Those Wacky Russians

This first article comes courtesy of Emperors Clothes. 
The original is at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm 
  
Russian Air Force Chief Says 
Official 9-11 Story Impossible 
[Posted 13 September 2001] 
======================================= 

As one considers the terrible events of Sept. 11 and observes U.S. 
media reaction, so pervasive and consistently military that it appears 
choreographed, doubts increase. The following is from pravda.ru, a Russian 
language Website (politically centrist, nationalist). In some places the 
English translation is confusing, so we added alternate phrasing in 
brackets.  - Jared Israel 

[Start report from Russia] "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act 
of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday." This was 
said by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov. 
"We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents] too", - said the general 
straightforwardly. Kornukov did not specify what happened in Russia and when 
and to what extent it resembled the events in the US. He did not advise what 
was the end of air terrorists' attempts either. 

But the fact the general said that means a lot. As it turns out the way the 
terrorists acted in America is not unique. The notification and control 
system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights 
and leads to immediate reaction of the anti- missile defense, Kornukov said. 
"As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right 
away and in a minute we are all up," - said the general. [End report from 
Russia.] 
  
RUSSIAN MP - US ORCHESTRATED WTC ATTACK Tuesday, October 9, 2001 'U.S. 
organized WTC attack' 
Wacky Russian MP: By CP 

OTTAWA -- Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky has his own theory 
about the terrorist attacks in the U.S.: the Americans orchestrated the 
plane crashes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to 
maintain world domination. 

"The United States is responsible," said Zhirinovsky, who is attending a 
NATO parliamentary conference in Ottawa. "All the terror has been organized 
by the United States. Osama (bin Laden) had nothing to do with it." 
Zhirinovsky, a Russian MP and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, has a 
long history of wild and inflammatory statements. Still, in last year's 
presidential election won by Vladimir Putin, Zhirinovsky came fifth with 
more than two million votes, or 2.7% of the vote. "That was an artificial 
situation," Zhirinovsky said of the terrorist attacks, speaking through an 
interpreter. 

"The United States, in order to consolidate its efforts and to produce a 
coalition, needed to have some sort of provocation in order to invoke 
Article 5 of the NATO treaty. It is a new political technology to keep 
domination in the world." Russia is an associate member of NATO. 
Zhirinovsky said the war against terrorism is a phoney war, triggered by an 
unstable U.S. dollar and oil prices, and a military industrial complex that 
"needs an enemy." "In the 20th century, there were some symbols to fight 
against, like fascism and communism," he said. "They don't exist any more. 

Now they have found such a symbol, which is terrorism, which has no borders, 
which has no time limits." Zhirinovsky said the Americans could capture bin 
Laden at any moment if they really wanted to. "They got what they wanted. 
They consolidated the international community, the NATO alliance. They've 
got political and financial dividends from the situation." Zhirinovsky also 
claimed that a Russian plane which plunged into the Black Sea en route from 
Israel on Thursday was most likely downed by Israel, with the involvement of 
the U.S. "This was done only by secret services," he said. "Israel didn't 
like the Russian position, which was more favourable for Arabs." Russian and 
Ukrainian defence officials are investigating whether it was mistakenly hit 
by a Ukrainian missile, killing all 78 passengers. 

*****

The Guardian
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,573689,00.html Stop the 
war, plead parents of NY victim 'Our country is using our son's memory as 
justification to cause more suffering for other sons and parents in other 
lands' War on Terrorism: Observer special 

Duncan Campbell 
Sunday October 14, 2001 
The Observer 

Hours after air strikes on Afghanistan began last week, thousands attended a 
peace rally in New York. They heard 87-year-old Reuben Schafer, whose 
grandson Gregory Rodriguez was killed in the World Trade Centre on 11 
September, read a letter from Gregory's parents, Phyllis and Orlando 
Rodriguez, to President Bush. It read: 'Your response to the attack does not 
make us feel better about our son's death... It makes us feel our government 
is using our son's memory as justification to cause suffering for other sons 
and parents in other lands.' 

The Rodriguez family is part of a growing network of relatives opposing the 
attacks on Afghanistan. Phyllis Rodriguez, speaking from her Westchester 
home, said she had been inspired by her son's 'instinctive internationalism' 
to register her protests. When 14 years old Gregory Rodriguez spent a month 
studying in Spain and was puzzled to find how much the Spanish hated the 
French. When he returned home he told his parents: 'Nationalism stinks.' 
Some 17 years after that Spanish trip, the 31-year-old head of computer 
security at Cantor Fitzgerald was killed in his office on the 103rd floor of 
the World Trade Centre. 

'He liked the challenge of the workaday world,' said his mother. He had been 
at Cantor Fitzgerald for three years following seven years at Salomon 
Brothers, where he had met his wife of a year, Eliza Soudant. His tastes, in 
music as in people, were eclectic: from opera and reggae to Tom Waits and 
the Beastie Boys. 'He was hungry for life, a very outgoing guy and he loved 
new experiences and travel,' said Phyllis Rodriquez. 

His travels and his work took him to Cuba and Japan, Guatemala and England, 
hiking, scuba diving and exploring. He liked to get off the beaten track and 
meet people of different nationalities. Then came 11 September and his 
parents, like thousands of others, found themselves searching the hospitals 
and waiting for news. Calls were already being made for the bombing of 
Afghanistan, and a CBS/ New York Times poll found that 75 per cent of those 
interviewed favoured war, even if it meant the deaths of innocent civilians. 
The Rodriguez family decided they had to speak out so that such retaliation 
was not carried out in their son's name. 

'I feel the American public has to join the international community in a 
meaningful way, and stop being an isolationist nation,' said Phyllis 
Rodriguez. 'One way we can do it is by educating ourselves. It's not part of 
our national consciousness - the conditions under which people live in Iraq, 
Rwanda, Paraguay. That's the first step: to learn about the sufferings and 
joys of other people. We have to find out why we are hated in other parts of 
the world.' The family have made contact with others who have lost members 
in the attacks and who feel as they do. 

In his memorial service speech shortly after the attacks, the President 
singled out an unnamed man 'who could have saved himself' but instead 
'stayed until the end at the side of his quadriplegic friend'. The man was 
Abe Zelmanowitz, a 54-year-old computer programmer who worked for Blue Cross 
Blue Shield in the World Trade Centre. Matthew Lasar, Zelmanowitz's nephew, 
said: 'He was a warm and compassionate person, very principled, with a 
wonderful droll sense of humour.' Zelmanowitz had telephoned his family 
after the first plane struck to explain that he could not leave his friend, 
wheelchair-bound Ed Beyea, behind. 'He called his brother Jack, and said he 
was not going to come back. The two of them met their ends in the building.' 

A devout Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, Zelmanowitz was in the garment trade 
until it collapsed in the Seventies and studied computer programming so that 
he could begin a new career. Lasar, 46, said his cousin, Saul, and his 
friends had been searching the hospitals on 11 September and someone had 
told a reporter about his uncle's decision not to abandon his friend. The 
White House heard of it and it was decided to include the story in the 
President's speech. Lasar said : 'I can't put words into his [Zelmanowitz's] 
mouth, but I know a little about Afghanistan and I know it [bombing] would 
result in a famine of unbelievable consequences. 

I don't think people in this country realise we are so powerful. In terms of 
my own grief, I don't know how to describe it, but in the private place I am 
right now I don't want to see any more bloodshed. I felt I had an obligation 
to say that.' Other relatives have added their voices. Judy Keane, whose 
husband Richard was killed, told CNN: 'Bombing Afghanistan is just going to 
create more widows, more homeless, fatherless children.' Jill Gartenberg, 
whose husband Jim was killed in the attacks, told Fox news: 'We don't win by 
killing other people.' As for the pursuit of those who planned the attacks, 
Phyllis Rodriguez said she had hoped for 'due process, a fair trial, no 
shoot- first, bomb-first policy. It may be painful and slow, but it would be 
the best testament to my son and to all of those who died'. 

*****

http://www.globeandmail.com 
  
Say what you want, but this war is illegal By MICHAEL MANDEL Tuesday, 
October 9, 2001– Page A21 
  
A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is 
clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the 
United Nations Charter. 
  
Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, 
the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right 
to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until 
the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and 
security. 

The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 
11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. 
These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its 
financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, 
criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security 
Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the 
resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it. 

Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military 
force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent 
right of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They 
do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of 
self-defence. Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral 
self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has 
stopped. 

The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of 
self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law 
is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own 
hands. Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack 
without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die 
from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims 
of the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force 
where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." 
Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has 
nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely 
to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real 
war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, 
intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances. 

Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against 
terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington 
conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted 
violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the 
Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, 
and Iran before that when it supported the Shah. 

The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the 
Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less 
control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. 
It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing 
and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at 
risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the 
claims of "surgical" strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We've 
seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the 
"accidents" that killed innocents. 

For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one 
thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its 
decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia 
were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the 
World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington 
for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In 
that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 
51 in defence of Nicaragua's neighbours. 

For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying 
on the "solidarity" clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made 
expressly subordinate to the UN Charter. 
But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it 
does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the 
power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the 
international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are 
sidelined in matters of our most vital interests. 

We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington 
make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this 
attack in the light of day before the real international community. The 
bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to 
the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its 
human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, 
lawless world. Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School 
in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law.