October 4, 2001

Eternal Freedom #4: Truth Emerging in Sharper Focus

Hello everyone

Again I've been very busy trying to keep up with everything that comes in - an absolutely impossible task, believe me! I hope the following will help you better make sense of it all ... and see what is coming.

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator


1. Mideast Truce in Tatters After Seven Killed
1. Belgrade attacked by US and Nato... Compared to WTC NY
3. The Homeland Defense Agency: a framework for a permanent military-bureaucratic American police state
4. Fidel Castro’s comments
5. The Terrible Cost of bin Laden
6. The price is worth it

"The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, they are our cause too."

- Tony Blair in one the most powerful speeches of his career yesterday.

Read his speech at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=97265

According to Biannca Pace <thecrystal@crystalgallery.com.au>: "It shows a breadth of vision that your readers would I'm sure appreciate. It talks to us of a new world a world we all dream of."

More details:

Blair's global vision

From: http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/10/03/front_page/FEAR03.htm
Post-attack gloom invades lives, dreams
Three weeks later, feelings of fear and anxiety appear common. Experts say talking can help.

CLIP "We know we're having war. We don't know where. We know we're having other [terrorist] attacks. We don't know when," he said. Feelings of helplessness and vulnerability can be even more disturbing than stronger emotions, said Steven Cohen, president of the Philadelphia Society of Clinical Psychologists.

The U.S. Senate yesterday voted 99-0 to approve a $345 billion anti-terrorism defense bill, after voting 100-0 not to get sidetracked by amendments like one that would have opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas drilling. CLIP
Details at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60900-2001Oct2.html


From: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011003/wl/mideast_dc_53.html

Mideast Truce in Tatters After Seven Killed (October 3)

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza (Reuters) - Israeli forces killed six Palestinians during a tank incursion into a Palestinian-ruled area of the Gaza Strip Wednesday after a deadly raid by Islamic militants on a Jewish settlement. The violence left a cease-fire in tatters, dealing another blow to Washington's efforts to end the fighting as it tries to draw Arab and Islamic nations into an anti-terror alliance after last month's attacks on New York and Washington.


The latest attempt at a cease-fire came after pressure from Washington, which hopes progress in the Middle East will help its bid to build a global anti-terror alliance. President George Bush said Tuesday the creation of a Palestinian state had always been part of the U.S. vision for the Middle East. Arafat said the comments would help peace but Israel said they contained nothing new.


After the settlement raid, Sharon met his inner cabinet to review the situation a week into a truce plan that had already been battered by the deaths of 20 Palestinians, two Israelis, a car bomb in Jerusalem and many shooting attacks. A statement issued after the session held the Palestinian Authority and Arafat responsible ``for the prevention of terrorist activities'' and said the Israeli army would take ``all necessary measures'' to protect Israeli citizens.

The wording appeared to suggest that Israel had returned to a pre-truce policy of military retaliation, including incursions into Palestinian-ruled territory, for any Palestinian attacks. At least 613 Palestinians and 171 Israelis have been killed since the Palestinian uprising erupted a year ago.

More details at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/World/Middle_East_Peace_Process/


From: "Kerry" <successmachine@home.com>
Subject: Belgrade attacked by US and Nato... Compared to WTC NY
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001

Note in the website below the "collateral damage" that hurt tons of everyday, innocent people like you and me. I'm not saying any of it was or wasn't justified in either country. I am saying that until we all change the way we live to one that is more compassionate of others and takes into account how our actions affect the entire world - expect more of the same.




From: "Kerry" <successmachine@home.com>
Subject: The Homeland Defense Agency: a framework for a permanent military-bureaucratic American police state
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001

The Phase III Report Of The U.S. Commission On National Security/21st Century

By Grugyn Silverbristle


See entire article at above web link.

I told you so.

Most people were utterly unaware of the significance of Bush's new bureacracy. But for anyone watching the advance of police-state policies in America, absolutely nothing could have been more ominous.

The Homeland Defense Agency is not a new idea. Conceived by a bi-partisan commission headed by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, this Clinton-era conception, "The Phase III Report Of The U.S. Commission On National Security/21st Century," is nothing less than the framework for a permanent military-bureaucratic American police state.

The new Homeland Defense Agency is the lynchpin of a plan that extensively reorganizes both the executive and legislative functions of the U.S. government. Among other things, the plan makes the National Guard a national police force. It extensively federalizes both the study and the work of science, mathematics, and engineering. It creates numerous new sub-bureaucracies. The Homeland Security agency itself is to "be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security-the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol- transferred to it." The plan calls for the new agency to oversee activities of the Department of Defense, as well as to assume a variety of duties now held by agencies from the Department of Commerce to the FBI.

When the plan was announced in January of this year, the media barely covered it, and shortly thereafter, the plan itself, and the government Web site created expressly for it, dropped out of sight. We found the full text of the report at only one location : http://www.servtech.com/~grugyn/tlc-61.htm

See also:

NEW LAWS BRAND HACKERS AS TERRORISTS: Allows life imprisonment for old hacking offences


From: Tim Jones <DeForest@austin.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
Subject: Fwd: Fidel Castro’s comments

Dear Lee,

The following remarks are by a man who has never stood down from the power of the United States. Before you jump to conclusions I will say now that how or whether I subscribe to Fidel Castro’s political philosophy is irrelevant to my interest in his take on current events. He speaks well for a point of view that transcends national borders and his perception of the reaction by this country demonstrates rational insight into the hot words threatening to become an irrational misadventure by our own commander in chief.

Tim Jones

Speech by Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz,
President of the Republic of Cuba.
Havana, September 22, 2001

Fellow countrymen:

No one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be eradicated regardless of its deep origins, the economic and political factors that brought it to live and those responsible for it.

The unanimous irritation caused by the human and psychological damage brought on the American people by the unexpected and shocking death of thousands of innocent people whose images have shaken the world is perfectly understandable. But who have profited? The extreme right, the most backward and right-wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice and a great crime whomever they are who organized or are responsible for such action. However, the tragedy should not be used to recklessly start a war that could actually unleash an endless carnage of innocent people and all of this on behalf of justice and under the peculiar and bizarre name of “Infinite Justice”.

In the last few days we have seen the hasty establishment of the basis, the concept, the true purposes, the spirit and the conditions for such a war. No one would be able to affirm that it was not something thought out well in advance, something that was just waiting for its chance to materialize. Those who after the so-called end of the cold war continued a military build-up and the development of the most sophisticated means to kill and exterminate human beings were aware that the large military investments would give them the privilege to impose an absolute and complete dominance over the other peoples of the world. The ideologists of the imperialist system knew very well what they were doing and why they were doing it.

After the shock and sincere sorrow felt by every people on Earth for the atrocious and insane terrorist attack that targeted the American people, the most extremist ideologists and the most belligerent hawks, already set in privileged power positions, have taken command of the most powerful country in the world whose military and technological capabilities would seem infinite. Actually, its capacity to destroy and kill is enormous while its inclination towards equanimity, serenity, thoughtfulness and restraint is minimal. The combination of elements --including complicity and the common enjoyment of privileges-- the prevailing opportunism, confusion and panic make it almost impossible to avoid a bloody and unpredictable outcome.

The first victims of whatever military actions are undertaken will be the billions of people living in the poor and underdeveloped world with their unbelievable economic and social problems, their unpayable debts and the ruinous prices of their basic commodities; their growing natural and ecological catastrophes, their hunger and misery, the massive undernourishment of their children, teenagers and adults; their terrible AIDS epidemic, their malaria, their tuberculosis and their infectious diseases that threaten whole nations with extermination. The grave economic world crisis was already a real and irrefutable fact affecting absolutely every one of the big economic power centers. Such crisis will inevitably grow deeper under the new circumstances and when it becomes unbearable for the overwhelming majority of the peoples, it will bring chaos, rebellion and the impossibility to govern.

But the price will also be unpayable for the rich countries. For years to come it would be impossible to speak strong enough about the environment and the ecology, or about ideas and research done and tested, or about projects for the protection of Nature because that space and possibility would be taken by military actions, war and crimes as infinite as “Infinite Justice”, that is, the name given to the war operation to be unleashed.

Can there be any hope left after having listened, hardly 36 hours ago, to the speech made the President before de U.S. Congress?

I will avoid the use of adjectives, qualifiers or offensive words towards the author of that speech. They would be absolutely unnecessary and untimely when the tensions and seriousness of the moment advise thoughtfulness and equanimity. I will limit myself to underline some short phrases that say it all: “We will use every necessary weapon of war.”

“Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.”

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

“I’ve called the armed forces to alert and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act and you will make us proud.”

“This is the world’s fight, this is civilization’s fight.”

“I ask for your patience [...j in what will be a long struggle.”

“The great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depend on us.”

“The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.(...] and we know that God is not neutral.”

I ask our fellow countrymen to meditate deeply and calmly on the ideas contained in several of the above-mentioned phrases:

Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

No nation of the world has been left out of the dilemma, not even the big and powerful states; none has escaped the threat of war or attacks.

We will use any weapon. No procedure has been excluded, regardless of its ethics, or any threat whatever fatal, either nuclear, chemical, biological or any other. It will not be short combat but a lengthy war, lasting many years, unparalleled in history. It is the world’s fight; it is civilization’s fight.

The achievements of our times and the hope of every time, now depend on us. Finally, an unheard of confession in a political speech on the eve of a war, and no less than in times of apocalyptic risks: The course of this conflict is not known; yet its outcome is certain. And we know that God is not neutral. This is an amazing assertion. When I think about the real or imagined parties involved in that bizarre holy war that is about to begin, I find it difficult to make a distinction about where fanaticism is stronger.

On Thursday, before the United States Congress, the idea was designed of a world military dictatorship under the exclusive rule of force, irrespective of any international laws or institutions. The United Nations Organization, simply ignored in the present crisis, would fail to have any authority or prerogative whatsoever. There would be only one boss, only one judge, and only one law.

We have all been ordered to ally either with the United States government or with terrorism.

Cuba, the country that has suffered the most and the longest from terrorist actions, the one whose people are not afraid of anything because there is no threat or power in the world that can intimidate it, with a high morale Cuba claims that it is opposed to terrorism and opposed to war. Although the possibilities are now remote, Cuba reaffirms the need to avert a war of unpredictable consequences whose very authors have admitted not to have the least idea of how the events will unfold. Likewise, Cuba reiterates its willingness to cooperate with every country in the total eradication of terrorism. An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing the young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated and inaccessible places, like a fight against ghosts, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, or whether the people they kill are or not responsible for the death of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States.

Cuba will never declare itself an enemy of the American people that is today subjected to an unprecedented campaign to sow hatred and a vengeful spirit, so much so that even the music that sings to peace has been banned. On the contrary, Cuba will make that music its own, and even our children will sing their songs to peace while the announced bloody war lasts. Whatever happens, the territory of Cuba will never be used for terrorist actions against the American people and we will do everything within our reach to prevent such actions against that people. Today we are expressing our solidarity while urging to peace and calmness. One day they will admit we were right.

Our independence, our principles and our social achievements we will defend with honor to the last drop of blood, if we are attacked! It will not be easy to fabricate pretexts to do it. They are already talking about a war using all the necessary weapons but it will be good recalling that not even that would be a new experience. Almost four decades ago, hundreds of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons were aimed at Cuba and nobody remembers anyone of our countrymen sleepless over that.

We are the same Sons and daughters of that heroic people, with a patriotic and revolutionary conscience that is higher than ever. It is time for serenity and courage. The world will grow aware of this and will raise its voice in the face of the terrible threatening drama that it is about to suffer. As for Cubans, this is the right time to proclaim more proud and resolute than ever:

Socialism or death! Homeland or death! We will overcome!




From: "Collins, Pam" <PCollins@gcwda.com>
Subject: The Terrible Cost of bin Laden
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001

From: WilEvans50@aol.com


The Terrible Cost of bin Laden

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

There are two big unanswered questions about the monstrous attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The first is that if President Bush firmly fingers Saudi-exile terrorist Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the cataclysmic slaughter what will the U.S. do? In polls, nine out of ten Americans thirst for revenge, Bush promises swift retaliation, an army of 4000 special federal agents, 3000 support personnel, and 400 FBI lab specialists are at work on the investigation, and NATO allies have offered the U.S. full backing for any retaliation. This guarantees that the actual plotters will be slammed in a court docket, and that cruise missiles, or even bombs or U.S. troops could hit Afghanistan.

But if it's Bin Laden, the equally troubling question is who created him? The answer requires a painful glance back at U.S. foreign policy blunder two decades ago on Afghanistan. Alarmed at the Soviet Union's invasion of the country in 1979 to prop up an unpopular, leftist government under siege by loose bands of Islamic guerrillas, then president Jimmy Carter issued a secret policy directive. It authorized CIA covert support to the guerrilla fighters. The directive, however, did not entail the supply of money, and arms to the guerrillas. But the next year Carter was out of the White House, and Reagan was in. Reagan saw the Afghan battle as the last Cold War contest between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and a chance to snatch a victory. In 1985, he issued National Security Decision Directive 166. This opened the CIA spigot in Afghanistan. In the next few years, it dumped $2 billion into its secret Aghan war. This made it the CIA's biggest covert action program since World War II.

The funds went to bankroll weapons supplies, and establish training schools in guerrilla war, urban sabotage, and advanced weapons use. A parade of CIA officials, Pentagon advisors and congresspersons secretly trooped to Afghanistan to encourage the Islamic rebels. Driven by the thrill of battle, religious fanaticism, and U.S. military largesse, hundreds of would-be recruits flocked to Afghanistan from the Arab Gulf states. Osama bin Laden was one of them. He and hundreds of other militants received instruction in CIA-run camps in communications and weapons training, the use of satellite technology to track enemy air movements, and methods to coordinate small guerrilla networks.

In 1990 the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, and the leftist government collapsed. But bin Laden, and other militants, now armed with expertise in how to wage war, and spread terror to urban areas, quickly soured on the U.S., blaming it for all Arab ills. This was just the start. News correspondents who spent much time in the Afghan killing fields reported that after the Soviet pull-out, radical gunmen from 40 nations flocked to Afghanistan and were trained by Afghan guerrilla groups in the tactics of guerrilla war and urban terrorism.

The deadly stakes soared in the mid-1990s when the Taliban militia, many of whose leaders were veterans of the CIA's terror training schools, seized power. Though the U.S. took a cautious wait and see toward the Taliban, it still pumped in millions in aid to the regime mostly to insure construction of an oil and natural gas pipeline through the country. The bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 set off loud alarm bells within the Clinton administration that the U.S.'s warped policy in Afghanistan may have created monsters who posed grave danger to the United States. But it was too late. The Taliban was now in power, and could provide a safe sanctuary for U.S. and Israel-hating Islamic groups to plot mass destruction against Western targets.

The steep price of the U.S. policy that turned supposed friends into enemies has pushed Bush into a deep box. If bin Laden is the culprit in the terror attacks, the U.S. must and will demand extradition. Afghanistan will likely resist. The U.S. will probably unleash cruise missiles, drop bombs, and/or send in the troops. This could turn bin Laden into a bigger hero among his supporters, further inflame anti-U.S. sentiment in the region, trigger future terror atrocities, retard the Democratic resistance movement battling the Taliban, poison relations with moderate Arab and Palestinian leaders, and wreck any chance for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

The pathetic and tragic bin Laden saga stands as another in a lengthening string of U.S. foreign policy backfires. They've included the bankrolling of the contras in Nicaragua and anti-Marxist guerrillas in Cambodia, propping up brutal dictators in Chile, Congo, the Sudan, and Haiti. The result has been the export of drugs, economic and political dislocation, genocidal ethnic wars, and the suspicion that countries such as Pakistan, which helped direct and supervise the CIA's Afghan war, sponsor state terrorism. These are the costly problems that the U.S's former friends have dumped on its doorstep. And bin Laden may turn out to be the costliest of them all.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally syndicated columnist and the president of the National Alliance for Positive Action. website: http://www.natalliance.org


http://www.ZNet.com Commentary

"The price is worth it"

By Edward S. Herman

Try to imagine how the mainstream U.S. media and intellectuals would respond to the disclosure that at an early planning meeting of the terrorists responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the question had come up about whether the "collateral damage" of prospectively thousands of dead civilians wouldn't be excessive, but that the matter had been settled with the top leader's response: "we think the price is worth it"?

Suppose further that the terrorists' leaders then set out to make their case to their followers, arguing that it was extremely important to show the citizens of the Great Satan that they were not immune to attack on their own land--that they could not continue to bomb others freely and support the violent states of their choice without suffering some retaliation themselves. The terrorists argued that, as the Great Satan has been conducting low- (and often not so low) -intensity wars against the Third World and Arab states for decades, the planned attacks would be both just and legal under international law, justifiable under the UN Charter's grant of the right of self-defense, which He has relied on so often to excuse his own unilateral actions.

The leaders argued further that since the symbolic value of showing the Great Satan's vulnerability by attacking the WTC and Pentagon would be greatly enhanced by taking out several thousand civilians, this must be regarded as acceptable collateral damage. Finally, imagine the terrorists' leaders explaining to their followers that for the sake of global peace and security, no less than the welfare of peoples the world over, it is crucial to raise the costs of imperial violence, and help persuade the Great Satan's population to ask Him to terminate His wars. This, the terrorist leaders argued, would in the long run save far more lives than those lost in the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon.

Wouldn't the mainstream media and intellectuals be wild with indignation at the inhumanity of the terrorists' coldblooded calculus? Wouldn't they respond in one voice that it is absolutely immoral, evil, and indefensible per se to kill civilians on a massive scale to make a political point? And as to the terrorists' underlying argument that the attacks were justified both as retaliation for the Great Satan's ongoing wars and as part of an effort to curb His imperial violence, wouldn't this be rejected as outlandish? Wouldn't establishment spokespersons rush to claim that despite occasional regrettable mistakes this country has behaved well in international affairs, has intervened abroad only in just causes, and is the victim of terrorism, not a terrorist state or supporter of terrorism? And wouldn't it also be stressed that it is immoral and outrageous to even SPEAK of a "just cause" or any give any kind of legitimation for a terrorist action such as occurred in New York and Washington? That the only question in such a case of violence is "who," not "why"? (These last two sentences are a paraphrase of the indignant argument of a U.S. liberal historian.) And in fact, across the board the U.S. mainstreamers have refused to talk about "why" except for superficial denunciations of an irrational enemy that hates democracy, etc.

Turning now to the actual use of the phrase "the price is worth it," we come to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reply to Lesley Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

In this case, however, although the numbers dead are mind- boggling--the ratio of dead Iraqi children to deaths in the WTC/Pentagon bombings was better than 80 to 1, using the now obsolete early 1996 number for Iraqi children--the mainstream media and intellectuals have not found Albright's rationalization of this mass killing of any interest whatsoever. The phrase has been only rarely cited in the mainstream, and there has been no indignation or suggestion that the mass killing of children in order to satisfy some policy end was immoral and outrageous.

Since the morning hours of Tuesday, September 11, the civilian dead in the WTC/Pentagon terrorist bombings have been the subject of the most intense and detailed and humanizing attention, making the suffering clear and dramatic and feeding in to the sense of outrage. In contrast, the hundreds of thousands of children dead in Iraq are very close to invisible, their suffering and dying are out of sight; and whereas the ratio of Iraqi children killed by sanctions to WTC/Pentagon deaths was better than 80 to 1, the ratio of media space devoted to the Iraqi children and WTC/Pentagon deaths has surely been better than 500 to one in favor of the smaller WTC/Pentagon casualties. Pictures of sufferers and expressions of pain and indignation have been in a similar ratio. The UN workers in Iraq like Dennis Halliday who have resigned in disgust at the effects of the "sanctions of mass destruction" have been given minimal space in the media to inform the public and express their outrage.

The "who" in the case of the Iraqi mass deaths is clear-- overwhelmingly the U.S. and British leadership--but the "who" here is irrelevant because of how the "why" is answered. This is done implicitly. Madeleine Albright said that the deaths are worth it because U.S. policy finds this to be so--and with Albright saying this is "why," that settles the matter for the media. Their indignation at the immorality of killing civilians as collateral damage to make a political point ends, because the Iraqi children die by U.S. policy choice--and in this case the media will not even allow the matter to be discussed. The per se unreasonableness of killing civilians as collateral damage is quietly set aside (reminding one of how the Soviet's shooting down of KAL 007 in 1983 was per se barbarian, but the U.S. shooting down of Iranian airliner 655 in 1988 was a "tragic error.") The media focus on whether Saddam Hussein will allow UN inspections to prevent him getting "weapons of mass destruction," not on the mass death of children. (And of course the media regularly fail to note that the United States and Britain had helped Saddam Hussein obtain such weapons in the 1980s, and didn't object to his using them, until he stopped following orders in August 1990.)

Because the media make the suffering and death of 500,000 children invisible, the outrage produced by the intense coverage of the WTC/Pentagon bombing victims does not surface on their behalf. The liberal historian who was so indignant at even asking "why" for the WTC-Pentagon bombings and argued that only "who" was pertinent has said nothing about the immorality of killing Iraqis; he is not interested in "who" in this case, partly because he does not have to see dying Iraqi children every day, and partly because his government has answered the "why" to his satisfaction, justifying mass death. Is it not morally chilling, even a bit frightening, that he, and the great mass of his citizen compatriots, can focus with such anguish and indignation on their own 6,000 dead, while ignorant of, or not caring about, or approving his (their) own government's ongoing killing of scores of times as many innocents abroad?

This reflects the work of a superb propaganda system. The U.S. government finding the mass death of Iraqi children "worth it," the media push the fate of these "unworthy victims" into the black hole, thereby allowing that policy to be continued without impediment. With the United States itself a victim of terrorism, here the reverse process ensues: with these ultra-worthy victims, the media feature their suffering and deaths intensively and are not interested in root causes, but only in "who" did it; they beat the war drums incessantly and push to the forefront the most regressive forces in the country, making violence and repression the probable outcome of their efforts. But they will sell papers, get larger audiences, support the "national interest," and prove to the rightwing that they are real Americans.


From: "Mark Graffis" <mgraffis@islands.vi>


Despite the Bush Administration's refusal to actually release evidence that might link Osama Bin Laden to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the mass media has lined up almost without exception in support of wide ranging military action against Afghanistan and perhaps other countries.

In yesterday's Washington Post, for example, the opinion page featured two allegedly opposing op-ed pieces side by side. The first column called imminent US military action a "just struggle," warning that progressives must support war despite inevitable mistakes, restrictions on civil liberties and potentially unsavory alliances with murderous regimes. The second column charged that Pacifists are immoral, on the side of murderers, pro-fascist and "objectively pro-terrorist." This is what passes for debate on the question of war in the mass media.

Almost lost in this media drumbeat is the growing number of families who have suffered terrible personal loss but oppose the Bush Administration's plans for military attacks against Afghanistan. Phyllis and Orlando Rodriguez (who is a professor at Fordham University) lost their son Gregory, aged 31, in the attack. He was the head of computer security for Cantor Fitzgerald. They wrote the New York Times and President Bush after the September 11 attacks with the message increasingly being voiced by victim's families: "Not in our son's name."

Guest: Phyllis And Orlando Rodriguez

Listen to it all at http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/exile/dn20010927.ra&amp;start="10:09.9"