December 6, 2001

Miscellaneous Subjects #118: Changing the World, One Person and One Action at a Time

Hello everyone

Yet another compilation of dauntingly stirring material for your review. Especially the article "This raging colossus" below.

Any comments on this and all my recent posts? Hmmm?

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

P.S. My latest Media Compilation #32: The Global War Games of Bush/Cheney is webposted at

Note also that according to several people who pointed this out to me, the quote attributed to an unknown author ("People are unreasonable, illogical and self-centered; love them anyway." etc.) in the Rising Phoenix Series #1 is actually from Mother Theresa.

"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."

Sent by Smiling Adria <>


1. Jackie Alan Giuliano has it right
2. Who are the experts?
3. Chemicals and the Right to Know
4. This raging colossus
5. HIGHTOWER: The Corporate Play for China
6. Weapons of Mass Destruction Easier to Get Than Ever
7. Dispatch from Anthrakistan


Sent by Mona LaVine <>

This Virus is NOT not a hoax!

NEW YORK - Electronic security experts are warning of a powerful new computer worm that can do everything from send e-mail to delete virus programs to hack other machines, all from your own PC.

Disguised as an innocuous screensaver program from a thoughtful friend, the "Goner" worm appeared Tuesday morning and is on its way to becoming a worldwide epidemic ˜ and computer-virus specialists are warning people to be on the alert.

"The subject line says 'Hi' and will be from someone you know," Symantec security response group manager Kevin Haley said. The text will say 'How are you? I saw this screensaver and immediately thought of you.' That's a giveaway (or) I am in a hurry, I promise you will love it!"

Needless to say, computer users are advised not to open the attached "screensaver" program, or they will unleash a computer worm that will delve through their e-mail address books, replicate itself and send itself out to all their friends.

Goner works through Microsoft programs like Outlook and Outlook Express and can send itself through instant-messaging services like ICQ and Internet Relay Chat.


Solution for new virus Gone and others at


From: Joyce A. Kovelman <>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001

Jackie Alan Giuliano wrote:

"For there to be meaningful change, the core values of the U.S. government must change. For that to happen, each of our own personal core values must be identified and shifted - if we choose. Like ripples of water from a pebble dropped in a pool of water, the actions of each of us intersect and impact everyone else on Earth."

Dear Jean:

I really think that Jackie Alan Giuliano has it right. We must each change and evolve as well as walk our truth and paths to peace, together, if the government and our world is to change. We are killing the trees and plants that provide us shelter, food, medicines and oxygen as well as sop up excess carbon dioxide. We are polluting our water, air and soil and environmentally harming all of earthly existence and decreasing the possibility of human survival in the process. We need to return peace, harmony, compassion and sanity and it will take all lightworkers to do so. We can use the dynamics of interconnectivity, interdependence and the need to survive as our foundation. Terrorism, in all its shades and flavors is really about a world gone mad, and the need to die an honorable death when all hope of a future is denied to a nation and its people.

Let us begin to work together and become the light to guide our way.

Joyce Kovelman


Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
From: Ariel Gross <>
Subject: Who are the experts?

Heya Jean!

I just remembered... Last night I was listening to talk radio, I can not quite place the name of the show, but it had something to do with journalism. One extremely important question was being raised in particular: Why do we trust the media as experts on the "war?" It has come more and more evident that the society as a whole is accepting the media's proclamations as words coming from an expert's mouth, when not four months ago these same experts were covering the new miracle diet.

Some cultures still go to those that are deemed wise, and often those who have mystical powers and insight, to seek the expert opinion, especially in shamanistic cultures. When knowledge is sought that is beyond the understanding capacity of the "normal" people of the culture, they would head on up to the oracle for an answer.

Some people will scoff at that concept. But I scoff at we who listen to the media and expect that they are the experts. I am seeing with my own eyes the reliance of the US on the media for expertise, and I feel that it is a grave overestimation to believe that these people, some of whom are setting foot in Afghanistan for the first time in their lives not months after being the expert on the new exhibits at the state fair, are the experts.

I must say I was very pleasantly surprised to hear this interview on talk radio, as another one of the questions being raised was one that has been asked numerous times on your mailing lists: Is this a war, and do we have the right to declare this a war? The interviewer commented that if Congress had declared proper war, that it would have been top story news, it would have been ingrained in our brains by now. I have yet to hear that Congress has declared war, yet our President is calling it a war every time he speaks, not to mention getting the whole world to believe that it is a proper war in order to grant our country powers that would go along with that. Scary, indeed, but we must not be afraid.

In conclusion, I would like to offer you all of my love and hope, and with sincerity I personally forgive George Bush, Osama bin Laden, and all the other people who are seemling beyond the point of no return, who in actuality are nowhere near that point, as I do not believe it exists. It is a bold statement, but I make it with courage and pray with you that everyone else finds love and forgiveness in their hearts for those who are absolved in their own greed and lust, including all, excluding none.

Take care, Jean,
Ariel Gross
Bolingbrook, IL


Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001
From: Bill Derau <>
Subject: Chemicals and the Right to Know

Since September 11, the chemical industry has pressed the government to withhold information about chemicals that are used and released without regard for public safety. Take Action! Urge your senators to oppose efforts by the chemical industry to restrict your "Right to Know" about hazards at its facilities.

You can take action on this alert via the Web at:

Spread the word about the campaign to protect your "Right to Know" about chemicals in the environment. Visit the web address below and tell your friends to take action on this important campaign!

We encourage you to take action by December 7, 2001

Protect Your Right to Know about Chemicals in the Environment



This raging colossus

The new US ruthlessness may turn out to be a greater threat than the Islamist fanaticism that provoked it

Madeleine Bunting
Monday November 19, 2001
The Guardian

Over the past few days, I've been ordered on to a strict diet of my words. A stream of emails arrived from American readers with plenty of advice (get laid, get pregnant, shut your fat legs, shut up) and prognostications for my future (you'll be fired). One told me that I made them feel sick: "untouched by our tragedy, yet [you] feel the right to criticise our country's actions". One asked if "you have a molecule of shame or humility within your entire being?" and promised to pray for me. Another asked: "how stupid do you feel now?... this is one of the best wars ever fought" and another asked: "as the US war on terror becomes increasingly successful, could the world say 'thank you'?".

Thank God for the volume of seawater which puts these kind of nutters on another continent. It's not so much the fine line in misogynistic abuse from US patriots, but the intolerance of debate and diversity of opinion which is really frightening. But the truth is that this kind of emotional intensity has also seeped into the war on this side of the Atlantic - entrenched camps for and against are waging a bitter war of words over the heads of a majority who are worried and confused, but see no alternative to war.

Fear drives this kind of emotional intensity. It is a pitifully short time, only two months, since we learned of a ruthlessness born of fanaticism which we had not thought possible; our perception of human nature is having to painfully readjust to the revelation of a capacity for calmly premeditated brutality. I'm sure that fear has influenced my continuing conviction that waging war on Afghanistan is unlikely in the long term to defeat that kind of ruthless Islamist terrorism, and is very likely to have disastrous consequences for the poor benighted country itself. I very much hope I will be proved wrong.

It must have been so comforting to have been swept up in the emotional euphoria of VK day. It was the ultimate Disney ending after a month of nation-builders' storytelling. If only it were that simple. But even on VK day, the excited reporters and commentators surrounded by a telegenic rabble of boys curious at television cameras found no echo among anxious Afghan women, most of whom remained behind their burkas.

Nor did the VK story last long, quickly replaced by the tension of warlords struggling to position themselves; in Jalalabad, young men jostled around the cameras, their eyes, cartridge belts and guns all gleaming, poised for what they know best - waging war.

And yet, it's not even those Jalalabad warriors that have made the last week's events so troubling, but the growing appreciation of just how ruthless and ambitious the US is likely to become in its war against terrorism. What the events of the past few days have starkly revealed is that the US had only one interest in this war in Afghanistan, capturing Bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida; that imperative outstripped all considerations of Afghanistan's future. So the timing of the attack was decided by US military preparedness rather than any coherent political strategy for the region, and the US war aim determined the crucial switch in tactics around November 4 when the US decided to throw its weight behind the unsavoury Northern Alliance by bombing the Taliban frontlines.

For the US, the whole country of Afghanistan is collateral damage. Or, to put it another way, a little hors d'oeuvre before they move on to the next course - Somalia, Yemen or, most worryingly of all, Iraq? The latter is already being openly touted in Washington as a possibility for the "second stage" and tension is growing in the Gulf region. Meanwhile, as far as the US is concerned, the UK with its nation-building agenda, the UN and everyone else is welcome to spend their soldiers' lives on the onerous task of clearing up the mess the US bombing has left behind, freeing it to concentrate on the next task.

All this strengthens the view that what we have to fear from September 11 is not just Islamist fanaticism, but the US response to it. Indeed, the latter could well prove a far greater threat to the stability of many countries, further stoking the Islamist fanaticism it seeks to extinguish. The template has been developed in Afghanistan: lavish bribery of neighbours, unchecked deployment of vicious military hardware, keep US soldiers out of it and use others to do the fighting. It is a foreign policy of brute force and it draws legitimacy within the US from a lethal combination of three factors: a profound sense of righteous anger, the reality of unchallenged economic and military power and a pervasive ignorance of and indifference to the rest of the world.

To increase the danger, the US actions are unchecked by fear of another superpower and, at present, unchecked by its usually vibrant civil society where debate about the purposes or methods of the war against terrorism has been cowed into virtual silence in the mainstream. The result is that an ugly ruthlessness is creeping into US political culture. For example, "physical interrogation" or torture is proposed in the columns of Newsweek while President Bush signs an order allowing military tribunals of suspected terrorists in private and without a jury, for the first time since the second world war.

In time we may come to see the disastrous timing of a rightwing presidency intent on asserting US unilateralism assuming power shortly before September 11: that tragic catastrophe has provided the moral mandate at home and the freedom for manoeuvre from allies for such a unilateralist policy. For all the US has needed western support for its war, we seem to have been singularly unsuccessful in extracting in return any compromises on US unilateralism. Putin's protestations on NMD are brushed off, and barely a murmur is raised in criticism of the US's failure to deliver its climate change plan while the world went ahead in Marrakesh last week.

From the start, this administration has been unabashed, denying any sense of responsibility to anyone other than its own citizens. Now, everyone has the almighty headache of how they are to tiptoe round and placate this raging colossus. Blair, white with exhaustion, has opted for the role of chief cheerleader, and while it may incense some that Britain, like every other country, is reduced to such impotence, the harsh reality is that it was AOS - all options stink. Bush will use and discard Blair, and the British prime minister is likely to be one among many casualties.

The Labour party has traditionally been deeply split over the conduct of US foreign policy. Vietnam, Central and Latin America and the Iran-contra affair all provoked intense controversy. That was bad enough, but we were not involved in playing the supporting role. At the risk of further incensing my American correspondents, the manipulation of the CIA in Central America could come to seem like child's play compared with what we are likely to glimpse over the next decade.



HIGHTOWER: The Corporate Play for China

Jim Hightower, AlterNet
November 20, 2001

"This is a defining moment," declared the head of the World Trade Organization. "The world has now changed."

Indeed it has. He was not referring to Sept. 11 crashbombing into the World Trade Towers, but to another attack on the well-being of workaday people here in America and all around the world. This is the assault by global corporate greedheads and their political henchmen on: one, the jobs, wages and middle-class aspirations of workers; two, the purity of the world's air, water, and food supply; and three, the very sovereignty of free people, enthroning corporate power as supreme over the democratic policies enacted by the people themselves.

What made the WTO's head man so exultant was that the corporate creators of this anti-democratic, secretive, powerhouse had just managed to bring China into its ranks. This has long been their dream. Most of our Congress critters, funded by these same greedheads, rationalized their support of this by claiming that WTO membership means China will have to open its markets to more U.S. products. Horsefeathers. China's people are overwhelmingly impoverished. The corporate powers are not after China's markets, but after the dirt cheap labor, cheap land, and non-existent enforcement of environmental protections.

WTO membership opens up China's unlimited production capacity to global corporations, and it prohibits our country from putting any tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on the China-made products that they'll flood into our markets. There'll now be a gold rush of corporations moving their manufacturing and agricultural production over there. Indeed, Motorola, an eager proponent of getting China into the WTO, announced just one week prior to the vote that it would invest $6.6 billion in new Chinese factories, abandoning more jobs and communities here.

This is Jim Hightower saying ... To support bringing China into the WTO is like chickens giving a henhouse membership to Col. Sanders.



Weapons of Mass Destruction Easier to Get Than Ever

Tamara Straus, AlterNet
November 29, 2001

At a Nov. 27 New York University conference on weapons of mass destruction, Paul Walker of Global Green's military waste cleanup program, told a scary story. It went like this:

A short time ago Mr. Walker was visiting a chemical weapons depot near the Kazakhstan border in Russia. The depot holds 500,000 tons of nerve agent and other chemical weapons material and a couple million rounds of artillery topped with the stuff. The depot is above ground and constructed from aging corrugated metal and wood. It abuts a day care center and military living quarters and is protected by a couple of officers, one of whom circles by jeep the forest road that surrounds the depot.

Mr. Walker asked his Russian host, "How do you protect the facility?"

"We keep the door locked," he responded.

"What if five rounds were, say, missing?" pursued Mr. Walker.

"We would know," said the host. "We keep the door locked."

With that, the host secured the facility with a large bicycle lock and left Mr. Walker standing outside with his mouth agape, at which point he turned to the young officer guarding the bicycle-locked building, and asked:

"When were you last paid?"

"Just before the American delegation arrived," said the officer with unconcealed irony.

"And before that?"

"Six months ago."

This story was among the most instructive -- and frightening -- of the many instructive and frightening tales told at the NYU conference, "Weapons of Mass Destruction: Cold War Legacies in the Post-9-11 World," which gathered together military experts from New York, Washington and Moscow.

Let's just say the conversation was lugubrious. For the consensus was that whereas the post-9-11 world has taken the veil off a manifold of problems -- Islamic hostility toward modernization, U.S. greed, Middle East corruption, widespread poverty and the failures of globalization -- a shroud remains over the slippery spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Here's the news: Iran is two to three years away from becoming a nuclear power. Nuclear wastes are not being adequately disposed of in Russia or the U.S. Arsenals of biological and chemical weapons are in the hands of "known terrorist states," such as Libya, Iran and Iraq. And arms reduction treaties, namely the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, are being disbanded by the U.S. with the result that nuclear weapon-seeking states can more freely seek nukes and strides in international law are in the toilet.

"The crazy part of the post-9-11 world," said Nation correspondent Jonathan Schell, "is that the line between conventional and nuclear war is blurring. The post-Cold War era did not end the old U.S.-Russia arms race. What it signaled was a new period of proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to states like India, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq."

Of chief concern at the conference was the status of arms reduction treaties of the START and SALT variety, which were once considered the bedrock of deescalating the arms race. "No equivalent for these treaties exists today," said Michael Klare, director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies. "The Bush administration is making it clear they have no interest in negotiating mutually restrictive agreements."


Nonetheless U.S. leaders seem determined to pursue what Michael Klare called "unipolar dominance" -- or "supremacism," a combination of economic and military power not seen since the Roman empire. Klare said people like himself must now work on two fronts: they must deal with legacies of the Cold War in terms of nuclear and biological weapons, and "face a whole new raft of problems arising from unipolarity and globalization."

"The latter will be the hardest task -- the most difficult to persuade the American public of," said Klare. "Because the dangers of National Missile Defense, abrogated treaties and supremacism are widely seen as sources of protection."



Dispatch from Anthrakistan

Martin A. Lee, AlterNet
November 27, 2001

IT'S A HELLUVA war our government has gotten us into. It could go on for years, we're told. There's no end in sight.

I'm not talking about the war against terrorist networks in Afghanistan and beyond. I'm referring to another troubling conflict: the crusade against civil liberties on the domestic front, the jihad against dissent that's taking shape in Anthrakistan, our anxious homeland.

This nervous nation used to be called the United States of America (a.k.a. America the Beautiful). That was before the World Trade Center towers came crashing down and "everything changed" on Sept. 11. We actually had a Constitution with 10 original amendments, which were meant to protect our freedom in times of war, as well as in times of peace.

Anthrax isn't contagious, but the spores of fear are everywhere. Inflamed by calamity and dread, our patriotic paranoia is running rampant. We're all on edge about what al-Qaeda might do next. A commercial jet crashes in Queens, and we immediately get the willies: was it a terrorist attack too? We don't know where or when, but another Sept. 11 seems inevitable.

Desperate to stop terrorists from striking again, the Central Intelligence Agency has pulled out all the stops -- even hiring psychics to join the manhunt for Osama bin Laden. Now that Kabul has fallen, CIA strategists are eager to dust off the 87-year-old Afghan king, Zahir Shah, who has lived in exile for the past three decades, and install him as the figurehead chief of a post-Taliban government.

Ah, the wish for kings ... I feel it stirring among us, a deep-rooted authoritarian impulse that throbs during times of crisis, the age-old hankering for an almighty power to issue decrees and set matters straight. Personally, I think George W. Bush would make a good monarch. After all, he has always been a titular kind of guy, a front man for oil and ordnance. So let's proclaim him King George. It's a fitting appellation for a sovereign who rules by capricious whim and exercises power without judicial scrutiny or statutory authorization. That's how things work these days in Anthrakistan.

Lord John Ashcroft, leading emissary of the royal court, tightened his Richelieu-like grip on the homeland last month when King George affixed his seal of approval to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which gives the government sweeping new powers to conduct secret searches without a warrant, tap telephones and computers, and detain suspects indefinitely in the name of fighting terrorism.

The USA Police State Act of 2001 would have been a more appropriate title for the bill that zoomed through Congress "without deliberation or debate," as Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) noted. Feingold, the only senator who opposed the draconian legislation, accused the Justice Department of exploiting "the emergency situation to get some things they've wanted for a long time."

"It's overkill," says David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "The new legislation gives federal authorities too much power. The potential for abuse is enormous."

Another new rule imposed by Lord Ashcroft allows the government to eavesdrop on conversations and intercept correspondence between prison inmates and their lawyers -- in effect nullifying the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. And last week King George signed a decree that the government can try people accused of terrorism behind closed doors in a special military tribunal, rather than in a civilian court.

Meanwhile, the government still holds more than a thousand "aliens" who were rounded up and taken into custody after Sept. 11. Under the new regime, a foreigner visiting Disneyland can be arrested, jailed without a hearing, and incarcerated in perpetuity without ever being charged for a crime. Some detainees later cleared of any link to terrorism have been held in harsh conditions for prolonged periods and denied a chance to notify relatives of their whereabouts.

There's even talk of using torture to make people divulge information about terrorism -- an idea supported by 45 percent of Americans, according to a recent CNN poll. "U.S. investigators are considering resorting to harsher interrogation techniques, including torture," the London Times reports. "The public pressure for results in the war on terrorism might also persuade the FBI to encourage the countries of suspects to seek their extradition, in the knowledge that they could be given a much rougher reception in jails back home."

Subcontracting foreign police organizations that torture prisoners might afford novel opportunities for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but it's an old routine for the CIA, which has been given more leeway to engage in domestic spying in the wake of Sept. 11. CIA operatives continue to run amok, while court jesters on Capitol Hill fulminate about unshackling our spies, blithely ignoring the fact that they were never shackled to begin with. There was never any law that prohibited the CIA from enlisting narco-traffickers, death squad dons, neofascists, and other malefactors as sources and espionage assets, only a proviso that such unwholesome machinations be cleared with a superior officer. According to CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow, the agency "never turned down a field request to recruit an asset in a terrorist organization."

It was precisely this type of covert activity -- whereby unsavory characters were recruited to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives -- that set the stage for the tragic events of Sept. 11. Islamic extremists, who had been trained and financed by the CIA to battle the Red Army in Afghanistan during the 1980s, subsequently turned their psychotic wrath against their erstwhile patron. But instead of reprimanding the reckless U.S. spymasters who ran the Afghan operation, our officials have rewarded the CIA with billions of additional dollars to combat "terrorism," a term that is vaguely defined by the PATRIOT Act.

A "federal terrorist offense" is distinguished by "the intent to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct," explains Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii). "This broad, unclear definition may include groups such as Greenpeace, along with the terrorists." Ditto for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which "could be investigated as a terrorist group because one of its members hits the secretary of agriculture with a pie," says Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office.

In recent weeks, student demonstrators, civil libertarians, global justice workers, and peace and animal rights activists have all been pegged as terrorist sympathizers. No less an expert than Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan has dubbed globalization "the antithesis of terrorism," implying that those who condemn disparities in the global economic order are supporters of terrorism. The assault on the World Trade Center, according to King George himself, was above all an attack on free markets.

A few months prior to Sept. 11, FBI director Robert Mueller named a couple of harmless guerrilla theater-type groups -- Reclaim the Streets and Carnival Against Capitalism -- during Senate testimony on the terrorist threat. The FBI continues to probe other organizations it claims are linked to terrorism, including the U.S. chapter of Women in Black, a pacifist cadre that holds peace vigils to protest violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories. "If the FBI cannot or will not distinguish between groups who collude in hatred and terrorism and peace activists who struggle in the full light of day against all forms of terrorism, then we are in serious trouble," one Women in Black member remarked.

Unfortunately, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies often seem oblivious to such nuances. Throughout American history, federal investigators have targeted and harassed political dissidents. During the 1960s the FBI mounted a full-fledged vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., while spying on numerous civil rights and anti-Vietnam War activists. By the mid 1970s the FBI had accumulated dossiers on more than one million Americans, though only a few individuals were actually charged with committing crimes. In the 1980s government sleuths kept tabs on the sanctuary movement, which provided asylum in the United States for families fleeing Central American deaths squads.

Today a big chill is upon us, and many are peevish toward anything that smacks of dissent. If you question official policies, you run the risk of being labeled an apologist for terrorism. Lampoon our leaders and you'll be banished from the airwaves, while the major media grovel for Pentagon handouts and military analysts strut their stuff on television. Film-industry executives admit that they have been under pressure to take an "American stance" on issues, giving rise to concerns that the upsurge of jingoism could result in an anti-dissident blacklist much like the one that muzzled Hollywood during the McCarthy era.

Even two ostensibly liberal organizations, the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council, censored themselves and withdrew ads that chided Bush for his woeful environmental record. Such is the mood in Anthrakistan, where criticism of the king is frowned on and newspaper columnists are fired for expressing patriotically incorrect views. "People have to watch what they say and what they do," White House press secretary Ari Fleisher admonished.

Fifteen-year-old West Virginia sophomore Katie Sierra was recently suspended from her high school for wearing a T-shirt that read, "When I saw the dead and dying Afghani children on TV, I felt a newly recovered sense of national security. God Bless America." Several college professors who opposed the carpet bombing of Afghan cities were censured by university officials.

A group of prominent intellectuals -- including Edward Said of Columbia University and philosopher Anatole Anton of San Francisco State University -- signed a letter asserting that they had been threatened and attacked for speaking out against U.S. foreign policy. Shortly thereafter, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a right-wing academic group founded by Lynne Cheney (the veep's wife), released a report accusing 40 college professors of not showing enough patriotism since Sept. 11.

In what may be a harbinger of things to come, Nancy Oden, a Green Party USA coordinating committee member, was grabbed by armed guards and detained at Bangor International Airport in Maine on Nov. 1 as she attempted to board an American Airlines flight to Chicago. Prevented from flying, Oden was unable to attend a Green Party meeting in the Midwest the next day. "An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer," Oden said. "I was told that the airport was closed to me until further notice and that my ticket would not be refunded."

An organic farmer with no prior arrest record, Oden believes she was targeted because of her outspoken political views. An airport spokesperson claims that Oden caused the confrontation by refusing to cooperate with airport security -- a charge Oden adamantly denies. Whatever the case, it's doubtful that this incident would have occurred before Sept. 11.

Perhaps if they spent less time spying on law-abiding citizens and nonviolent social activists, our law enforcement agencies would be more successful in thwarting terrorist networks that are plotting mass murder.

Martin A. Lee ( is the author of Acid Dreams and The Beast Reawakens.