest men in Congress. Worth, what? About $55 million, right? Still I’d rather not put that on cause I don’t know anything about Patsy Keever. Sure, I don’t like Taylor, but I don’t know anything about Keever.” She said, “You should vote for her because she’s great.” The back of my mind was saying, “True. She could be great. But I don’t know any facts about her.”

After that exchange I had the feeling this meeting could be a repeat of the earlier Moveon.org event. People started standing up one by one and introducing themselves. Some of things they said were: “I’ve seen the movie twice and I want George Bush out of office.” “I think Michael Moore is great. He had such courage to make this movie.” I stood up and introduced myself and told them I was a freelance writer and about some of the articles I did. I said, “I was not able to see the movie since the line was about this long.” I stretched out my arms to help them visualize the size of the line I saw. I continued: “I am interested in seeing what questions this movie makes people ask about 9/11. We have start asking questions. We must realize this was not an intelligence failure, but an intelligence success. I would like to share some of the information I have been investigating that deals with 9/11.” Two of the women in the audience nodded at me in an affirming way when I mentioned 9/11 was an intelligence success. People continued to stand up and introduce themselves and say how the movie affected them. Again, the reaction was primarily “Let’s get rid of Bush.” Quite a few people were wearing John Kerry pins and telling others that voting for Kerry would “fix the mess we’re in.”

After waiting awhile, people gathered around the phone to listen to Michael Moore answer questions from Moveon.org people. How many questions did he answer? Three. Just three. The questions mainly centered on what he hoped the movie would do and what he thought of the current situation in Iraq. His answers were very general and long-winded. He mainly focused on how well the documentary was doing in terms of sales to emphasize how mainly people were seeing it as soon as possible. Once Moore was done talking, a Moveon.org representative proclaimed over the speaker that Moveon.org would be organized to get people to vote, a very good and noble cause.

As the meeting started winding down several people came up to me and expressed how happy they were to see a man my age (I’m 20) at the meeting. I was probably the only person under 40 out of the about 30 there. One man came up to me to express how proud he was to see someone of my age there and to say he was also proud that I wrote about topics such as the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and the draft that’s coming back. He asked me what motivated me to get active. I said, “9/11. But not in the corny patriotic way everyone refers to it and says the world changed that day.” He gave me a puzzled look. “I was tired of seeing things like this happen on purpose without being stopped. Look at Pearl Harbor.” I could tell he was sensing I was gonna talk about how the US let Pearl Harbor happen, which is true. I was also gonna tell him about the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Liberty Attack, and a slew of other incidents of state sponsored or state assisted terrorism. As soon as I mentioned Pearl Harbor the man hurried up our conversation and said “See ya.”

I moved towards the door to leave and woman approached me and said, “So who’s affected by this new draft?” I said, “Anyone age 18-26, no matter what their education level – college or high school.” I kept moving closer to the door. I bumped into a wife and her husband. He was trying to convince her to vote for Kerry. She responded, “Kerry’s too far to the right.” I intruded into their conversation and said to the woman, “Kerry is watered down Bush. He’s Bush-light.” She nodded at me and her and her husband took off. I finally got out of there and headed home.

When I arrived home an almost depression-like state washed over me. No one had asked me to share with them the information I had uncovered about 9/11. None of the people discussed 9/11 and only briefly touched on Iraq. Everything was focused on how courageous Michael Moore is and how bad a president George Bush is. The restaurant contained so much enthusiasm for activism and change but it was mainly directed at voting for John Kerry. Kerry, a man who’s foreign policy towards Israel is almost the exact same as Bush’s Israeli policy – Israel has a right to “defend itself” against “terrorists” and thinks Palestinians are never willing to work towards a peace. Kerry, a man who supported the push for the Iraqi war. Kerry, a man who went to Yale with Bush and was in the same secret society as Bush (Skull and Bones). Kerry, a man who told the Spanish Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to reconsider his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, even though the Spanish people demonstrated in mass numbers for troop withdrawal. Kerry, a man, who in his book “In a Call to Service,” tells people to “its time to get over it” in regard to the Vietnam War and US military interventions:

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

I am glad to see that Michael Moore’s movie finally made it to theatres in the US, however, as the Moveon.org meeting demonstrates, I am troubled by the fact that everyone is focusing on the “Anybody but Bush” mentality and not learning the facts of 9/11, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and the US Governments scary history on allowing acts of war to take place for its own means. It’s great to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” and Moven.org generating enthusiasm for change in the government. That’s something I truly respect. However, that enthusiasm needs to be focused on educating people. Sure, a group of people can protest the Iraq War and carry signs that say thing such as “War, not peace” and “No blood for oil.” But what is more effective is an educated and informed citizenry that when they decide to protest can provide people on their side and the other side of the fence with a wealth of factual information that allows people to act by assessing information and not on emotionalism.

Edward S. Herman, an economist, once said, “The U.S. public is depoliticized, poorly informed on foreign affairs...and strongly patriotic in the face of a struggle with "another Hitler". Even though the public is normally averse to war, even with modest propaganda efforts...the public can be quickly transformed into enthusiastic supporters of war.” Apply that quote to before the Iraq War and “another Hitler” is Saddam Hussein. Apply that quote to the furor generated by “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “another Hitler” is becoming George Bush. No question, George Bush is a horrible President, but Moore is slipping into a trap where people are so focused on anger towards George Bush that they are missing even bigger questions about why 9/11 was allowed to happen.

United States stance against international accountability has rocky history
On May 20th the United States presented a draft to the UN Security Council to allow U.S. peacekeeping troops not to be prosecuted by the world court at The Hague for another year. The draft makes special mention that the one year period of exemption is renewable “for as long as necessary.” UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned the council that he did not want this to become “an annual routine.” The U.S. is expected to run into heavy resistance given the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, but this is not the first time the U.S. has argued with the UN over torture legislation.

Over the past two years the U.S. has objected to two big programs within the UN that would address torture and war crimes: The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and the ICC (International Criminal Court). The goal of the Optional Protocol is “to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.” On December 18, 2002, the UN General Assembly adopted the protocol. The U.S. voted against the protocol saying it infringed on states rights and would allow international and independent visits to areas such as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. John Davison, Deputy U.S. Representative to the UN Economic and Social Council, said in July of 2004: “the current text of the Draft Optional Protocol before ECOSOC has serious flaws…certain specific provisions are contrary to our Constitution, particularly with respect to matters of search and seizure…the regime established by the draft would be overly intrusive.”

States the do not sign the document enforcing the Optional Protocol are not bound by it. However, if the U.S. had signed the document, the places of detention that could have been visited by announced and unannounced international and national bodies include: “police stations; security force stations, all pre-trial centres; remand prisons; prisons for sentenced persons; centres for juveniles; immigration centres; transit zones at international ports; centres for detained asylum seekers; psychiatric institutions and places of administrative detention.”

The United States’ opposition to the ICC has been more in the forefront of the media. John Negroponte, a U.S. ambassador to the UN, said the court transforms “political criticism of America’s world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom.” The U.S. “unsigned” the Rome Treaty for the ICC signed by the Clinton administration on December 31, 2001. By “unsigning” the Rome Treaty the U.S. has shown that they object to and do not support the ICC. Pierre-Richard Prosper, U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes Issues, commented on U.S. opposition to the ICC: “We took this rare action but not unprecedented action…in order to give U.S. flexibility to protect our interests and the flexibility to pursue alternative approaches.”

Bush administration officials has said that their man concern for is “persons in leadership.” Donald Rumsfield, in a statement on the ICC treaty, also weighed in on the military implications of the ICC: “By putting U.S. men and women in uniform at risk of politicized prosecutions, the ICC could well create a powerful disincentive for U.S. military engagement in the world. If so, it could be a recipe for isolationism – something that would be unfortunate for the world, given that our country is committed to engagement in the world and to contributing to a more peaceful and stable world.”

Since the U.S. unsigned the treaty, only U.S. nationals accused of crimes committed in the territory of a state that has signed the treaty can be tried at the ICC. However, since the U.S. is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Crimes of War Project points out, “…the United States would be able to veto any attempt to refer a case involving an American citizen to the court.” The day the U.S. announced their withdrawal from the ICC, an official named Marisa Lino was designated by the U.S. government to negotiate with countries holding U.S. agents to prevent them from surrendering those held U.S. agents to the ICC.

Letter to the editor
I read an editorial in the Asheville Citizen Times called "Iraq prison abuse pales in comparison to real atrocities by terrorists" on May 16th. What amazed me about the editorial was the fact that it was solely based on opinion and "immediate rage" instead of fact. The author, Doug Mayer, claims to offer perspective. I could not believe that the paper published this editorial. I wrote a reply that was quite long, but had plenty of facts behind it; something Mr. Mayer's article was missing. After finishing my reply and looking in the paper I saw that letters to the editor could only be 200 words. So I had to severely edit my reply. I sent in my edited 200 word version to the paper via email and heard back from the paper the next day. They called asking to verify all my information, which I would assume they would only do if they were going to put in the paper. I received this phone call last Friday, the 21st, and have yet to see my reply in the paper.
However, I have seen a slew of short replies that say Bush, Rumsfeld, or "the terrorists" are to blame. Below you will find Mr. Mayer's
editorial and then my reply.

Update: My letter to the editor was finally published in the Asheville Citizen Times. You can access the extremely edited version.

Iraq prison abuse pales in comparison to real atrocities by terrorists
By Doug Mayer, sports columnist May 15, 2004 12:37 p.m.
The anger that I felt, which bordered on absolute rage, was immediate. Just when I don't think the terrorists could possibly do something else to rattle my cage this much, they find a way. The ruthless, ghastly beheading of innocent civilian Nick Berg was the latest example.

Sorry, but about all I could muster when I learned about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was disappointment. I was disappointed that military men and women whom I believed were held to a higher standard of conduct let me down. I have been equally disappointed with all of the talk of ``atrocities'' carried out by U.S. troops at the prison.

Atrocities? Just hearing the word used when referring to the misconduct of U.S. prison guards left me wondering where this country's sense of perspective had gone.

Atrocities? That word is supposed to be saved for the worst of the worst: Hitler's gassing of millions of Jews, slavery, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, every bomb that explodes on a bus filled with innocent women, children and men, and the savage beheadings of Berg and Daniel Pearl. Those are atrocities. Anything less may indeed be criminal, but it falls short of the definition of pure evil.

That's pretty much what we have at Abu Ghraib prison. Unless we discover piles of dead bodies or read about maimings and crippling injuries, there are no atrocities taking place at that prison. My wife disagrees. She says that if I consider slavery an atrocity, then what took place at Abu Ghraib prison has to be as well. Her reasoning is that slavery requires humiliation, and what we've seen out of Iraq is the first step toward that.

I still disagree. To me, that's like saying you went swimming if all you did was dip your toe in the water to test the temperature. I think what we had was soldiers ``dipping their toes in the water'' to see what they could get away with. Luckily, some ``lifeguards'' were on duty to blow the whistle and stop the nonsense. The first trials of guards involved in the abuses will begin soon. If they are found guilty, then they deserve to be punished. If the guards were acting under orders, then let's make sure that the commanding officers are tried along with the enlisted men and women. Justice must be served, for it is the only way for this great country to remain so.

To me, there isn't a more stark and revealing contrast between our culture and that of the terrorists we're fighting than what is playing out before us. In the United States, we have outrage, shame and apologies for the primary crime of humiliating prisoners. In the world of the Muslim extremist, there is jubilation at the beheading of a man who was in Iraq to try to rebuild that war-torn country. His crime was that he was white and non-Muslim. He was also easy prey for terrorists ruled by mob mentality.

What would be wonderful is if more Muslims, like Hezbollah and Hamas, would speak out against their fanatical brothers and try to stem the tide of this insanity. While I am shocked that two terrorist organizations would condemn the actions of another, I applaud the fact that they did so. What is needed is for the more moderate Muslims to speak up and speak out to try to rein in the fanatics among them, but their fear of doing so is understandable. The Muslim extremists are not open to negotiations, and anyone who questions their intentions or actions is sure to be dealt with harshly, especially other Muslims who would not be considered able to retaliate.

For someone who was raised to respect life, the mind-set of the terrorist is one that is completely foreign to me. The killing of another human being is given no more thought than the swatting of a mosquito. So unimaginable is their sadistic cruelty that I often wonder if they have ceased to be human.

How else could I comprehend how one man can do to another man what was done to Nick Berg?

Doug Mayer is Webcast Editor for the Asheville Citizen- Times. A Louisiana State University graduate, he has an extensive background in broadcast journalism. He can be contacted at Dmayer@CITIZEN-TIMES.com.

Mayer’s comparison and perspective on prison abuse: Where are the facts?

Doug Mayer’s piece entitled “Iraq prison abuse pales in comparison to real atrocities by terrorists” is heavy on emotion but light on facts. He tackles the subjects of prison abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and the beheading of American Nick Berg. The first thing Mayer says about Nick Berg’s beheading is: “The anger I felt, which bordered on absolute rage, was immediate.” However, when he said he heard about the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison he says the feeling was one of “disappointment.” Mayer believes that the word “atrocities” should only be saved for the worst of the worst, the most evil of the evil. He saves his definition of “pure evil” for the attacks of September 11, the gassing of the Jews, and slavery. Mayer seems to have a moral index on what acts are “pure evil” and which are “atrocities.” He makes the terrible comparison between how far the American soldiers went in their abuse and swimming: “…we had soldiers dipping their toes in the water to see what they could get away with.” The piece suggests that apologies are decent enough for the Muslim people and that for a terrorist, killing is not given any thought and the only explanation Mayer can come up with is that he often wonders if “they have ceased to be human.”

Mayer will only admit there are atrocities being committed at the prison if “we discover piles of dead bodies, or read about maimings and crippling injuries.” Mayer has done little to no research on this topic. A May 15th report from Spiegel TV confirms that 47 year old Abdul Kareem Abdul Jaleel died from intensive and brutal amounts of torture that occurred over a period of five days. However, this will not be the only case to surface soon. Bodies handed to pathologists in Baghdad by the International Red Cross on behalf of American soldiers are almost always victims of torture. Pathologists at the Forensic Pathology Institute in Baghdad are not allowed to conduct their own investigation under any circumstances as long as there is an American death certificate.

Ivan Frederick is a soldier from Maryland who worked at the prison. Do the following excerpts from Ivan Frederick’s account given to the Associated Press of Abu Ghraib prison count as atrocities in Mayer’s eyes?:
▪ MI (Military Intelligence) has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window for as much as three days.''
▪ ``A prisoner with a clearly visible mental condition was shot with nonlethal rounds for standing near the fence singing.''
And these accounts from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba given to The Mirror:
▪ Jamal al-Harith was beaten by fists, feet, and batons after refusing a mystery injection.
▪ Prisoners were beaten by guards in full riot gear known as the Extreme Reaction Force.
▪ A prisoner’s diet consisted of foul water and food that was ten years out of date.
▪ Hookers touched prisoners’ naked bodies; there is a case of a women throwing menstrual blood across a prisoner’s face.

These tactics sometimes go beyond the captive according to The Telegraph. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s two young sons are being held captive by the CIA. An official claims they are handling them with “kid’s gloves” but a CIA official said: “His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him.” Is that not an atrocity? Another CIA official said: “Let’s just say we are not adverse to a little smacky face. After all, if you don’t violate a prisoner’s human rights some of the time then you aren’t doing your job.” How can we claim liberation and democracy are our goals for the Iraqi people and other people of the Muslim world, yet undermine the principles which we seek to teach?

Are these not atrocities and evil tactics? Some of the worst atrocities and “pure evil,” as Mr. Mayer would call it, happened over two years ago in Afghanistan. A documentary entitled “Massacre in Mazar” was made by Irish director Jamie Doran. Doran details how in November of 2001 7,000 Taliban fighters who surrendered to the Northern Alliance and American forces, under the condition they would not be harmed, were treated in the opposite manner:
▪ The Northern Alliance and U.S. Forces crammed 2 to 300 Taliban prisoners in containers that were driven by truck west trough the desert.
▪ Ventilation holes were shot in the containers with machine guns and as a result, many died.
▪ At the final stop, Dasht Leile, 30 to 40 American troops took control of the operation and buried all the prisoners who had died from the ventilation hole shots, wounds, and heat exhaustion. The remaining prisoners were shot.
▪ The result is a mass grave at Dasht Leile that covers 1,000 square meters and may contain 2,000 Taliban soldiers.

Mayer says more moderate Muslims need to speak up to rein in the fanatics among them. An Iraqi girl maintains a blog called “Baghdad Burning.” She brings in an Iraqi Muslim perspective to show how damaging the prison abuse really is: “To Iraqis, death is infinitely better than being raped or sexually abused.” The girl brings to the surface the fact that many Iraqis knew of the prison abuse before the photos were released and she says there is a new motto in Iraq: “In the New Iraq, it’s guilty till proven innocent by some miracle of God.”

I realize Mr. Mayer’s editorial was an opinion, but an opinion should have some reasoning and fact behind it. How can part of the piece be called “let’s keep perspective” when it only focuses on assuming that a vague group of people called “terrorists” kill without a conscience? Mr. Mayer has fallen into a groupthink mindset set up by the Bush Administration and people loyal to that administration. Their hope is that when people see the Berg video they will do just what Mr. Mayer did: react with immediate rage, rush to the nearest podium, and support opinion with emotion from a nationalist stance. George Orwell sums up Mr. Mayer’s attitude best: "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Operation Northwoods: A blueprint for creating a false pretext for war and making the public go along with it.
The document is entitled "Operation Northwoods." and was delivered to the secretary of defense on March 13, 1963. It used to be "top secret" but was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Laid out in the document are various acts that can be committed to "provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba." According to the document these actions will give the U.S., the United Nations, and the rest of the world the opinion that Cuba is "rash and irresponsible...an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the western hemisphere." The authors, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, want many U.S. agencies working together to put the plan into action. Just what acts do they want committed?

There are many courses of action suggested in the document and they are all numbered. Starting with number 1, the military would provoke and harass the Cubans into believing an invasion was imminent and when the Cubans did defend themselves the U.S. could intervene. According to point 2, staged terror acts or what they call "coordinated incidents" would take place around Guantanamo to "give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces." Point 2 or section 2 is then broken up into many numbered parts of ways to establish a staged credible threat: (1) Starting many rumors; (2) Bring friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage an attack; (4) Start riots near the base (Guantanamo); (5) "Blow up ammunitions inside the base; start fires;" (6) Burn aircraft and claim it was sabotage; (7) Fire mortar shells at the base; (9) Capture a militia group when they storm the base; (10) Sabotage ships in the harbor with large fires; (11) In extension of 10, hold mock funerals for victims.

Section 3 gets into even more detail on ways to stage terror attacks and blame the attacks on Cuba. Part (a) suggests blowing up an unmanned drone in the water and blaming it on Cuba. Cuban planes would investigate the attack and their presence would be associated with the attack. A fake list of victims would be printed in U.S. newspapers to "cause a helpful wave of national indignation." Section 4 recommends staging a Cuban terror campaign by sinking a boat full of Cuban refugees and says the act can be "real or simulated." Section 6 suggests disguising a plane as a Cuban MIG aircraft to harass civil air space and blow up U.S. military drone aircraft. Section 8 even goes as far as to create an incident where a chartered civil airliner that is full of passengers traveling over Cuba is shot down. The plane would be landed, the passengers evacuated, and a drone would resume the flight path. A radio distress signal would go out claiming the plane is being attacked by a Cuban MIG. Section 9 advises creating an incident where a U.S. fighter jet is shot down. The pilot would send out a fake radio signal saying he was being fired upon being Cuban MIGs and land at a secure base. The aircraft would be stored away and given a new tail number. When the press questions where the pilot is, they will not be able to find him because he flew the mission under an alias. A submarine, at precisely the time the fighter is "shot down," would distribute F-101 parts, parachutes, etc., about 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast.

A government always needs a pretext to go to war. The Northwoods document was classified for about 30 years. Many in the press were astounded that something this methodical existed. It perfectly fits the concept of state sponsored terrorism. If a plan for a staged terror plot of this large a scale and this much detail was produced in the '60s then one could easily be carried out today. Adolph Hitler said: "The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." The American people easily accepted the "official" government story of 9-11. Operation Northwoods shows that the U.S. government will go to great means to justify a war. A great comic that gives an intro to state sponsored terrorism and the problem-reaction solution into justifying a war can be found in Mack White's comic.

Mandatory Military Service H.R. 163
Many people have made the suggestion that a draft may be on the horizon considering the US's military involvement abroad. Bill H.R. 163 is called the "Universal National Service Act of 2003." The bill states that in order for to "defend" the United States in the name of "Homeland Security," national defense, and other purposes, all men and women should be required to perform a period of military service that lasts 2 years. Section 2(a) defines the parameters for service. The bill includes anyone, that's any person residing in the US, between the ages of 18-26 to serve. The section further goes on to elaborate that once a person is selected they must serve in active or reserve duty or in a "civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security." The bill gives the President power to select who will serve and whether they will serve as active duty, reserve or in a "civilian capacity." That gives an enoromous amount of power to the President. The President also has the power to extend a person's service to "compensate for any time lost to training for any cause." That is just one of many instances of a vaguely written requirement that the President could exploit to require a person to serve longer. Educational pursuits will not stop a person from being "nationally selected." As soon as a person hits age 20 they will be "selected." This will happen regardless if a high school diploma has been attained or if a person is pursuing a college education.

Pete Stark, who represents California's 13th district, and helped introduce the bill, released a statement supporting the act. After reading the act, one might assume Stark is pro war, but he starts off his statement by saying he "ardently" opposed the war with Iraq. He says the President dodged military service. He is for no preferences and deferments that would allow a person to follow in the current Presiden't footsteps. He plainly says, "If our nation is to go to war, it is only right that all Americans share in the sacrifice of war."

As noted earlier, the bill places an enormous amount of power in the President's hands. Stark may seem to be anti-war, but he addmittely calls the bill a draft ("Reinstituting the draft may seem unnecessary to some"). He even acknowledges a confrontation with North Korea may happen in the near future. The bill infriges on a right of Americans: the right to say NO. Hopefully we will not follow in the steps of countries like Israel and demand this mandatory military service.