The greatest success of the US government

[AbuNoran]

http://www.giwersworld.org/911/index.phtml

[AbuNoran]

Why Do They Hate Us?

Warren S. Apel

American Embassy School, New Delhi, India

Americans like to believe that the United States is a great country. And in many respects we are correct. Compared to many countries in the world, we are lucky to have the political freedoms, the quality medical care, education system, and low poverty that we enjoy. We figure that no one should hate us – they should all want to be more like us. It’s this belief that caused George W. Bush to make his famous quote: "I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. . . like most Americans, I just can't believe it. Because I know how good we are. . ."

Why was America a target of terrorism? For the last year, just the act of posing this question has been tantamount to justifying the actions of those terrorists who struck the United States. If asking the question was excusing the terrorists, then changing our attitudes or conduct was "giving in to their demands." Until recently, there has been no chance of actually changing the way America conducts itself at home or abroad. Now that we’ve had more than a year to calm down, perhaps it’s time to change our way of thinking, our attitudes, and our actions.

When we ask the question "why do they hate us?" we don’t want a complicated answer. Americans don’t want to hear that we’ve been doing anything wrong. We want to hear "they are jealous of our freedoms." We want to generalize that Arabs are crazed and violent, acting without logical motivation. U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman stated in a meeting of the Committee on International Relations that "we are resented for our power, envied for our wealth and hated for our liberty." This kind of placating reassurance may comfort Americans, but it is far from the truth. Other countries have freedoms, wealth and liberty. Why weren’t Sweden, Canada, or Holland the target of any recent terrorism?

The main motivation of Osama Bin Laden is simple: the American military presence in Saudi Arabia desecrates the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. It makes sense that to be good world neighbors, we should remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia. We have a huge military presence in the Middle East, mostly to ensure America’s supply of cheap petroleum. We can stop provoking Arab terrorists without "giving in to their demands." If we spent more money developing alternatives to petroleum, we wouldn’t need to work as hard as we do in protecting our access to it.

But there’s no reason to assume that our presence in Saudi Arabia is the only thing Americans are doing wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world. We isolate ourselves from the rest of the world – reneging on treaties and breaking promises. We decide unilaterally that our need for nuclear missile testing, land mines, and gas-guzzling SUVs outweighs the nearly unanimous global decisions to cut back on those planetary disasters. Our children are sedentary and overfed to the point of unhealthy obesity while millions of children elsewhere starve. We look down on countries where gender equity and voter rights aren’t as strong as they are in America; however, many people in those countries see us as barbaric and backward for our use of capital punishment and rampant gun possession. For many people in Europe, Americans are bumbling tourists, complaining that waiters in France don’t speak English well enough – then returning home to vote on English-only legislation. There’s a joke in Europe that you can tell an American in a crowd: they’re the one who speaks only one language and doesn’t know where Canada is.

If we are to peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world, we’ll have to start learning about them. Americans see Palestinians as terrorists because we do not understand the politics of the Middle East well enough. American newspapers are grossly lacking in news from other countries. The "world" segments of network television news offer glimpses of earthquakes and train crashes in exotic foreign locations, without any substantive reporting on political situations, causes of famine, or roots of conflict. Americans have become so desensitized to human suffering that the U.S. media simply chooses not to report on many of the world’s most important news stories – for example, the Indonesian genocide of the people in East Timor was almost never covered in American newspapers. People in Australia and New Zealand were aware that the American government condoned the violence, and even supplied Indonesia with the weapons that were used – but Americans remained blissfully ignorant of the situation.

Traveling around the world makes one realize just how ignorant Americans are about the rest of the world. Taxi drivers in Cairo, Egypt know the names of nearly every major politician in the world – reading and chatting about world politics is a dear hobby to many of them. Americans would be hard pressed just to name the leaders of the G-8 nations. In fact, I would wager that few Americans even know the countries that make up the G-8. The current push in American education to "return to the three R’s" is certainly not going to help this situation. If anything, American education should be promoting world awareness, global thinking, teamwork, and international awareness. Perhaps in a generation or two we could have a nation of world citizens.

But ignorance and holy desecration are far from America’s worst public image problems. Our self-declared status as the world’s most important superpower may make Americans feel safe and significant, but it causes many others around the world to see us as a threatening, egocentric bully. We declare our support to other nations when it is beneficial to America – regardless of how that nation treats its citizens, elects its officials, or behaves with its neighbors. We supported the dictatorship of Suharto in Indonesia because that country supplies most of the oil in the Pacific Rim. We provided support, weapons and training to "freedom fighters" in Central America who are almost indistinguishable from the people we label "terrorists" today. The role of the US in the training of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban is conveniently overlooked in the American media. The United States has managed for years to ignore the brutal persecution of the people of poor countries like Tibet, Myanmar, and Cambodia, yet we rushed to the support of Kuwait because it is an oil-rich country that we can take advantage of.

The American people take it for granted that when we fight a war, we’re doing it to help restore democracy around the world. When we remove one ruler, and replace him with one that America has hand picked, it’s hardly a move towards increasing the amount of global democracy. In fact, while we talk about democratic principles, we ought to bear in mind that, to a large number of people in the world, George W. Bush himself is not the democratically-elected ruler of the United States. To people from nations where nepotism and bribery are a way of life, it makes sense that Bush’s victory was determined by the governor of Florida -- Bush’s brother -- and not by the people of America. But that hardly puts us in the position to "restore democracy" through military action.

Those military actions are part of our public image problem. We have a hard time making firm friendships with Arab nations because we shift our alliances so often. We made close friends with Gamel Abdel Nasser when we thought that an alliance with Egypt would be politically advantageous. A few years later, we were supporting attempts to overthrow his government. Before Iraq was declared part of the "axis of evil," America oversaw the coup that put Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Socialist Party in charge of the country. Our friendships flip-flopped between Iraq and Iran – we were close with the Shah of Iran, then a few years later we armed and financed Saddam Hussein and helped him invade Iran. In hindsight, it appears that our decision to give Iraq materials and training in the production of chemical and biological weapons might not have been a good one. While President Reagan was bombing Libya, we were engaging in arms deals with Iran, one of Libya’s close allies – and one of the countries that America now considers an "instigator of international terrorism."

Is it any wonder that Arab nations hate us? At the very least, these countries should be wary of making alliances with us. We have a history of sending the CIA in to take out our "friends." The American people’s lack of interest in or knowledge of these matters helps fuel the fire of popular opinion. We have no objection to the military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan because we see them as the agents behind the attacks on America. On September 10th, the Taliban were just considered fundamentalists who treated women poorly – not terrorists or enemies of America. A few weeks later, more than a few Americans openly supported the idea of destroying the entire country with nuclear weapons. Not many Americans discussed or remembered the American role in Afghanistan a few years earlier. In 1995, America was supporting the Taliban financially and militarily, while allowing and encouraging countries like Egypt and Algeria to persecute, imprison and execute their fundamentalist Muslim populations. Why were we propping up the hardest-core of the hardcore Muslim governments? They were fighting our common enemy, the Russians. And in an effort to help American kids "just say no" we assisted the Taliban in their religious goal of eradicating opium fields. Seven years later, we were eradicating the Taliban themselves.

And now that the Russians are no longer our enemies, we ask for their assistance in our "war against terrorism." In yet another example of our Nation’s ability to quickly change its opinion, we made a questionable moral tradeoff to gain Russia’s support. A few years ago, we were labeling their genocide against the people of Chechnya "ethnic cleansing." To gain the support of Russia, George W. Bush has changed that label – now the Russians are "fighting terrorism" when they labor at continuing Stalin’s goal of eradicating the Chechen people.

Americans have a hard time remembering our enemies. At any one time, there may be ten or so countries on our current "axis of evil." Right now, we know that Afghanistan is one of the "bad guys." But what about Pakistan? We need to use their land to help if we end up invading Iraq, so we’ll likely become temporary friends with them. It’s hard to tell if we’re allies with Syria, Lebanon, or Iran right now. But while most Americans forget who our enemies are, those enemies will never forget. America is such a large, powerful country – throwing our military and economic power around as we like – that once we’ve placed some country on our list of "bad guys" the citizens of that country will likely hate us forever. While American citizens quickly forget which countries American planes were bombing a few years ago, the people of Cambodia, Libya, Sudan, and Beirut will always remember those explosions with the same level of recall we have for the images of those planes hitting the twin towers.

It’s good for America that we’re finally asking the right questions – that we’re interested in why people hate us. It would be great if we admitted that our foreign policy favored deceit, greed, and petroleum over human lives and freedoms. The world would be a better place if we decided to re-evaluate how our policy affects the people of the Middle East and South Asia. If we re-thought our economic sanctions, we could reduce some of the world’s poverty – the proven breeding ground of terrorists.

But beyond those lofty goals, if we have the foresight, we can also predict what people will hate us for next. It shouldn’t be hard. Indeed, one hundred Nobel Laureates have agreed that the most pressing danger to world peace is not the isolated acts of terrorist individuals or governments, but the legitimate demands of the world’s economically disadvantaged people. America has the power to join the world and ratify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Convention on Climate Change, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If we continue to insist that every American’s personal wealth and lifestyle are more important than the lives of the other people on our planet, we will have a whole lot more people hating us than we currently do.

Most of the world’s poor live in equatorial climates in large cities near water. Global warming, caused by the dependence on fossil fuels by the wealthy few, has already begun to threaten the lives of the world’s poorest people. Recent flooding in Prague, China, and Bangladesh have killed hundreds and displaced thousands. America’s fascination with the sport utility vehicle has indirectly caused forest fires in Australia, glacial landslides in Russia and typhoons in Singapore. Worldwide drought and famine will be increasing over the next decade, but America refuses to even consider reducing its levels of fossil fuel consumption. President Bush declares such actions to be "not in the United States' economic best interest;" however, the World Council of Churches has declared this global slap in the face to be a "betrayal of (America’s) responsibilities as global citizens."

We have to realize that increasing our short-term economic best interest might not be the best plan of action. It’s time to start thinking of the future, and not just the short-term gains of our actions. America’s addiction to fossil fuels and red meat is wreaking havoc with global weather patterns. We control a huge percentage of the world’s money, food, and fuel. We have the power to change. We can rethink our military and economic presence in South Asia and the Middle East. We can work harder at developing clean fuels and renewable energy sources. If we can finally see the value in compromise, we can apologize to the world and sign the treaties George W. Bush pulled us out of. We can work in the economic best interest of the whole world. Perhaps once we start doing that, fewer and fewer people will hate us.

"Why do they hate us?" If we are ready to ask the question, we must be ready to change. We should not listen to Nationalist zealots like Rep Sherman, who warn that America "cannot and dare not change our foreign policy, because to placate Mr. Bin Laden and his gang is impossible. . . . To placate them is dishonorable." Changing our foreign policy must not be seen as placating Osama Bin Laden, nor as dishonorable. What we must do is understand why other people in other countries hate us, accept that we will be always hated by a few, but work to improve ourselves and our image – even if that doesn’t seem like it’s in our "economic best interest."

http://www.nesacenter.org/Services/2003win...lor:8e7ed9d103]

[AbuNoran]

[u:953e8e9c7b][b:953e8e9c7b]<span>The charge: millions sterilised to meet U.S. political objectives[/color:953e8e9c7b][/b:953e8e9c7b][/u:953e8e9c7b][/size:953e8e9c7b]</span>

<span><span>Brazil, the study said, was placed on the list of thirteen target nations because it "clearly dominates the continent [south America] demographically,'' and its population was projected to equal that of the United States by the turn of the century. This, said the report which was jointly prepared for the National Security Council (NSC) in 1974 by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Departments of State and Defence (DOD), and the Agency for International Development (USAID), suggests "a growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.''[/color:953e8e9c7b]</span></span>

<span><span><span>The NSC report listed twelve other nations whose growth could give them increased political influence, and which were also to be targeted under the international population program. [u:953e8e9c7b]Those are[/u:953e8e9c7b]: [b:953e8e9c7b]Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Bangladesh, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Mexico and Colombia[/b:953e8e9c7b].[/color:953e8e9c7b] </span></span></span>

<span><span><span><span>The document, which is over 200 pages in length, was written after a proposed "world population plan of action'' was denounced by large numbers of African and Latin America nations, by the Vatican, and by the entire socialist bloc (with the exception of Romania), during a UN population conference held in Bucharest in 1974.</span></span></span></span>

<span><span><span><span>[/color:953e8e9c7b]</span></span></span></span>

<span><span><span><span>http://www.africa2000.com/bndx/bao112.htm</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span> </span></span></span></span>

[AbuNoran]

This might be shocking to some, but it's been reported on in pieces by the mainstream media. It appears as if the United States is in charge of an Iranian terrorist group. To go a little further, a New York Times columnist thinks the Bush Administration should use evidence from this U.S. defined terror organization as showing that Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

I have to hand it the administration, they have become so accustomed to being unchallenged in the corporate media that they feel they can get away with anything. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

Now I'm not saying that Iran is not developing Nuclear weapons. In my uneducated opinion, who would blame them if they did? They just watched their neighbor and fellow "axis of evil" companion be destroyed even though Iraq claimed it had destroyed all their WMD. The pre and post war inspections have not found 1 milligram of evidence. My wife could testify that the gas coming out of my butt is more deadly then anything they have found in Iraq.

In addition, after the Bush Administration [u:7df6dd8164]lied[/u:7df6dd8164] (http://www.takebackthemedia.com/com-%20hans.html), used [u:7df6dd8164]forged documents[/u:7df6dd8164], and intelligence that the [u:7df6dd8164]UN inspectors called "garbage"[/u:7df6dd8164] (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...esc=Bush%20Lies) to convince the American public that we had to attack Iraq NOW, they would have to be insane to take the advice of NY Times columnist Stolberg. You don't think that the Bush League would use evidence from a U.S. defined terrorist organization, who wants to overthrow the Iranian government, who had backing from Sadaam Hussein, as a reliable source of evidence?

Sure, why not.

Just a quick note of apparently unimportant information. Iran has the worlds [u:7df6dd8164]5th largest reserves of oil[/u:7df6dd8164] (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html), and the Israeli Government has [u:7df6dd8164]stated[/u:7df6dd8164] (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.htm...143&sid=1793480), that the U.S. should go after Iran and Syria after Iraq. Economic domination (read:Oil) and "reshaping" the Middle East, are also stated goals of [u:7df6dd8164]The Project for a New American Century[/u:7df6dd8164] (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statemen...fprinciples.htm). [/color:7df6dd8164]

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...nder%20Reported

[AbuNoran]

Stop New "Patriot Act II"

Contact Congress Immediately

[img:c174acc5d7]http://images.capwiz.com/img/alert7.gif[/img:c174acc5d7]

http://capwiz.com/adc/issues/alert/?alerti...1520011&type=CO

Issue: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has drafted an 86-page bill, which seeks to give the Federal government new, sweeping powers to increase domestic intelligence gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives while decreasing judicial review and public access to information as a way to fight domestic terrorism. The draft bill, known officially as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," has not been publicly released by the Department of Justice. However, DOJ personnel are currently briefing Congressional staff about this matter. The new draft bill would essentially broaden the powers already provided to the Department of Justice under the post 9-11 “USA Patriot Act” that gave the government unprecedented powers that intrude on our civil liberties.

[AbuNoran]

Unemployed? Worried? Read On...

By Carl F. Worden

7-14-3

Now that at least 6% of you are unemployed in the United States and have more free time to read, perhaps you'd like to know why you no longer have a job, why your job-finding prospects are bleak, why our trade deficit is off the charts and even more importantly, who did this to you.

In order for you to fully grasp what I'm about to write, we'll need to review what worked to make this nation the most wealthy and powerful nation ever to grace the face of this earth.

First, we need to remember how wealth is created. The average high school graduate comes out thinking that if they get more of the money others have, then that's the way to create wealth. They don't have a clue about wealth creation, because in most cases, the schools don't teach it, and most of the kid's parents don't know either -- so herewith is a refresher course.

In the most perfect scenario, and one that the United States of America just happened to follow, this nation was established on a continent that was blessed with magnificent amounts of raw materials, like wood and metals, and an agricultural breadbasket that could produce far more food than the domestic population could possibly eat. Add to that potent mix a population with a strong work ethic, solid moral integrity and the freedom to be as personally successful as they want to be, and the Founding Fathers just let human nature take its course.

Those raw materials are mined and harvested, then manufactured into items of quality and desirability that the entire world wants to purchase. That is how wealth is created. The same goes for a vigorous agricultural program: You plant a seed and water it, it grows and produces whatever, you sell it, and voila! You've created wealth.

In the meantime, people need to be employed in order to manufacture and grow things, and if you employ someone, you have to pay them for their contribution to your efforts. As time goes by, more and more of your domestic population becomes employed, which means they are making money and able to purchase land, homes, cars and other things themselves.

Over time, our growing domestic population became this nation's largest consumer of U.S. manufactured goods. Because of our Constitution and our Republican form of government, our people were free to explore and invent with little or no government intervention. This led to technological advances that produced goods of such fine quality and craftsmanship that no other nation could compete with us at the same level. The world could buy cheaper goods of lower quality made in Japan, for example, but if you wanted quality that would last, you bought American. As a result, wealth poured into this nation, creating more millionaires per capita than any other nation on earth.

As our population came to earn more and more money in salaries and wages, our domestic manufacturers employing those workers had to charge more and more for their goods at the wholesale level in order to maintain a profit and stay healthy.

The workers employed in other nations earned far less than our workers, so in theory, they could produce manufactured goods at a lower cost than our domestic manufacturers could. The problem is that they generally lacked the raw materials we had in such abundance, and they also lacked our superior manufacturing technology, making foreign-made goods generally inferior.

Even so, the United States maintained tariffs and trade restrictions that forced the shelf price of imported manufactured goods high enough to keep their price comparable to the goods produced by American manufacturers

As a result, the American standard of living kept climbing and outpacing that of the rest of the world - by leaps and bounds.

Later on, foreign manufacturers managed to steal a great deal of our technology, but the tariffs and trade restrictions still kept doing their intended duty of protecting American jobs.

That is what made America the most wealthy and powerful nation on the face of this earth, and all that changed with the passage of NAFTA and GATT in 1994. We are now hemorrhaging jobs and wealth to other nations, particularly China, at such an astonishing rate that there is no foreseeable way to stop the carnage. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs quite literally slashed America's economic throat. NAFTA/GATT were pushed through by the Republicans, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton over the strenuous objections of his fellow Democrats.

NAFTA/GATT removed our last line of defense against unfair foreign competition by manufacturers who now use cheap labor, equal manufacturing technology and even our own raw materials to compete with American manufacturers in a so-called "free" market. NAFTA/GATT were international treaties requiring a 2/3 Senate approval - votes they didn't have - so they just passed them as regular legislation. Incredibly, when American labor unions challenged the passage of NAFTA/GATT as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court let them stand!

So what I want you to understand here is that all legal means for ridding ourselves of those treasonous acts have been exhausted. Our elected representatives show no signs of wanting to end our participation in NAFTA/GATT, therefore nothing short of a bloody and violent revolution to take this government back will have any chance of stopping our economic nosedive. This slide will not, and indeed, cannot end until our wages and our standard of living have equalized with the rest of the world.

Ross Perot held the public forum during his presidential campaign, and screamed from the rooftops that if NAFTA/GATT were passed, we'd hear this giant sucking sound of American manufacturing jobs going to other nations, remember that? He was out-shouted by that truth-impaired radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, who assured us all that NAFTA/GATT were a good thing for America and would enable American consumers to buy manufactured and other goods at substantially lower prices.

Where it comes to basic math and economics, Rush Limbaugh is definitely not the guy to ask. You have to have a job to buy manufactured goods and foodstuffs, no matter what the price, right? And if American manufacturers close their plants in America and start manufacturing in China and elsewhere, as they had to do in order to stay competitive and viable, doesn't that mean those high-paying American manufacturing jobs are now held by slave-laborers in China? Is this treason starting to sink in yet? You didn't seem to care when you had a job, right? Well, I'll bet you do now.

Oh, and what about those lowered prices for foreign-made goods we were promised ala Limbaugh? Seen any lately? No?? And why? Because the formerly American and foreign manufacturers now in China and Taiwan didn't 't have to lower them! All they had to do was lower their price a buck or two under what the American manufacturer had to sell the same product for here.

You see, it doesn't matter that it only costs them pennies on the dollar to make the same item an American manufacturer does. They have no obligation whatsoever to pass those savings on to you and me if they don't have to - and under NAFTA/GATT they don't have to! The whole idea is to make the highest possible profit while remaining competitive, right? Well, if that's the case, then prices won't drop until Americans have lost so many family-wage paying jobs that they simply cannot afford to pay the higher prices anymore.

I wish I could end this article with a ray of hope for our economy, but I cannot. If we are to have free trade with other nations, then the inevitable result will have to be our parity in living standards with the rest of the "global" community, and because we have a comparatively high standard of living, it naturally follows that our standard of living will have to decline. This is Math 101, and there's no way around it.

I just read an interesting Associated Press article at (http://www.msnbc.com/news/937578.asp?0cv=BB10&cp1=1)

If you have been paying attention to this mess, you'll recall that President Bush slapped a 30% tariff of foreign steel imported to the United States. At the time he did it, I couldn't figure out where NAFTA/GATT allowed him to do it, but if they did, why don't we just slap tariffs on all imported foreign goods to protect our remaining domestic manufacturers who are too stupid to close up and move to China?

Well, I just got my answer: The World Trade Organization, whose rules we agreed to abide by under NAFTA/GATT, just ruled Bush's tariff violates "global trade rules". If the American appeal fails, we taxpayers will pay a stiff fine and thousands more American steel manufacturing jobs will be lost.

Would you like to hear some good news? I thought so. Here goes:

I just read somewhere that China was being lauded for having reduced its poverty level by more than half. I wonder how they did it, and where they got the money?

http://www.rense.com/general39/unem.htm

[AbuNoran]

Big brother under the bumper

Boulder residents find mysterious tracking systems on their cars

- - - - - - - - - - - -

by Joel Warner and Pamela White (Editorial@boulderweekly.com)

[img:8ced959ca3]http://www.boulderweekly.com/images/coverstory1.jpg[/img:8ced959ca3]

Ever get the sneaking suspicion you are being watched? Maybe you should look under your bumper. On Sunday, July 6, three Boulder residents discovered sophisticated Global Positioning System (GPS) devices attached to the bottom of their cars, apparently used by someone to track the whereabouts of their vehicles.

The devices contained no immediate clues as to who planted them or who used them to collect information, leaving the residents with troubling questions: Who would be willing to spend the time and energy to track them? And are we all being watched far more carefully than we might want to imagine?

Sunday morning surprise

New York native Mike Nicosia is passionate about protecting animals. He’s been this way ever since he learned of their plight six years ago.

"I was just appalled to see the way animals are treated for everything from fur farms to slaughter houses," he says. "I wanted to do more to help animals. Because animals don’t have a voice, I wanted to be a voice for them."

Nicosia became a vegan, participated in animal-rights protests and launched a Long Island chapter of The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade.

"We have a no-nonsense approach to destroying the fur trade," says Nicosia of the organization. "That means protests, civil disobedience and outreach, as well as supporting the ALF."

ALF stands for the Animal Liberation Front, a controversial organization that combats animal abuse by releasing animals from testing laboratories and destroying the property of those they deem to be exploiting animals.

While Nicosia says he had no direct connections with the ALF, he publicly supported the organization’s tactics. That was when the surveillance began.

Nicosia says wiretaps were installed on his phone. He was photographed at protests. Plainclothes officers would follow him to his car. He also received death threats from people within the fur industry. One prominent fur community member was eventually issued a restraining order after repeatedly threatening Nicosia’s life.

Nicosia came to Boulder two and a half years ago to study psychology at Naropa University. Since arriving here, Nicosia has started a new student group: the Student Organization for Animal Rights. Nicosia says the group’s main focus is education about the benefits of a vegan lifestyle, not civil disobedience.

Nicosia stresses he still has no association with ALF and no ties to members of the organization, with the exception of his roommate–Rod Coronado.

Rod Coronado is well known in activist circles. A member of the Earth First! movement and former media spokesperson for the ALF, he has been a vigilant supporter of the animal rights and environmental movements for 20 years.

"I have always been an outspoken critic of America’s environmental policy and an open defender of actions to defend wilderness and the animals," says Coronado.

In 1994, Coronado was arrested for an arson attack at Michigan State University’s mink research facilities. After serving four years in prison and three years in suspended release, Coronado began traveling around the country talking about his previous actions and his political beliefs.

Over the past six months, Coronado and other activists have been involved in a campaign against the logging in northwest California, protesting in front of the homes of executives of the Houston-based Maxxam Corporation, which owns the lumber company responsible for the logging.

"We don’t destroy property; we don’t break the law in any way. We are just exercising our free speech rights," says Coronado. "Nevertheless, these people are very much affected, and it’s enough that they are very much aware of why we are there. We are holding them accountable for what they have been profiting from for years."

Federal surveillance is a routine part of Coronado’s life, and he says officials have been increasingly interested in his activities since he began visiting the homes of Maxxam executives. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t surprised on Sunday morning, July 6, when he was attaching a trailer hitch to his car and noticed something underneath his vehicle that wasn’t supposed to be there.

Nicosia says he was inside asleep that morning when Coronado discovered the large black devices attached behind the rear bumpers of his and his girlfriend’s cars on the driver’s side. When Nicosia woke up, Coronado showed him the strange tangles of wires and electronics. Nicosia immediately became curious if such a device had also been planted on his car.

It took just a moment to discover the answer.

Eyes in the sky

A GPS device is essentially a super-charged version of the standard compass; instead of just telling its user which way is north, a GPS device will determine its exact location on earth.

A GPS system operates by interacting with satellites orbiting the earth containing highly accurate atomic clocks. When activated, the GPS device will "look" at four of the satellites simultaneously. By comparing the different times it reads on each of the atomic clocks, the GPS device will calculate its distance from each satellite. Using this information, the GPS device can determine not only its location, but also the exact time it was at that location. Sensitive GPS devices can be accurate down to a nanosecond and within 15 to 20 meters.

While Nicosia and Coronado are not GPS experts, they immediately assumed the devices found on their cars and Coronado’s girlfriend’s car were GPS systems, especially since one component was labeled GPS Antenna.

When Nicosia brought his device to GPS Solutions, a Boulder-based software developer of high-accuracy GPS technology, chief engineer Jim Johnson confirmed their suspicion.

"This is definitely a GPS board," says Johnson, referring to one of the components of the device.

According to Johnson, the devices in question contain four main components: a battery pack containing four lithium D cell batteries, a GPS antenna, a cellular antenna and a main component box. The component box contains a GPS receiver, a computer chip and a cellular modem. All the components were wired together and attached by powerful magnets to the cars’ undersides.

When attached to the car, the GPS antenna likely points downwards towards the ground, to pick up signals from GPS satellites that bounce off the road. This information is sent to the GPS receiver, which determines its location at least within 100 meters, says Johnson. This information can then be transmitted from the car to an outside source using the modem and cellular antenna, just like a normal cell phone call. The computer chip can be programmed to determine when the information is transmitted. It’s possible the information was sent out on a set schedule, or if the vehicles entered or left a specified area.

But where was the GPS information sent?

The answer is not readily available. One thing is for sure, however: The devices are not cheap.

"They are putting some money into it," says Johnson about the systems, which he estimates could cost about $2,000 each.

Coronado says he is going to auction his device on eBay and donate the proceeds to the animal-rights organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.

Another enigma is who built these devices, which Johnson says were probably custom made. While the GPS antennas are labeled with serial numbers and the manufacturer name Trimble, one of the leading developers of GPS technology, other components in the device are not made by Trimble, says Johnson. Most of the components contain no labels at all, making them untraceable. When Trimble was contacted and asked if the antennas’ sales histories could be tracked using their serial numbers, the company spokesperson did not respond before press time.

Nicosia and Coronado believe the devices were likely placed on their cars while they were in Boulder during this past May, since this was the only period of time and place the cars were all at the same location. Coronado believes he is the main reason the devices were planted on their cars, because of his controversial history. He says the GPS device was likely planted on his girlfriend’s car because he often uses it.

Nicosia, who was both shocked and a little flattered his car was bugged, also believes he was targeted because he lives with Coronado.

"I think it’s just the ‘guilt by association.’ Me calling (Coronado), hanging out with him has made me a target," says Nicosia.

But the true explanation is probably not so simple. The car belonging to Nicosia’s and Coronado’s other roommate–who is not involved in animal rights–was not bugged. Whoever planted the devices had done some homework.

Who’s watching?

While he has no definitive proof, Coronado has several theories as to who was tracking the vehicles. The most obvious suspect, he says, is the FBI.

"I believe it was the federal authorities," says Coronado. "I think that the technology is beyond that of the private sector. The days of an FBI parked in a dark sedan in front of our house are over."

Coronado is no stranger to the FBI. Agents often show up at animal rights and environmental demonstrations he takes part in, says Coronado. Last year the FBI’s top domestic terrorism official told a congressional hearing that ALF was one of the most active domestic terrorist organizations, and that at least 26 FBI field offices around the country were dealing with ALF activities.

Coronado and many of his compatriots would not put it past the FBI to tamper with their belongings, even if it endangered activists in the process. In 1990, Earth First! Activist Judi Bari was nearly killed when a bomb equipped with a motion detector exploded underneath her seat. She was on her way to meet Coronado. While local FBI agents claimed that the bomb belonged to Bari, skeptics pointed out that the same FBI agents had recently used a strikingly similar bomb scenario in a "bomb schools" it had taught to area police officers. Last year a federal jury ruled that FBI agents and police officers framed Bari and a coworker for the attack that nearly killed them.

Another clue that might link the GPS systems to the FBI are three hand-written numbers discovered inside of the devices’ battery packs, a different number for each device. The numbers–141, 142 and 447–could be used for tracking purposes, says Coronado, and could suggest that the devices might be part of a much larger fleet of similar systems–a fleet that could only belong to a major organization.

FBI spokesperson Ann Atanasio could not explicitly say whether or not the FBI had a role in the matter.

"I cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation," says Atanasio, who also could not comment on FBI tracking techniques or its position on the ALF.

Coronado is not surprised that the FBI will not talk about that subject.

"That’s the FBI standard policy." he says. "They are not going to say, ‘Oh yeah, we’re the FBI. We do stuff like that.’" Coronado believes FBI’s refusal to investigate the matter only further suggests they are involved.

But Coronado is not certain the FBI was responsible, especially since the devices were far from inconspicuous.

"I kind of am surprised that the FBI would be stupid enough to think we would not find these things on our cars," he says.

Another suspect could be the Maxxam Corporation, which Coronado and his compatriots have been protesting. After all, says Coronado, since the company had enough money to recently sponsor a prominent ad campaign labeling Coronado an eco-terrorist, they should have enough money to electronically track Coronado’s whereabouts.

When contacted, Maxxam spokesperson Josh Reiss declined to respond to the allegations.

A third possibility, says Coronado, is the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition sponsored by restaurants, food companies and tobacco corporations that oppose "anti-consumer activists." The Center has been actively discouraging venues around the country from sponsoring Coronado’s seminars, calling him a domestic terrorist.

Mike Burita, communications director for Center for Consumer Freedom, says the organization does not partake in cloak and dagger techniques.

"The suggestion we put a GPS (device) on Rod Coronado’s car is ridiculous," he says. "We are not in the business of covert surveillance."

Could the activists have planted the devices themselves for media attention?

Nicosia says the idea is outrageous.

"It’s not like I–making minimum wage, struggling just to get by in Boulder–am going to throw together six or seven thousand dollars and fabricate a story," he says.

Coronado agrees.

"If I had a couple thousand bucks in my pocket, I’m going to use it to generate media attention by putting pressure on (lumber companies), not by planting something on my car," says Coronado. "Anybody who knows me knows that repression is not something I joke around about. I spent four years of my life in jail because of this ***. The last thing I am going to do is play with that with my friend’s life, the people I most love and trust."

So who is responsible for the GPS devices? In reality, it could be anybody who has several thousand dollars and knows how to use the Internet.

A quick Internet Google search using the words "GPS car tracking" produces thousands of websites selling these types of devices. A Trimble GPS magnetic-mount antenna similar to the ones found by Coronado and Nicosia was being sold this week on eBay with a starting price of $25.95.

"I could buy one of these things today," says GPS Solutions engineer Johnson about the tracking device. "In this town, probably 25 percent of people could easily do it."

A world without privacy

"GPS is used for an amazingly large number of things, much more than it was originally (designed) for," says Johnson.

GPS technology was first unveiled in 1982 as a military tool. Back then a GPS receiver cost about $200,000 and weighed 150 pounds. There were only six GPS satellites, meaning that there was only a small window of time each day that there were enough satellites in range for an accurate GPS reading.

Today GPS receivers weigh only a few ounces–small enough to be installed inside cell phones–and are surprisingly inexpensive. Johnson says one of the cheapest components in the GPS devices found in Boulder is the receiver. Now there are 24 satellites in the sky dedicated to GPS tracking. And GPS systems are popping up everywhere

"It can be used for anything you can think of to track moving objects," says Johnson. Companies and organizations like GPS Solutions use the technology to monitor the motion of the earth’s crust and atmospheric pressure and temperature, among other things. GPS systems are used to locate vehicles ranging from police cars to taxis to forklifts in factories. One Boulder-based company, Intuicom, has installed GPS devices on Boulder buses and tracks their location around the city on their website: http://www.intuicom.com/www/solutions/avl_.../demo_frame.htm. And the potential for saving human lives is endless, from locating lost hikers to predicting tsunamis.

But along with its potential benefits, the rise of GPS also means new questions about privacy and surveillance in society.

"Certainly there are ethical issues," says Johnson about GPS technology. "The downside of GPS is it is a military weapon, and there are privacy issues down the line."

For example, says Johnson, what if Nicosia had driven his car to Denver International Airport without knowing about the device behind his bumper? And what if airport security had noticed the suspicious electronics and wires?

But Johnson says the problem lies not with the technology, but with how it is used.

"This is not the only way you can be tracked," says Johnson. "The problem isn’t so much that there is GPS. The problem is that there are people that want to stretch the limits of your basic freedoms, whether they do it by staking you out and following you or do it with a piece of equipment. That issue is always there."

Betty Ball, a Boulder activist who works at the locally based Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, agrees that technologies like GPS can be beneficial. But the discovery of these devices on local residents’ cars suggest a sinister concept to Ball–that the U.S. government’s long-term policy of keeping tabs on controversial groups has reached a new technological horizon. And Ball isn’t sure anyone will be safe.

"Who knows how widespread it is," she says. "These (GPS devices) we know about were found by pretty well-known activists who have quite a history of activism and resistance. But you never really know what (the authorities) are going to go after and who they really consider a key person they need to keep track of and follow."

Ball believes this type of high-tech surveillance has become common thanks to the same national climate of fear and oppression that led to the passage of the Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 federal legislation which gave authorities sweeping new powers to combat terrorism–even at the expense of citizens’ rights, some critics say.

"My impression is that our government knows they are going too far," says Ball. "They are implementing laws and policies going against the will of the people to the degree they are going to get massive resistance, and that is why they came up with the Patriot Act, and this means of GPS surveillance, and surveillance of our computers and websites and e-mail and all that kind of stuff. It’s all part and parcel of the same thing, that the government knows they are going to encounter massive resistance, so they are taking every opportunity right now to create the controls to control us."

The only option, says Ball, is to fight tooth and nail to protect U.S. civil liberties from being eroded by new legislation and new technologies.

"(The government) is trying to scare us–they are using these intimidation tactics to scare people. And we can’t afford to let that happen," says Ball. "The more people that get involved, the more people who resist this kind of thing, the better off we are going to be."

If someone was trying to scare Nicosia into submission, they were not successful. While Nicosia is still doesn’t like the idea of some shadowy individual monitoring him, it has not caused Nicosia to curtail his involvement in the animal-rights movement.

"It’s made me more determined and vigilant," he says. "I’m going to go out there and work even harder for the animals now."

http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html#top