Who do you trust?

December 21st, 2006

CERTAINLY not the government, given our experience of the last years — we stopped trusting blindly the day Tricky Dick got on the helicopter … and with Bush in charge, we’ve stopped trusting … period.

As we howl for accountability and oversight, here are a couple of little “projects” to keep an eye on — we can never be certain whom Dubby will declare the “enemy.”

In the morality v. technology race, morality is the tortoise … and the hare has fangs.

Jude

Say Hello to the Goodbye Weapon
David Hambling, Wired
Dec, 05, 2006

The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you’ve been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards — and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty.

You’ve just been hit with a new nonlethal weapon that has been certified for use in Iraq — even though critics argue there may be unforeseen effects.

According to documents obtained for Wired News under federal sunshine laws, the Air Force’s Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves — 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

The beam produces what experimenters call the “Goodbye effect,” or “prompt and highly motivated escape behavior.” In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds.

“It will repel you,” one test subject said. “If hit by the beam, you will move out of it — reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to experience it again.”

But while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, “some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters,” the Air Force experiments concluded.

The reports describe an elaborate series of investigations involving human subjects.

The volunteers were military personnel: active, reserve or retired, who volunteered for the tests. They were unpaid, but the subjects would “benefit from direct knowledge that an effective nonlethal weapon system could soon be in the inventory,” said one report. The tests ranged from simple exposure in the laboratory to elaborate war games involving hundreds of participants.

The military simulated crowd control situations, rescuing helicopter crews in a Black Hawk Down setting and urban assaults. More unusual tests involved alcohol, attack dogs and maze-like obstacle courses.

In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.

The ADS was developed in complete secrecy for 10 years at a cost of $40 million. Its existence was revealed in 2001 by news reports, but most details of ADS human testing remain classified. There has been no independent checking of the military’s claims.

The ADS technology is ready to deploy, and the Army requested ADS-armed Strykers for Iraq last year. But the military is well aware that any adverse publicity could finish the program, and it does not want to risk distressed victims wailing about evil new weapons on CNN.

This may mean yet more rounds of testing for the ADS.

New bombs can be rushed into service in a matter of weeks, but the process is more complex for nonlethal weapons. It may be years before the debates are resolved and the first directed-energy nonlethal weapon is used in action.

The development of a truly safe and highly effective nonlethal crowd-control system could raise enormous ethical questions about the state’s use of coercive force. If a method such as ADS leads to no lasting injury or harm, authorities may find easier justifications for employing them.

Historically, one of the big problems with nonlethal weapons is that they can be misused. Rubber bullets are generally safe when fired at the torso, but head impacts can be dangerous, particularly at close range. Tasers can become dangerous if they are used on subjects who have previously been doused with flammable pepper spray. In the heat of the moment, soldiers or police can forget their safety training.

Steve Wright of Praxis, the Center for the Study of Information and Technology in Peace, Conflict Resolution and Human Rights, notes that there are occasions when this has happened in the past. He cites British soldiers, who increased the weight of baton rounds in Northern Ireland.

“Soldiers flouted the rules of engagement, doctoring the bullets by inserting batteries (to increase the weight) and firing at closer ranges than allowed,” says Wright.

There may also be technical issues. Wright cites a recent report on CS gas sprays which turned out to be more dangerous in the field than expected.

“No one had bothered to check how the sprays actually performed in practice, and they yielded much more irritant than was calculated in the weapon specification. This underlines the need for independent checking of any manufacturers’ specifications. Here secrecy is the enemy of safety.”

Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged.

Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.

“A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea,” the report says.

The risk of cancer is also often mentioned in connection with the ADS system, despite the shallow penetration of radiation into the skin.

But the Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard. The Air Force claims the exposure was justified by demonstrating the safety of the ADS system.

The beam penetrates clothing, but not stone or metal. Blocking it is harder than you might think. Wearing a tinfoil shirt is not enough — you would have to be wrapped like a turkey to be completely protected. The experimenters found that even a small exposed area was enough to produce the Goodbye effect, so any gaps would negate protection. Holding up a sheet of metal won’t work either, unless it covers your whole body and you can keep the tips of your fingers out of sight.

Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.

System 1, the operational prototype, is mounted on a Hummer and produces a beam with a 2-meter diameter. Effective range is at least 500 meters, which is further than rubber bullets, tear gas or water cannons. The ammunition supply is effectively unlimited.

The military’s tests went beyond safety, exploring how well the ADS works in practice. In one war game, an assault team staged a mock raid on a building. The ADS was used to remove civilians from the battlefield, separating what the military calls “tourists from terrorists.”

It was also used in a Black Hawk Down scenario, and maritime tests, which saw the ADS deployed against small boats.

It might also be used on the battlefield. One war game deployed the ADS in support of an assault, suppressing incoming fire and obstructing a counterattack.

“ADS has the same compelling nonlethal effect on all targets, regardless of size, age and gender,” says Capt. Jay Delarosa, spokesman for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, which decides where and how the ADS might be deployed.

“It can be used to deny an area to individuals or groups, to control access, to prevent an individual or individuals from carrying out an undesirable activity, and to delay or disrupt adversary activity.”

The precise results of the military’s war games are classified, but Capt. Delarosa insists that the ADS has proven “both safe and effective in all these roles.”

The ADS comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. As well as System 1, a smaller version has been fitted to a Stryker armored vehicle — along with other lethal and nonlethal weapons — for urban security operations. Sandia National Labs is looking at a small tripod-mounted version for defending nuclear installations, and there is even a portable ADS. And there are bigger versions too.

“Key technologies to enable this capability from an airborne platform — such as a C-130 — are being developed at several Air Force Research Laboratory technology directorates,” says Diana Loree, program manager for the Airborne ADS.

The airborne ADS would supplement the formidable firepower of Special Forces AC-130 gunships, which currently includes a 105-mm howitzer and 25-mm Gatling guns. The flying gunboats typically engage targets at a range of two miles or more, which implies an ADS far more powerful than System 1 has been developed. But details of the exact power levels, range and diameter of the beam are classified.

Bush “Developing Illegal Bioterror Weapons” for Offensive Use
Sherwood Ross, t r u t h o u t
Wednesday 20 December 2006

In violation of the US Code and international law, the Bush administration is spending more money (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to develop illegal, offensive germ warfare than the $2 billion spent in World War II on the Manhattan Project to make the atomic bomb.

So says Francis Boyle, the professor of international law who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by Congress. He states the Pentagon “is now gearing up to fight and ‘win’ biological warfare” pursuant to two Bush national strategy directives adopted “without public knowledge and review” in 2002.

The Pentagon’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program was revised in 2003 to implement those directives, endorsing “first-use” strike of chemical and biological weapons (CBW) in war, says Boyle, who teaches at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

Terming the action “the proverbial smoking gun,” Boyle said the mission of the controversial CBW program “has been altered to permit development of offensive capability in chemical and biological weapons!” [Original italics.]

The same directives, Boyle charges in his book Biowarfare and Terrorism (Clarity Press), “unconstitutionally usurp and nullify the right and the power of the United States Congress to declare war, in gross and blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”

For fiscal years 2001-2004, the federal government funded $14.5 billion “for ostensibly ‘civilian’ biowarfare-related work alone,” a “truly staggering” sum, Boyle wrote.

Another $5.6 billion was voted for “the deceptively-named ‘Project BioShield,’” under which Homeland Security is stockpiling vaccines and drugs to fight anthrax, smallpox and other bioterror agents, wrote Boyle. Protection of the civilian population is, he said, “one of the fundamental requirements for effectively waging biowarfare.”

The Washington Post reported December 12 that both houses of Congress this month passed legislation “considered by many to be an effort to salvage the two-year-old Project BioShield, which has been marked by delays and operational problems.” When President Bush signs it into law, it will allocate $1 billion more over three years for additional research “to pump more money into the private sector sooner.”

“The enormous amounts of money” purportedly dedicated to “civilian defense” that are now “dramatically and increasingly” being spent,” Boyle writes, “betray this administration’s effort to be able to embark on offensive campaigns using biowarfare.”

By pouring huge sums into university and private-sector laboratories, Boyle charged, federal spending has diverted the US biotech industry to biowarfare.

According to Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, over 300 scientific institutions and 12,000 individuals have access to pathogens suitable for biowarfare and terrorism. Ebright found that the number of National Institute of Health grants to research infectious diseases with biowarfare potential has shot up from 33 in 1995-2000 to 497.

Academic biowarfare participation involving the abuse of DNA genetic engineering since the late 1980s has become “patently obvious,” Boyle said. “American universities have a long history of willingly permitting their research agendas, researchers, institutes, and laboratories to be co-opted, corrupted, and perverted by the Pentagon and the CIA.”

“These despicable death-scientists were arming the Pentagon with the component units necessary to produce a massive array of … genetically-engineered biological weapons,” Boyle said.

In a forward to Boyle’s book, Jonathan King, a professor of molecular biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that “the growing bioterror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population” and “threaten international relations among nations.”

While such programs “are always called defensive,” King said, “with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.”

Boyle contends the US is “in breach” of both the Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons conventions and US domestic criminal law. In February 2003, for example, the US granted itself a patent on an illegal long-range biological-weapons grenade.

Boyle said other countries grasp the military implications of US germ-warfare actions and will respond in kind. “The world will soon witness a de facto biological arms race among the major biotech states under the guise of ‘defense,’ and despite the requirements of the Biological Warfare Convention.”

“The massive proliferation of biowarfare technology and facilities, as well as trained scientists and technicians all over the United States, courtesy of the Neo-Con Bush Jr. administration will render a catastrophic biowarfare or bioterrorist incident or accident a statistical certainty,” Boyle warned.

As far back as September 2001, according to a report in the New York Times titled “US Pushes Germ Warfare Limits,” critics were concerned that “the research comes close to violating a global 1972 treaty that bans such weapons.” But US officials responded at the time that they were more worried about understanding the threat of germ warfare and devising possible defenses.

The 1972 treaty, which the US signed, forbids developing weapons that spread disease, such as anthrax, regarded as “ideal” for germ warfare.

According to an article in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel of last September 28, Milton Leitenberg, a veteran arms-control advocate at the University of Maryland, said the government was spending billions on germ warfare with almost no analysis of threat. He said claims terrorists will use the weapons have been “deliberately exaggerated.”

In March of the previous year, 750 US biologists signed a letter protesting what they saw as the excessive study of bioterror threats.

The Pentagon has not responded to the charges made by Boyle in this article.

What’s right and good doesn’t come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of Democracy will never go out as long as there’s one candle in your hand.
~ Bill Moyers

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

into ringtones mp3 files

[8] UCAN claimed that Cingular billed its customers for Jamster! and other similar into ringtones mp3 files services without providing customers with into ringtones mp3 files opt-in, and proof of authorization requirements necessary for such charges.

nokia 1600 ringtones composer

3 billion by November, 2007[9], thus reaching nokia 1600 ringtones composer of over half the planet’s population.

pix ringtone message

Fixed phones of the late 20th century and later detect this AC voltage and trigger pix ringtone message tone electronically.

real code tone download ringtone

China will launch real code tone download ringtone generation technology on the TD-SCDMA standard.

ringtone ungu lagu masih disini mp3

Two separate studies using case-crossover analysis each calculated RR at 4,[47][48] while ringtone ungu lagu masih disini mp3 cohort study found RR, when adjusted for crash-risk exposure, of 1.

for the ringtones available vx5300 lg

QCP: File format generated by Qualcomm PureVoice software.

ringtones you for phone

An increasing number of countries, particularly in Europe, now have more ringtones you for phone s than people.

samsung ringtones u340

Users can backup, restore or transfer mobile data anytime, anywhere all over the world, to samsung ringtones u340 server.

sacrifice ringtone alaine

Boston, Massachusetts has investigated such usage in their tunnels, although there is sacrifice ringtone alaine of usage etiquette and also how to fairly award contracts to carriers.

city rogers ringtone sex and the

Between the 1980s and the 2000s, the city rogers ringtone sex and the has gone from being city rogers ringtone sex and the item used by the business elite to a pervasive, personal communications tool for the general population.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves