2007 November 01

Governor Schwarzenegger Backs Aerial Biochemical Spraying That Harms Children

On September 9^th, 2007 several planes hired by the State of California Food and Agricultural Department (CDFA) flying at an altitude of approximately 500ft sprayed the untested biochemical, CheckMate®OLR-F, on over 30,000 citizens in Monterey and other surrounding cities in California. This occurred without the permission of the citizens. The spraying continued for three nights from approximately 8pm to 5am. About 1,500 pounds of biochemical were dumped on the cities. Many citizens did not even know what was happening when the planes were buzzing overhead.

An 11 month old child nearly died from breathing difficulties. A six year old child developed asthma as a result of the aerial spraying. Over one hundred people signed affidavits stating that they got sick from the spraying. Hundreds of people had symptoms like; shortness of breath, headaches, dizziness, burning lungs, nausea, and muscle aches.

The excuse for aerial spraying is not a deadly disease carrying mosquito, but a moth whose larva may eat some leaves of some plants; called the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). The CDFA considers the moth an invasive species since it is from Australia. Yet, evidence suggests that the moth has been in California for many years, living peacefully. In response to the moth, the CDFA set up relatively harmless sticky traps, which have captured nearly every Light Brown Apple Moth in the Northern California region.

Governor Schwarzenegger is a strong supporter of the declared emergency; the need to spray untested biochemicals on humans to stop the LBAM from destroying crops.

This aerial spraying violates several state, federal and international laws. It violates the right to personal safety given by the California State Constitution, the very document that creates the California government. It violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects people with chemical sensitivities and other disabilities from discrimination. It violates the Federal constitutional right to personal liberty. It violates the EPA’s laws against spraying pesticides on people. It violates human rights laws that say that human experimentation without consent is unethical and immoral. It violates criminal laws that claim it is a crime to poison children, or anyone else. It violates pollution laws to spray a toxic substance over plants, animals, and waterways. It violates laws against organized crime and it violates the very tenants of our democracy; a system of government designed to represent the people, not to poison the people to represent private agri-business interests.

Recently, in a series of rapid fire events, the CDFA declared a state of emergency relating to the LBAM claiming that the moths are about to destroy a huge portion of the state’s agricultural crops. The claim is that the LBAM will cause hundreds of millions of dollars of crop damage. Due to this supposed “emergency,” the CDFA claims it must immediately spray an untested biochemical to eliminate this threat as soon as possible despite the reported harms. Mind you, these moth’s only travel within a 20-30 yard diameter of their birth place during their entire life.

The state of emergency is a false declaration because the CDFA cannot produce any meaningful evidence that the LBAM can or would destroy crops and the sticky traps are effective at containing the moths. In Hawaii, the LBAM has been a help to the ecosystem by destroying invasive species and there’s no evidence of crop harm for the last 100 years.

The only emergency seems to be that the State of California, under Governor Schwarzenegger’s helm, has an urgent need to spray as many humans; men, women, children, pregnant women, people with allergies, the elderly, and the sick, with chemicals. There is no sensible explanation as to why they want to do this, nor is there any explanation as to why they think that spraying pesticides on people is a good thing to do.

Spraying chemicals, safe or not safe, on humans against their will is illegal. It is a crime! The Nuremberg Code, established after the horrors of World War II, prohibits human experimentation without the consent of the person who is being experimented upon.

The state does not care about the over 200 health complaints, nor the laws they are violating, but rather cares about the commercial agricultural business. Trade partners with the US may not accept shipments of plants or produce that may have the LBAM. The CDFA has given various figures of the estimated crop damage that the LBAM will cause. Their estimates range from 100 million to 2.7 billion dollars. Now, these estimates are not based on any scientific survey but rather on their opinion and fears.

Even if the harmless moth could cause such damage, it is a dangerous precedent to place the health and safety of United States citizens, especially infants and children, secondary to money. So the CDFA and Governor Schwarzenegger has determined that 100 million dollars of possible damage gives them justification to poison children with chemicals. In this case, economic factors have been given priority over liberty and human value.

And the question I have been asking myself is - who is going to protect the children who will be sprayed?

This has been the technical question many people have been asking. The specific details of the chemicals seem to be of less importance than the simple fact that these are chemicals. Synthetic chemicals do not have a place on our bodies without our permission. And they do not have a place in our children’s bodies who have a much lower tolerance to environmental toxins!

My understanding is that approximately 15-20% of the main biochemical is made up of a synthetically derived moth pheromone. This pheromone supposedly confuses the moths and disrupts their mating cycles. I am unaware of any scientific evidence to prove that the pheromone is effective at controlling the LBAM population. I supposed the CDFA’s plan is to see how it works after a year or more of spraying. This is essentially biochemical testing. And the problem is that they are doing it on the public on a large scale, against the people’s will. Due to the declaration of an emergency, the CDFA allow themselves to bypass the normal environmental review process meant to examine such questions.

The concern with the Checkmate chemicals is not so much about the pheromone, but rather the pheromone distribution system. The pheromone is encapsulated in a micro-capsule (like a miniature pill) which the CDFA brags is biodegradable. What they do not tell you is that the capsule needs to dry out to biodegrade. In water environments (like your body), the pheromone stays encapsulated. The micro-capsule takes approximately 30 days to degrade. The full degradation occurring within 30 days is unlikely because Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties experience frequent rain and dampness from the Pacific Ocean. Thus, the people in the areas that are sprayed will be inhaling and touching miniature pills. Once in their bodies, the capsule will likely slowly degrade causing moth pheromone to be released directly into people’s bloodstream.

The micro-capsule is made out of what are falsely called “inert” ingredients. Again, the EPA brags that these “inert” ingredients are mostly ionized water. However, they forget to tell you that there are also two known dangerous toxic substances in the inerts - tricaprylyl methyl ammonium chloride (TMAC) and polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate (PPI).

The breathing problems and asthma-like conditions are known side effects of PPI. So how is the state legally able to spray it on people?

The way they illegally avoid the law and lie to people, so that people will be lulled into a stupor, is by saying that PPI, along with other ingredients, are actually not in the pesticide. Well, this is about 5% true and 95% a lie. Say you are baking a cake; you use flour, sugar, some eggs and other ingredients, and you bake it. One could argue that, in the final cake product, there is no flour but rather a new chemical compound called cake. In the same way, when PPI and other ingredients are processed, they meld and bind together and change their chemical form. They no longer resemble exactly their original substances, just like cake does not look much like the flour it was made of. When you examine the final biochemical, you will see no PPI but rather some new toxic substance.

Since there is no independently verifiable evidence that these new chemical compounds are toxic or not, other than 117 signed affidavits of people who got sick, and since there is a so-called “emergency”, no thorough testing needs to be done. It is a devious way to avoid the law. The end result is that we must “trust” the EPA to say the chemicals are safe. It’s hard to trust the EPA because, for example, with water fluoridation the entire employee’s union at the EPA came out to say that water fluoridation is dangerous and harmful while the official position of the EPA is that water fluoridation is a good thing. It also becomes more difficult to win a court case against the aerial spraying when you cannot get any evidence that the chemicals are dangerous because you are not allowed to independently verify anything that the EPA alleges.

Strangely, the CDFA came out with precautions for this “non-toxic” chemical. Recommendations such as; to close all your windows during the spray, to stay inside, to hose everything off in the morning before you touch it, and to not touch anything that is covered with the chemical residue (anything outside) were encouraged. These warnings are good ideas since the micro-capsule can easily be inhaled, stays stuck on things, or remains in the air. I recently checked the CDFA website looking to quote this document and they had removed all warnings about the chemical, claiming now that it is totally safe. Perhaps this was spurred by the CDFA Secretary of Agriculture A.G. Kawamura’s concern that citizens would waste too much water following the CDFA’s instructions to wash the chemical off of things before touching them. It is eerie how A.G. Kawamura is concerned about saving water and our environment, but is totally oblivious to the fact that hundreds of people have been poisoned due to his aerial spraying efforts.

Another concern is the Checkmate OLR-F and LBAM-F warning label from the manufacturer:

“Caution: Harmful if absorbed through the skin. Causes moderate eye irritation. Avoid contact with skin, eyes, or clothing. Harmful if inhaled. Avoid breathing vapor or spray mist.” The criminals at the CDFA claim we should not worry about this warning label. According to the CDFA’s toxicity theory, since the biochemical is going to be inhaled and touched in smaller doses, this warning is no longer necessary as it refers only to those who handle the chemicals.”

Due to this premise, the CDFA insists that the 117 documented complaints of illnesses are psychosomatic and are not caused by the Checkmate. They continue to spray without thoroughly investigating these health claims. Infants cannot get psychosomatic illnesses because they are too young to make things up like that. The CDFA are hypocrites because when a doctor reports that someone is sick to the CDFA, and if that person had recently ingested certified raw milk, they automatically shut down the milk business even without evidence that the milk caused the illness. (The milk, in this case, is never the source of illness because the cows are healthy.) On one hand, they overly penalize raw milk producers for things that might cause illness and on the other hand they ignore cases which definitely cause illness by their own hands.

It used to be easy to turn a blind eye to government corruption because we could avoid it. You can avoid vaccinations by claiming an exemption. You can avoid polluted soaps and shampoos by buying natural ones, and you can avoid pesticide ridden foods by choosing organic. (In case you are wondering, strawberries and other produce sprayed with Checkmate will still be certified organic by the State, so you won’t know you are eating pesticide ridden produce.) But the citizens of Monterey, Santa Cruz, Seaside, Los Lomas and other communities consisting of over 100,000 people who are scheduled to be spray bombed, some beginning today for up to six nights in a row, do not have the choice. Their personal boundaries have been violently violated by the CDFA.

Now, you cannot turn a blind eye anymore to what the government does. We need to acknowledge that these things are wrong, whether we can avoid them or not. When we do not stand up against evil, we affirm it. When we say what is happening is smart, we affirm that the evil doer is good because we do nothing to stop them.

I encourage you, in every way possible, to not sit back here. When you see someone doing wrong, whether it is a relative, a neighbor, or the local government, speak up. We need to stop this juggernaut. It is truly a terrifying experience because I have a pregnant partner and a young child and I have to move away from here to avoid being sprayed, to avoid being force vaccinated with synthetic moth hormone. The last bastion of hope is that the Santa Cruz City Council narrowly voted to sue the criminals doing this. It is unclear whether their lawsuit will be effective.

The name for the biochemical Checkmate has two meanings. First, to check (stop) mating. Although there is no reliable evidence that it will check mating, for all we know, it could cause the moths to mutate and mate more. The second meaning of checkmate is a position in the game of Chess. This is a position when you have your opponent trapped no matter what move they do. They cannot win so they must resign and lose the game. Ironically, it is not the moths who are in the position of checkmate, but rather the citizens of Monterey, Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside (cities near Carmel and the famous Pebble Beach Golf course). These citizens must literally run, and escape, for the sake of their children from their own homes because a toxic cloud of government corruption is about to rain down upon them. It is these citizens who are in the position of checkmate. The difference here is that losing can mean a chronic disease, illness, and perhaps worse.

What you can do is call your state and federal representatives and encourage them to push through laws that prohibit aerial spraying. Encourage California State Senators and Federal Representatives to engage in a criminal investigation because poisoning people, children, and the elderly is a crime. Just because the people engaged in this work for the government, it doesn’t make them immune to our laws. Support 1hope.org, and the City of Santa Cruz, to fight back.

Spread this news. Let’s tell the whole world the truth about civil rights in the good ole’ US of A.

If enough people know, this cause will be greatly advanced. Also, process your feelings about this, the anger, the rage, the terror, and the hatred it brings up. Feel how you want to protect those in the aerial spray path, that inner voice speaking within you saying, “NO! this is wrong, it must stop”.

May the criminals face the real consequences of their crimes and be brought to justice. And may the people of Northern California be protected from untested synthetic chemicals forced upon them.

Also California State Senator Laird has written an excellent letter, opposing the spraying, citing dozens of unawsererd questions about the CDFA’s shameful behavior. This can help you understand the issue better. (democrats.assembly.ca.gov/MEMBERS/A27/moth.htm)

Published Pesticide Ingredients Scheduled For Human Experimentation beginning Wednesday 10/24/07 (There may be other unpublished ones)

polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate (Pesticide manufacturer Suterra acknowledges this ingredient is used to make Checkmate, but EPA claims ingredient is not in final product)

(E)-11-Tetradecen-1-yl Acetate
(E,E) -9,11 Tetradecadien-1-yl Acetate
Crosslinked polyurea polymer
Butylated Hydroxytoluene
Polyvinyl Alcohol
Tricaprylyl Methyl Ammonium Chloride
Sodium Phosphate
Ammonium Phosphate
1,2-benzisothiozoli-3-one
2-hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone

The best thing you can do is contact Governor Schwarzenegger, even if you are not a California citizen. Governor Schwarzenegger has the power to stop this. Right now, he clearly supports the program claiming such aerial spraying is necessary. Tell him you are opposed to his need to spray toxic chemicals on children to stop a harmless moth.

GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
General information: (916) 445-2841 2841 (press #1, #5, #0)
Fax: (916) 445-4633
Email governor@govmail.ca.gov
Chief of Staff is Susan Kennedy

CA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Public Affairs Officer: (916) 654-0462 or
(800) 491-1899 (press #1, #6)
cdfapublicaffairs@cdfa.ca.gov
Secretary A.G. Kawamura (he makes the final decision on spraying):
akawamura@cdfa.ca.gov
John Connell, the state’s expert in insect eradication: jconnell@cdfa.ca.gov
Steve Lyle (public affairs) in charge of public communication: slyle@cdfa.ca.gov
Nancy Lungren (spokesperson for Kawamura): nlungren@cdfa.ca.gov

CA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
General Information: (916) 558-1784
Director, Mark B. Horton, MD, MSPH: (916) 558-1700, mark.horton@cdph.ca.gov
Kevin Reilly, Deputy Director: Kevin.Reilly@cdph.ca.gov
Online feedback/email:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programservices/contact/Pages/default.aspx

ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN LAIRD (strongly opposes current spray plans)
(831) 649-2832 or (916) 319-2127
Assemblymember.Laird@assembly.ca.gov

SENATOR ABEL MALDONADO
(831) 657-6315 or (916) 651-4015 or go to his web page to send him an email

About the author

Japan pulls out of Afghanistan coalition

A Pakistani destroyer (l) is refuelled by the Japanese vessel Tokiwa in the Arabian Sea. Photograph: Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force/AP

Japan’s government has ordered its navy to end its mission in support of coalition forces in Afghanistan after failing to win opposition backing to renew the deployment before today’s midnight deadline.

Since 2001, Japan has provided about 126m gallons of fuel to US, British and other vessels operating in the Indian Ocean. The two Japanese ships on duty - the supply ship Tokiwa and the destroyer Kirisame - are expected back home in about three weeks.

Opposition parties, which gained control of the upper house of Japan’s parliament in July, said the mission did not have a UN mandate and possibly violated the country’s pacifist constitution, which severely limits the military’s overseas role.

The prime minister, Yasuko Fukuda, today vowed to pass new legislation that would enable Japan to play a smaller, but symbolically important part in the US-led war on terror.

“To fulfill our responsibility as part of international efforts towards eradicating terrorism, we need to continue our refueling mission,” he said in a statement. “The government will do all it can to pass the special bill for the refueling mission so we can restart our mission as soon as possible.”

Earlier this week, Mr Fukuda failed in a last-ditch attempt to persuade Ichiro Ozawa, who leads the biggest opposition party, to support the mission.

The withdrawal was a blow to US efforts to keep the coalition together. Several senior US officials have publicly urged Mr Ozawa to think again and yesterday the ambassadors of the US, Britain and nine other countries met dozens of Japanese MPs to stress the value of the country’s contribution.

The Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer, said he was concerned by the withdrawal. “Defeating terrorists is one of the highest security challenges the world faces,” he said. “It is a global challenge and combating terrorism is a collective responsibility.”

But US defence department spokesman Geoff Morrell said the decision would not have “any operational impact whatsoever”. Japan provided about one-fifth of all fuel consumed by coalition ships between December 2001 and February 2003, according to Pentagon data, but only about 7% since then.

Officials in Washington denied that the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, would apply more pressure on Japan when he visits Tokyo next week.

The timing of the visit was “purely coincidental”, a Pentagon official was quoted as telling Japanese reporters in Washington. “I assure you the United States has no intention of injecting itself into that legislative process.”

The issue is expected to be on the agenda, however, when Mr Fukuda meets the US president, George Bush, later this month.

VIDEO: Bye Bye USA - Welcome Slave State

Not only is Bush rewriting the Constitution as he plans to invade yet another country…

Apparently been busy signing away US sovereignty to a scheme cooked up by David
Rockefeller.

New currency, borderless borders, and a mega-highway carved right into the middle of the US to make it easier for Big Business to take the Wal-Martization of the US to a whole ‘nother level.

George Bush’s Personal Spy Drone

DARPA, the Pentagon’s far-side research agency, has a plan to send a robotic surveillance drone anywhere in the world within an hour. And it is apparently intended for one particular user: The President of the United States. Space News reports on this “Rapid Eye” unmanned aerial vehicle project:

Sounds interesting. Now, I’m hoping there’s an obvious answer to this question: How will Russia’s early warning system know — prior to reentry — that the zillion-mile-per-hour projectile is carrying a drone, and not, say, a nuclear warhead?

This is the debate that’s tangled up in any number of the Pentagon’s so-called “Global Strike” projects. There have been various schemes for a conventional version of either a land- or submarine-launched ballistic missile — both ideas that Congress has been reluctant to fund. The benefit is clear: The Pentagon would like to be anywhere in the world within an hour, and it seems the only way to do this is with something that looks like a ballistic missile. Rapid Eye is somewhat different, of course, because it’s supposed to drop a surveillance platform somewhere, and not a weapon. In any case, putting things on ICBMs is an idea that just doesn’t seem to go away.

The essential problem is that you have to convince Russia that the thing on the missile is not a nuke, and calling it “Drone One” might not be enough.

United Nations To Vastly Expand Global Police Force

With the world facing new security threats, the U.N. is planning for an unprecedented expansion of its police missions. U.N. officials say a shift in the nature of conflicts requires revamped peacekeeping operations.

Traditionally, the U.N. has facilitated peace between warring states by sending its blue-helmeted soldiers to man buffer zones between their armies. But today, interventions are increasingly focused on settling civil wars.

“In recent years the character of conflicts has changed dramatically from mainly state-to-state wars (to) intrastate conflicts which pit various factions within the boundaries of a single state,” U.N. Police Chief Andrew Hughes said.

As a result, there is a greater need than ever for conventional police duties in post-conflict situations.

The U.N. is recruiting nearly 7,000 police officers to assist some 20,000 U.N. peacekeeper-soldiers in trying to end the four-year conflict in western Sudan.

Police involvement in peacekeeping dates from the inaugural 1948 mission, when first Secretary-General Trygve Lie urgently dispatched several dozen U.N. security guards from New York to Jerusalem when Jewish extremists assassinated the U.N. peace envoy Folke Bernadotte.

In later interventions, however, the U.N. has come to rely mostly on soldiers to monitor cease-fires or interpose themselves between warring sides, as happened in the Sinai after the 1956 Egypt-Israel war, or later in disputed Kashmir, Cyprus and Lebanon.

“In such conflicts, once peace is restored the U.N. then has a key role in re-establishing rule of law, which includes police, courts, prisons and the whole justice sector, and to ensure that they rebuild or build up from scratch their police services,” Hughes said.

But Hughes emphasized that police and military missions have critical differences.

Soldiers have different rules of engagement that provide for the use of lethal force and are therefore not suited for such duties such as apprehending criminals, escorting children to schools or calming rioting mobs.

“For us the use of force is absolutely the last option,” Hughes said. “Our police are trained much more extensively to defuse the situation, and negotiations are by far and away the biggest tool we have.”

A new Police Division was set up in October 2000 as part of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations with a staff of several dozen experienced police officers from contributing countries.

Currently, there are about 70,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops deployed worldwide, with an additional 9,500 police officers, mostly in Africa — such as Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Burundi and Western Sahara — as well as in Haiti, Kosovo and East Timor.

With U.N. missions in Chad and Darfur coming on line in 2008, the ranks of U.N. police are to swell to nearly 17,000 officers from more than 100 countries.

“Our duties included everything a policeman can possibly do, from breaking up domestic disturbances to chasing and arresting armed criminals,” said Irhad Campara, a Bosnian policeman who served in the U.N. mission in East Timor.

“In addition, we recruited, vetted and trained from scratch East Timor’s new national police force.”

Whereas military units are dispatched by governments, police officers are recruited on individual contracts from contributing nations. They continue to collect their home pay but receive an extra daily allowance of $150 and accommodation from the U.N.

Not all operations have gone smoothly, however, and the U.N. police force has suffered several high-profile reverses over the past several years.

In 2004, U.N. police officers failed to stem the violence in Kosovo when thousands of ethnic Albanians rioted in a backlash against the Serb minority, killing 19 people, displacing thousands, and destroying hundreds of Serb homes, churches and monasteries.

And in East Timor, the U.N.-trained police force collapsed last year following an army mutiny, necessitating another mission to rebuild it anew.

To hopefully prevent such calamities, the U.N. is preparing two initiatives to facilitate rapid police deployment to crisis areas and to enable them to function more effectively from the outset.

The first is the introduction of Formed Police Units — 160-strong contingents of officers from a single country — skilled in dealing with a wide spectrum of problems, from riot control to arresting armed criminals.

The initial unit, an all-female company of Indian officers, has recently arrived in Liberia to join the U.N. force there.

The second initiative is to create a standing police detachment of about two dozen officers who can be deployed together with U.N. military units to a trouble spot, thus allowing the police to be present from the start of a U.N. mission.

Previously, the slow and complicated process of recruiting volunteers from participating countries meant police recruits lagged an average of nine months behind the soldiers.

William Durch from the Henry L. Stimson Center, a think tank in Washington, proposed creating a ready reserve of about 11,000 police volunteers worldwide who would be paid retainer fees while on standby and who could be quickly mobilized for future U.N. missions.

“The system by which the U.N. recruits its people must be completely revamped to be able to provide security personnel in the critical initial phases of a mission,” said Durch, an expert on peacekeeping operations.

Congressional Shame and Duplicity

The latest October Reuters/Zogby Index shows record low approval ratings for George Bush and Congress - 24% for the president that looks almost giddy compared to the bottom-scraping 11% level for the nation’s lawmakers. It’s more evidence that the criminal class in Washington is bipartisan and hoping November, 2008 will change things is pure fantasy.

A voter groundswell sent a message last November to end the Iraq war and occupation. Instead, the Democrat-led 110th Congress continues to fund it generously. In May, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1585, the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. It calls for $506.8 billion for DOD plus $141.8 billion (of the $150.5 billion White House request) for ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan operations. The Senate followed with a similar bill on October 1 with only three opposing votes against it. Neither bill proposed an Iraq withdrawal timeline, and final legislation has yet to be sent to the president.

Add on further amounts like George Bush’s latest $46 billion request putting FY 2008 supplemental war-funding above $196 billion and rising. Congress will approve it and more in spite of Democrats signaling a protracted budget showdown ahead. The only showdown will be over how much pork will be added to the final appropriation and for what purpose.

Democrats also back the administration’s push to attack Iran by echoing what the Israeli Lobby calls “The Iranian Threat.” War with Iran is AIPAC’s top priority, and key Democrats in Congress are on board hyping a non-existent threat to prepare the public for what may be coming. Earlier in March, Speaker Pelosi removed a provision from an appropriations bill that would have required George Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. Then in July, the Senate unanimously (97 - 0) passed the Lieberman amendment that practically endorses war if it’s declared. It affirmed George Bush’s baseless charges that Tehran funds, trains and arms Iraqi resistance fighters “who are contributing to the destabilization of Iraq and are responsible for the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces.”

The House added its voice on September 25 by voting 397 - 16 for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that imposes sanctions on non-US companies investing in Iran’s oil sector. The next day the Senate acted again by overwhelmingly (79 - 22) passing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that calls for US policy to “combat, contain and (stop Iran by use of) diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments.” Other bellicose language in the resolution stated:

– “the United States should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp as a foreign terrorist organization….and place (it) on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists….it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.”

This measure helped smooth the way for George Bush’s October 25 unilateral imposition of sanctions discussed below. It was an unprecendented move against another nation’s military Senator Jim Webb (voting no) said provides “a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing (or) serious debate (and that the action) is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.”

George Bush acted provocatively twice. At his October 17 news conference, he menacingly said he believes Iran “want(s) to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon….it’s in the world’s interests to prevent them from doing so….If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace….So….if you’re interested in avoiding World War III” this possibility must be prevented implying war (potentially using first-strike nuclear weapons) is the way to do it.

On October 25 Bush acted again to counter China and Russia’s opposition to sweeping UN Security Council measures. He unilaterally imposed harsh new sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), its Quds Force, three state-owned banks and over 20 Iranian companies. The IRGC was named as “proliferators of weapons of mass destruction,” and the Quds Force was called a “supporter of terrorism.”

Democrats buy this stuff and ignore IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s latest October 28 statement that repeated his earlier ones. He said he had no evidence Iran is building or seeks to build nuclear weapons and accused the Bush administration of adding “fuel to the fire” with its bellicose rhetoric. The “loyal opposition” prefers instead to accept White House press secretary Dana Perino’s October 29 charge that Iran “is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon.”

This accusation and new administration sanctions ratchet up tension further and amount to what one analyst called “a warning shot across the bow (that stops short of) a signal we’re going to war,” but it’s got other observers thinking the likelihood is greater than ever with Congress on board. The move also caught Vladimir Putin’s attention in Lisbon where he was attending an EU leader summit. “Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end” with sanctions or military action,” he said. He then added a pointed reference to George Bush stating: “Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation.”

Newly imposed sanctions won’t affect US companies. They’re already barred from doing business directly in Iran, but they do target their foreign subsidiaries and other foreign-based ones with threats of penalties and exclusion from the US market. It remains to be seen how effective they’ll be as key EU countries as well as China, Russia, India and others have growing economic ties to Iran. They won’t be eager to sever them or join the US campaign for a wider Middle East war. In addition, Iran is a major oil supplier. With the price of crude touching $96 a barrel on November 1 (and December futures up to $125), any cutoff or severe reduction of supply guarantees it’ll top $100 and make a global economic slowdown or recession much more likely.

Nonetheless, the Bush war machine presses on with congressional Democrats aboard. Presidential candidates from both parties support Bush’s move, and Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton is as hawkish as Joe Lieberman and John McCain. They both endorse attacking Iran, and McCain believes striking Iran’s nuclear sites “is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.”

Clinton is just as bellicose, is close to AIPAC, and in an earlier speech said: “The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. (We dare not) waver from this (firm) commitment.” She was also quoted in the current issue of Foreign Affairs saying: “Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill US troops in Iraq….(Iran) must not not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran (won’t comply with) the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”

The only give in her position (that’s hardly any at all) is wanting congressional approval for any future military action. Up to now, that’s been pro forma rubber stamp. It’ll be no different if George Bush orders an attack as congressional Democrat leaders, including Hillary Clinton, have already signaled their approval.

John Richardson wrote on October 18 in Esquire.com that two former high-ranking Bush administration National Security Council officials fear the worst. They’re Middle East experts Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, and they’re reacting publicly. They believe war with Iran has been in the cards for years, and we’re “getting closer and closer to the tripline.” Key for them was the unprecedented move to name Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Quds Force a terrorist organization.

Richardson lays out what they think will happen: UN diplomacy will fail because Russia and China won’t agree to harsh sanctions. Iran’s policies won’t change without “any meaningful incentive from the US. That will trigger a….White House (response with) a serious risk (George Bush) would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone.” This, in turn, “would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on US (Iraq) forces, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from….Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran’s resistance.” Attacking Iran “could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world.” The article also quotes former CIA officer and author Robert Baer (from Time magazine) saying an unnamed highly placed White House official believes “IEDs are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran.”

The London Times raised the betting odds further for one in its October 21 report. Columnist Michael Smith wrote: UK defense sources disclosed that “British (Special Air Service - SAS) forces have crossed into Iran several times (along with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operation troops) as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces.” They engaged in “at least half a dozen intense firefights” along the Iran-Iraq border in what looks like deliberate US-UK efforts to provoke Iran into providing justification for a major American attack.

Speculation one looms has been around for some time, and if it comes, it won’t surprise observers like Iran expert Gary Sick. He was a military advisor to three US presidents and was recently quoted in Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine saying: The recent shift in US emphasis to “Iran’s support for terrorism in Iraq….is a complete change and is potentially dangerous.” That’s because it’s much easier proving (true or not) Iran supports Iraqi resistance fighters than it poses an imminent nuclear threat to the world.

Der Spiegel also reports on a leak “by an official close to” Dick Cheney that he’s “already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin (and in) the scenario concocted by (his) strategists, Washington’s first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran’s (Natanz) uranium enrichment plant.” That would provoke Iran to retaliate and give the Bush administration the excuse it needs “to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.” That’s OK with Democrats if it comes including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Black Agenda Report writer Margaret Kimberly calls a “Quisling” and an “absolute disaster for the Democrat Party and….the entire nation (because of her) eagerness to cooperate with the Bush regime (and) her incompetence in leading Congress.”

Other key Democrats share those qualities and that assures extremist Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey’s confirmation won’t be challenged. That’s in spite of reports top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Chairman Leahy and Majority Whip Durbin say their votes depend on his admitting waterboarding is torture. During his confirmation hearing, Mukasey was evasive and noncommittal.

When asked during questioning, he incredulously claimed not to know what waterboarding is even though it’s been around for centuries and what it entails is common knowledge. Mukasey would only say “IF (waterboarding) is torture, it is unconstitutional.” He then repeated the White House line “We don’t torture” even though he knows DOJ legal opinions confirm the Bush administration condones the practice by endorsing “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

He should also know about the ACLU’s new “Administration of Torture” book based on FOIA requested evidence. It documents that “marching orders” for torture came from Donald Rumsfeld so the White House had to be involved as well. That includes George Bush and Alberto Gonzales, who in 2002 as White House Counsel, called the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete” and as Attorney General authorized physical and psychological brutality as official administration policy.

Mukasey promises business as usual as AG and confirmed it by claiming “I don’t think (Guantanamo prisoners) are mistreated.” He also supports the president’s right to imprison US citizens without charge and deny “unlawful enemy combatants” their habeas rights, but that’s OK with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee with a large party majority sure to agree.

In a follow-up letter Senator Leahy requested, Mukasey was just as evasive and noncommittal as during his confirmation hearing. He sidestepped commenting on presidential surveillance powers limits beyond what FISA allows and continued to avoid admitting waterboarding is torture. Instead he said: ….”there is a real issue (whether) the techniques presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning detainees.”

He then added if confirmed he’ll concentrate on “solving problems cooperatively with Congress,” advise George Bush appropriately on any “technique” he determines to be unlawful, and the president is bound by constitutional and treaty obligations that prohibit torture. This man and the president defile the law and practically boast about it, but Democrats will confirm him anyway as the next Attorney General.

Almost without notice, the House overwhelmingly (404 - 6) passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955) on October 23 some are calling “the thought crime prevention bill.” It now moves to the Senate where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center of Excellence to study and act against thought criminals.

The bill’s language hides its true intent as “violent radicalization” and “homegrown terrorism” are whatever the administration says they are. Violent radicalization is defined as “adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change.” Homegrown terrorism is used to mean “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population….or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives.”

Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policies even when they’re illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls “terrorist-related propaganda.”

If this legislation becomes law, which is virtually certain, any dissenting anti-government action or opinion may henceforth be called “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” with stiff penalties for anyone convicted. This bill now joins the ranks of other repressive post-9/11 laws like Patriot I and II, Military Commissions and Protect America Acts that combined with this one are grievous steps toward a full-blown national security police state everyone should fear and denounce.

Blame it on Congress and the 110th Democrat-led one that was elected to end these practices but just made them worse….and there’s still 14 months to go to the term’s end with plenty of time left to vaporize Iran and end the republic if that’s the plan.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.

The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’

Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.

Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.

Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.

The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology, Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s “status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat manifests itself.

On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.

The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.

Iran as a nation represents absolutely no threat to the national security of the United States, or of its major allies in the region, including Israel. The media hype concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-à-vis Israel.

The fact of the matter is that the “Iranian Threat” is derived solely from the rhetoric of those who appear to seek confrontation between the United States and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based reality. A recent request on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at “ground zero” in Manhattan was rejected by New York City officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian initiative as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran’s alleged policies of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality that Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan throughout the 1990’s leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one of the first Muslim nations to condemn the terror attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the United States, including military, political and economic. But the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd. In the end, however, such absurdity is trumping fact-based reality when it comes to shaping the opinion of the American public on the issue of the Iranian “threat.”

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).

Ex-MI6 chief: Too much weight on Iraq intelligence

· Government ‘used details to gain support for attack’
· Links between al-Qaida and Saddam ‘not true’

The head of MI6 at the time of the invasion of Iraq said last night that the government placed too much weight on intelligence claims to help persuade opponents in parliament to support the war. Sir Richard Dearlove said Iraq demonstrated the dangers when “policy was built round intelligence and little else or when it was used for the primary justification for government action”.Policy was “over-dependent on intelligence particularly when it was presented to parliament”, he said. There was a fear that what he called “other factors” might otherwise “carry the day with political opponents of the war”. The episode had “highly undesirable consequences for the intelligence community”.

Sir Richard also admitted that claims by neo-con elements in the Bush administration that there were links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were not true. “You know as well as I know there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq,” he said.

Though Sir Richard’s admissions reflect those made by others since the invasion of Iraq, and notably in Lord Butler’s report on the use of intelligence, it is the first time he has commented publicly on the affair. He was speaking at the London School of Economics on the subject of Intelligence and the Media at a meeting sponsored by the Polis thinktank.

Sir Richard, who retired in 2004 and rarely speaks in public, said “intelligence was expected to carry too much weight” in the formulation of policy. He described the way intelligence was used in the build-up to the war, particularly in the use the government made of its discredited Iraqi weapons dossier, as “sui generis” and “most unlikely to happen again”.

However, he warned that governments might feel the need to publish intelligence to buttress support for any action against Iran. In the hypothesis of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, he suggested, there would have to be “proof positive” that “the right targets” were hit.

Sir Richard insisted that MI6 did not “set out to misinform” the government or the public over Iraq. He said: “The intelligence that was released was believed to be correct at the time it was released”.

He acknowledged that over Iraq the relationship between the intelligence agencies and the media “suffered greatly” because trust was compromised. The fundamental causes of this was “not under the control of either party”, he said.

Leaked minutes of a meeting on Iraq chaired by Tony Blair in Downing Street on July 23 2002 reveal that Sir Richard , reporting on his talks in Washington, warned that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. Sir Richard is reported to have since downplayed the significance of the comment.

DVDs are a baby brain-drain

DVDs that claim to make babies brighter are not only ineffectual, they take away vital development time with loving care-givers

A few years ago I was asked to help to launch Baby Einstein in this country. I was put off by the name – images of overzealous parents hot-housing their small children in the vain hope of growing their IQs – and became more dubious when I looked at the content, which was mainly coloured patterns and music reminiscent of Fantasia, but nowhere near as attractive. I couldn’t see what this was doing for babies, so I declined.

There are now a number of similar ranges, many having names that contain the same questionable promise – Brainy Baby, Baby Bright, which claims a scientific approach, and Baby IQ which has harnessed no less a mentor than the London Symphony Orchestra. Most of these titles consist of live action or simple animation and show bright patterns, other babies and basic scenes involving animals, nature, abstracts etc.

Overall, the content of these DVDs promotes passive viewing by a baby rather than using the DVD platform as an opportunity for interactive play with a parent or carer. The majority suggest that the baby will benefit intellectually from absorbing the visual and aural content. I’m aware of no credible scientific data to back up these claims and there’s no supporting material to help to guide or reassure parents. In short, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these are products with no real benefit to babies and give parents a false notion that watching television can improve a child’s intelligence.

All parents have a fervent desire to ensure that their children are given thebest possible chance to realise their full potential. Most parents, however, are unaware that babies start to develop their brain-power from the moment that they are born. They’re wired to communicate and, moments after birth, will poke out their tongues at you if you talk animatedly while making eye-contact. They’re already developing learning skills, memory and understanding.

In their first year, babies make half a million brain connections a second. That’s why their brains triple in weight in the first 12 months.

Brain connections grow every time that babies think and every time they move their bodies, particularly when a parent or carer is playing, talking or singing. In this nourishing environment babies’ learning opportunities are unlimited. So a baby’s brain starts to sift, sort, analyse, assess and memorise at a breath-taking pace all through the first year and nearly as rapidly during the second and third years.

However, this ripening can’t occur in a vacuum. Caring adults are needed to help children to grow their highly receptive brains by interacting with them. Not surprisingly, parents and other care-givers are crucial components in the cognitive development of their babies. But with so much conflicting information out there, parents are often confused and don’t know where to begin.

It’s tempting to clutch at straws which must be the reason why the mystique grew up around the fabled, though disputed, Mozart effect – a theory stating that classical music increases brain activity more effectively than other kinds.

The Mozart effect, though first described by a Frenchman in 1991, really surfaced only in 1993 when a US psychologist and a physicist at the University of California reported that brief exposure to a Mozart piano sonata could raise an IQ score 8-9 points. A New York Times piece in 1994 extrapolated their findings to “. . . listening to Mozart actually makes you smarter”. Subsequent studies have cast doubt on this claim. But it hasn’t stopped a slew of baby products such as Baby Mozart, Mozart for Babies, with the implied claim that they will promote, among other things, the development of logical thinking and maths ability. For parents wanting to do the best for their babies it has purchase appeal, even if in reality the benefits are unproven.

If it’s baby cognitive development you’re after, we have to look at what sights and sounds do for the brain. We can do that using a Positron Imaging Technology scan, which can map out in three dimensions what’s going on in the brain by measuring bloodflow. With this scan you can identify which activities stimulate which areas of the brain.

Watching TV, or for our purpose, looking at changing colours and images, stimulates the occipital lobes at the back of the brain. Accompanying sounds and music stimulate the temporal lobes at the sides of the brain. So far, so good, except that the part of the brain in which we’re most interested for cognitive development is the prefrontal cortex at the very front of the brain and it’s left relatively untouched by either of these activities.

In babies, the prefrontal cortex grows massively in the first 12 months because it’s used for learning, thinking, memorising, expressing personality and fine-tuning social behaviour. This, in turn, cannot happen without a loving, caring, interested adult. What parents should know is that it isn’t hearing Mozart or seeing coloured images that promotes brain development, it’s hearing a care-giver’s voice, seeing the face and interacting lovingly that makes all the difference.

As it happens, in the experiments of Dr Kawashima, of Nintendo DS Brain Training fame, the prefrontal cortex lights up like a Christmas tree by reading aloud. Yes, all that early book-reading with you is what your baby really needs.

Let’s say you are a model parent, can you make your baby more intelligent? The scientific consensus says that you can’t. Nothing can. The baby’s interaction with the care-giver is all about giving her the skills and confidence to make the most of the intelligence she has, which in fact makes all the difference to successful child development.

A DVD in front of which you park your baby doesn’t help her to reach her full potential. Developing cognition does involve sight and sound, but only when mixed together with joyful human interaction through touching, talking, smiling and feeling. Then learning, memorising, socialising and motor skills all move forward together. In one year, a baby leaps from seeing a cat for the first time to understanding that her family’s cat, a picture of a cat and a toy cat, though very different, are all cats. She has learned that a cat is not only a thing but a concept with its own essential qualities. Huge!

Emotional development is much neglected but crucially important in the first 18 months. Acquiring emotional control and balance will make a baby friendly, generous, outgoing and loving, but only if a parent patiently coaches her.

And what about relationships? The relationship a child forms with her parents, and in the first instance with her mother, is the blueprint for all other relationships. Babies become social by imitating. They first imitate facial expressions, then movements, then speech, then whole patterns of behaviour. They are born longing to talk and, as I’ve said, will have a “conversation” with you from birth if you use their special language. Baby birds don’t sing if they don’t hear birdsong in their first six weeks. Human babies are much the same with speech – the more they hear and interact, the more they learn.

In August, I was contacted again by Baby Einstein (now owned by Disney) through its PR agency, which said it was looking to acquire scientific backing with expert endorsement and would I consider possibly acting as a spokesperson. This was just after an article appeared in Newsweek, reporting research from the University of Washington that for every hour that infants of 8-16 months watch videos such as Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby they understood 6-8 fewer words than other babies who were not exposed to such videos. Researchers said that their results pointed to these DVDs being a poor substitute for warm, human, social interaction.

Professor Fred Zimmerman, associate professor of paediatrics at Washington University, lead author of the study and interviewed by Newsweek said: “Parents are getting a very mixed message here – they are hearing loud and clear from marketers of these products that they can be very educational. But, in fact, there’s no scientific evidence.” Professor Zimmerman contends that baby videos are displacing time a child would spend with a carer. “So”, he says, “there’s a possibility that what’s on the screen is pointless, if not outright harmful. Baby videos may be undoing all the benefit of a parent’s hard work in terms of reading and story-telling.”

In the US, Professor Zimmerman believes that a third of parents have bought into claims of the marketers who promise to build vocabulary and enhance cognitive development. The baby brain industry is now worth $20 billion (£10 billion) annually, according to Susan Gregory Thomas in her book Buy, Buy Baby.

Those marketers will defend their share with every weapon and argument they can muster, including trying to get me onside. But I’ve declined a second time.

–– A spokesman for Disney says: “The company has always been committed to maintaining the highest standards of practice. Baby Einstein products are designed as interactive tools for parents – helping them to expose their little ones to the world around them in playful and enriching ways.”

CCTV risks making life less safe

It’s not only about civil liberties. The cameras produce fallible images, encourage detachment, and corrode civic values

The bustling high street in the Hampshire village of Stockbridge is less than a mile from end to end. Pretty red brick cottages consumed by blushing ivy face a parade of long-established local businesses: a butcher, a grocer, a ladies’ dress shop, as well as a number of newer enterprises, including two art galleries, which have sprung up to cater for the tourists tempted by the trout fishing in the nearby river Test. But this is the village that, earlier this year, prompted Hampshire’s deputy chief constable, Ian Readhead, to assert that Britain was becoming a country he no longer wanted to live in.

There is a prominent road sign midway down the high street, alerting motorists to the possibility of wandering mallards from the duck pond. Less obvious are the three CCTV cameras which so offended Readhead. In an interview in May, he highlighted Stockbridge in a broadside against Britain’s surveillance society, bemoaning the spread of cameras to quiet rural villages with low crime rates, such as this one.

But for the traders of Stockbridge, who matched police funds to pay for the system, their minimalist surveillance is more than welcome. Although nobody can point me to an instance where footage has been used to apprehend a criminal, all attest to an increased sense of security. And they firmly believe in the deterrence effect. As one shop owner told me: “It doesn’t make me self-conscious. If you’re doing something that you don’t want to be seen on camera, then you probably shouldn’t be doing it.”

An alarming new report, the first official joint government and police assessment of our national CCTV strategy, has drifted into the public domain largely unnoticed. It finds that more than 80% of cameras produce images of such poor quality that they are of no use for detection purposes, and that the majority were positioned in the wrong places. The report also highlighted that there are no statutory safeguards on CCTV and that, because anyone is able to set up a network, the authorities have no accurate figure on how many are in operation.

Perhaps the most significant thing about this report is that it exists at all. In a country with at least 4.2m cameras, one for every 14 people, estimated to comprise 20% of the world’s allocation, where the Home Office spent 78% of its crime prevention budget on installing these systems in the 1990s, and has invested £500m of public money in CCTV over the last decade, the lack of authoritative research into the efficacy of surveillance is troubling.

If CCTV was an expensive medical treatment, the government would have demanded compelling evidence before farming it out to private companies, which rake in serious cash from its manufacture. But instead MPs clamour for more, egged on by their constituents, because CCTV has been almost unresistingly accepted as an elixir for the low-level criminality and public disorder that most concerns the public, despite the fact that the limited research available does not bear this out. Deterrence is notoriously hard to evaluate, but the most comprehensive study, carried out in 2005, found little overall impact on crime levels. A four-year study in Cardiff found no reduction in street violence, although injuries were less severe because police and ambulances were alerted more swiftly.

Most experts agree that the only time cameras earn their keep is in clean-ups after a crime. Here I should declare an interest. When I was assaulted on a train several years ago, it was CCTV that identified my attacker and secured his conviction. But still hit rates don’t correlate with ubiquity. As the new Home Office report shows, I had only a two in 10 chance of a successful ID.

Yet the information commissioner’s office has found in its research “a general unquestioning assumption [among the public] that CCTV works”. The myth of the silver bullet, justifying a massive infringement for dubious payback, has taken hold. Our lack of privacy has become utterly mundane. The average Londoner is caught on camera 300 times a day. Mark you, today someone is eating their sandwiches while they view you going about your honest business.

The Stockbridge shopkeeper would say that shouldn’t matter. But it does matter because, even beyond the compelling civil liberties arguments, the explosion of CCTV fundamentally alters a population’s relationship with its public spaces. Those who are most aware of being watched respond in ways that only render them more vulnerable to sanction: teenagers hoist up their hoodies, demonstrators cover their faces on marches. Much more insidious is the way that our misplaced confidence in an omnipresent witnessing eye apparently makes us feel absolved of any responsibility to intervene ourselves.

Britain has become a witness culture, inured to watching and being watched. Be it Big Brother or posting friends’ antics on YouTube, our leisure time has become increasingly infected with the imperative to expose ourselves and others. No activity, no individual, is deemed valid without an audience.

So maybe acquiescence to a constant mechanical witness should not come as such a surprise. But it bears repeating that that winking eye in the corner is singularly failing to keep us safe. And it has corrupted our sense of public and private to the extent that, every evening, we can go home to help ourselves to a piece of a stranger’s life while, on the street, we feel no compunction to help at all.

US advisor: Waterboarding is torture

When the US military trains soldiers to resist interrogation, it uses a torture technique from the Middle Ages, known as “waterboarding”. Its use on terror suspects in secret US prisons around the world has come to symbolise the Bush administration’s no-nonsense enthusiasm for the harshest questioning techniques.

Although waterboarding has been considered torture for over a century and the US military is banned from using it, controversy over its continuing use by the CIA may be about to derail the appointment of President Bush’s candidate for US Attorney-General.

Michael Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York and a veteran of several al-Qa’ida trials, was questioned by a Senate committee on Tuesday and refused to say whether waterboarding was illegal.

Instead, he called the technique “repugnant to me” and promised to investigate further if he was confirmed in the job. He explained that he could not say yet whether the practice was illegal because he had not been briefed on the secret methods of US interrogators and he did not want to put the CIA officers who used it in “personal legal jeopardy”.

Even though Congress banned waterboarding in the US military in 2005, it did not do so for the CIA. As a result, Mr Mukasey told senators, it was uncertain whether this technique or other harsh methods constituted “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment. His answers did not satisfy the Democrats, however, and his approval now hinges on whether he is willing to say the torture method is against US law.

In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised “hundreds” of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that “waterboarding is a torture technique – period”.

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim’s mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. “How much the victim is to drown,” Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, “depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.

“A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch.”

The CIA director Michael Hayden has tried to defuse the controversy. He claims that, since 2002, aggressive interrogation methods in which a prisoner believes he is about to die have been used on only about 30 of the 100 al-Qai’da suspects being held by the US. Meanwhile, a CIA official told The New York Times waterboarding had only been used three times. The Bush administration has suggested that the interrogation of al-Qai’da’s second-in-command, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was a success thanks to the technique, and used this to justify continued aggressive interrogations of suspects in secret CIA prisons.

While US media reports typically state that waterboarding involves “simulated drowning”, Mr Nance explained that “since the lungs are actually filling with water”, there is nothing simulated about it. “Waterboarding,” he said, “is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. When done right, it is controlled death.”

Mr Nance said US troops were trained to withstand waterboarding, watched by a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a backup team. “When performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt,” he added. “Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American.”

Mr Mukasey’s nomination goes before the Senate next week. Three Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have already said they will not support him. However, the White House said yesterday that it did not believe his nomination was in jeopardy.

Henri Alleg, a journalist, was tortured in 1957 by French forces in Algeria. He described the ordeal of water torture in his book The Question. Soldiers strapped him over a plank, wrapped his head in cloth and positioned it beneath a running tap. He recalled: “The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. But for a while I could still breathe in some small gulps of air. I tried, by contracting my throat, to take in as little water as possible and to resist suffocation by keeping air in my lungs for as long as I could. But I couldn’t hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. In spite of myself, the fingers of both my hands shook uncontrollably. ‘That’s it! He’s going to talk,’ said a voice.

The water stopped running and they took away the rag. I was able to breathe. In the gloom, I saw the lieutenants and the captain, who, with a cigarette between his lips, was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw out the water I had swallowed.”