Sanctioning the next war of aggression

By Daniel M Pourkesali

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has once again voted to impose yet another sanction on Iran for its failure to suspend a legal activity allowed by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty [1], to which Iran remains a signatory state, and that the IAEA itself has found no indication of any nuclear material being diverted to military purposes.

As in case of the UNSC resolution 1737 [2] approved in December 2006,  the United States has played a key roll in draft of the language used and the push for its passage, in a continued effort to lay the ground for a planned military action against Iran.

In an op-ed [3] written days following the ratification of resolution 1737, this writer urged readers and all those outraged by the Iraqi deception to stand up and repeatedly make it known, over the deafening megaphones of the war-mongers that:

1) Iran is not in breach of any international conventions or agreements. Processing of uranium is entirely within the guidelines of the NPT, and according to the IAEA, all fissile material have been accounted for and confirmed as not diverted to prohibited activities.

Above remains true today as it has been since the inception of Iranian nuclear program in 1957 with the help of the United States. In that year a civil nuclear cooperation program was established under the U.S. 'Atoms for Peace' program [4]. In 1959, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor that became operational in 1967 fuelled with highly enriched uranium.  Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, the Shah approved plans to construct, again with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.

2) The UN Security Council is not the world and hence does not reflect the will of the 'international community' – it represents the views and positions of 15 nations five of which are undemocratically assigned as permanent members including the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia.

The 118 United Nations member states of the Nonaligned Movement [5] have repeatedly confirmed and recognized Iran's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Yet a handful of powerful nations led by the U.S., continue to portray their own narrow and self-serving objectives as the will of the entire international community.

3) Any military action against Iran regardless of the Security Council approval would be ethically and morally void of any legitimacy.

The UNSC is the organ of the United Nations charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. Under Chapter Six of the UN Charter [6], "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security."

The key phrase is endangering of 'international peace and security'. A simple question to ask here is this -- How can a legal activity allowed by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty constitute a danger to world "peace and security" and prompt an international body charged with maintaining the same to impose such unwarranted sanctions that as witnessed in case of Iraq can be used as plain justification to invade and occupy a sovereign nation?

But the far grimmer question to ask is – Are we as world citizens going to idly stand by and allow yet another illegal act of treachery be carried out under the pretext of protecting 'international peace and security'?  

[1] http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

[2] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm \

[3] http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/954

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

[5] http://www.nam.gov.za/background/members.htm

Daniel M Pourkesali http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

The fiberglass MiniC.A.T. runs on compressed air, and offers zero pollution and very low running costs

Many respected engineers have been trying for years to bring a compressed air car to market, believing strongly that compressed air can power a viable "zero pollution" car. Now the first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention, and with a recently signed partnership with Tata, India's largest automotive manufacturer, the prospects of very cost-effective mass production are now a distinct possibility. The MiniC.A.T is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fibreglass. The heart of the electronic and communication system on the car is a computer offering an array of information reports that extends well beyond the speed of the vehicle, and is built to integrate with external systems and almost anything you could dream of, starting with voice recognition, internet connectivity, GSM telephone connectivity, a GPS guidance system, fleet management systems, emergency systems, and of course every form of digital entertainment. The engine is fascinating, as is and the revolutionary electrical system that uses just one cable and so is the vehicle's wireless control system. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators etc

There are no keys – just an access card which can be read by the car from your pocket.

Most importantly, it is incredibly cost-efficient to run – according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph.

Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air. In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 1.5 Euros, the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometres.

As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours.

Due to the absence of combustion and, consequently, of residues, changing the oil (1 litre of vegetable oil) is necessary only every 50,000 Km.

The temperature of the clean air expelled by the exhaust pipe is between 0 - 15 degrees below zero, which makes it suitable for use by the internal air conditioning system with no need for gases or loss of power.

How does it work?

90m3 of compressed air is stored in fibre tanks. The expansion of this air pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature is used to re-heat the engine and increase the road coverage. The air conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, the oil change is only necessary every 31.000 miles.

At the moment, four models have been made: a car, a taxi (5 passengers), a Pick-Up truck and a van. The final selling price will be approximately 5.500 pounds.

The Company

"Moteur Development International" (MDI) is a company founded in Luxembourg, based in the south of France and with its Commercial Office in Barcelona. MDI has researched and developed the Air Car over 10 years and the technology is protected by more than 30 International patents and MDI is actively seeking licensees, with according to the company, 50 factories in Europe, America and Asia signed already.

The Factory

It is predicted that the factory will produce 3.000 cars each year, with 70 staff working only one 8-hour shift a day. If there were 3 shifts some 9.000 cars could be produced a year.

The Tata Agreement

Tata Motors is India's largest automobile company, with revenues of US$ 5.5 billion in 2005-06. With over 4 million Tata vehicles on Indian roads, it is the leader in commercial vehicles and the second largest in passenger vehicles. It is also the world's fifth largest medium and heavy truck manufacturer and the second largest heavy bus manufacturer.

Tata has signed an agreement with MDI for application in India of MDI's engine technology, and believes the engine is viable – it's press statement described it as "efficient, cost-effective, scalable, and capable of other applications such as power generation".

The agreement between Tata Motors and MDI envisages Tata's supporting further development and refinement of the technology, and its application and licensing for India.

MDI is a small, family-controlled company located at Carros, near Nice (Southern France) where Guy and Cyril Negre and their technical team have developed the engine technology and the technologically advanced car it powers.

Provided by Gizmag.com—ideas, innovation, invention

WASHINGTON - A major manufacturer of dog and cat food sold under Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger and other store brands recalled 60 million containers of wet pet food Friday after reports of kidney failure and deaths.

An unknown number of cats and dogs suffered kidney failure and about 10 died after eating the affected pet food, Menu Foods said in announcing the North American recall. Product testing has not revealed a link explaining the reported cases of illness and death, the company said.

“At this juncture, we’re not 100 percent sure what’s happened,” said Paul Henderson, the company’s president and chief executive officer. However, the recalled products were made using wheat gluten purchased from a new supplier, since dropped for another source, spokeswoman Sarah Tuite said. Wheat gluten is a source of protein.

The recall covers the company’s “cuts and gravy” style food, which consists of chunks of meat in gravy, sold in cans and small foil pouches between Dec. 3 and March 6 throughout the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

The pet food was sold by stores operated by the Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and PetSmart Inc., among others, Henderson said.

Menu Foods did not immediately provide a full list of brand names and lot numbers covered by the recall, saying they would be posted on its Web site — www.menufoods.com/recall — early Saturday. Consumers with questions can call (866) 463-6738.

Repeated calls to that number over several hours Friday night got only a busy signal. Attempts to reach a company spokeswoman for an explanation were unsuccessful.

The company said it manufacturers for 17 of the top 20 North American retailers. It is also a contract manufacturer for the top branded pet food companies, including Procter & Gamble Co.

P&G announced Friday the recall of specific 3 oz., 5.5 oz., 6 oz. and 13.2 oz. canned and 3 oz. and 5.3 oz. foil pouch cat and dog wet food products made by Menu Foods but sold under the Iams and Eukanuba brands. The recalled products bear the code dates of 6339 through 7073 followed by the plant code 4197, P&G said.

Menu Foods’ three U.S. and one Canadian factory produce more than 1 billion containers of wet pet food a year. The recall covers pet food made at company plants in Emporia, Kan., and Pennsauken, N.J., Henderson said.

Henderson said the company received an undisclosed number of owner complaints of vomiting and kidney failure in dogs and cats after they had been fed its products. It has tested its products but not found a cause for the sickness.

“To date, the tests have not indicated any problems with the product,” Henderson said.

The company alerted the Food and Drug Administration, which already has inspectors in one of the two plants, Henderson said. The FDA was working to nail down brand names covered by the recall, agency spokesman Mike Herndon said.

Menu Foods is majority owned by the Menu Foods Income Fund, based in Ontario, Canada.

Henderson said the recall would cost the company the Canadian equivalent of $26 million to $34 million.

Get to know Congressman Ron Paul  

 Save America:

Abolish the Patriot Act

What is the USA PATRIOT Act?

Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.

Why Congress passed the Patriot Act

Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack. 

The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily. 

Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties

One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.

Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
• Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. 
• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. 
• Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. 
• Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 

2. More secret searches

For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. 

The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later. 

Notice is a crucial check on the government's power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights. 

Finally, this new "sneak and peek" power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence. 

3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.

A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution's probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.

The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the "FISA Court"). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal.

4. Expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law

Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.

Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as "Pen register/trap and trace" searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:

"Nationwide" pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."

Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope. 

The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:

• Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or "addresses" of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we "visit" a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a "conversation" with the author. 
• Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orientation

Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL. 

The erosion of accountability

Attempts to find out how the new surveillance powers created by the Patriot Act were implemented during their first year were in vain. In June 2002 the House Judiciary Committee demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it was using its new authority. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department essentially refused to describe how it was implementing the law; it left numerous substantial questions unanswered, and classified others without justification. In short, not only has the Bush Administration undermined judicial oversight of government spying on citizens by pushing the Patriot Act into law, but it is also undermining another crucial check and balance on surveillance powers: accountability to Congress and the public.

Non-surveillance provisions

Although this fact sheet focuses on the direct surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, citizens should be aware that the act also contains a number of other provisions. The Act:

• Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans. 
• Creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups. 
• Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.

In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.

Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more severe.

For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.

Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.

To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.

Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".

Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources.

Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.

Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.

It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement.

The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenseless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.

In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.

Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system.

The Last Days of Internet Radio?

A decision by the Copyright Royalty Board to raise royalty fees could put some small online radio stations out of business

Kurt Hanson runs a Chicago-based online radio station that streams more than 300 channels of classical, jazz, oldies, and other music genres aimed at adults. The station, AccuRadio, lures more than 1 million visitors a month—not bad for a startup that's only been around since 2002. If a Mar. 5 decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) takes effect, AccuRadio may not be around much longer.

The decision, due to take effect sometime during the next two months, could raise royalty fees paid by some online radio stations more than tenfold—enough to put many smaller stations out of business, Hanson says. Currently, most small Webcasters have paid royalties calculated as a percentage of revenue. Under the new rule, those outfits will begin paying on a per-song, per-listener basis. "The more intensively an individual service is used and consequently the more the rights being licensed are used, the more the service pays, and in direct proportion to the usage," according to the 115-page ruling.

Here's what the change will mean for AccuRadio. The station employs six full-time staff members and records about $500,000 in annual sales, mostly from advertising. Of that, Hanson pays record labels about $50,000 in royalty fees. The rule change, which will impose fees retroactively, will jack up royalty fees to more than $600,000 for 2006. Other Webcasters will be in the same boat. "I don't think any of the operators would break even," Hanson says. "Internet radio is in danger of becoming extinct," shouts a headline posted on the company's Web site, urging listeners to sign a petition or send a message to Congress. "The rates are so high that they exceed 100% of most Webcasters' total revenues!"

Battle Royal

Hanson and his peers aren't getting much sympathy from music labels and SoundExchange, the company that collects royalties on behalf of the recording industry and urged the royalty fee change. The last time royalties were negotiated, in 2002, "we had the same exact response: that this is terrible, it's going to put everybody out of business," says SoundExchange Executive Director John Simson. "But the industry grew." Indeed, revenue from online streaming music radio has risen to $500 million from $49 million in 2003.

But that's thanks in part to Congress, which stepped in and decreed that smaller Webcasters would pay on a per-revenue basis. Larger Webcasters such as Time Warner's (TWX) AOL Radio, Yahoo!'s (YHOO) online station, and Clear Channel's (CCU) Online Music & Radio already pay on a per-listener, per-song basis—though their rates too would rise under the most recent set of changes.

Specifically, from 2006 to 2008, Web radio music royalty rates will double to 0.14¢ every time a song is streamed to a listener. For a Webcaster playing 14 songs an hour, that will come to 2¢ per listener per hour in 2008. For radio stations with thousands or millions of listeners, those pennies add up. "The rates are disastrous," says Joe Kennedy, chief executive of Pandora, which creates custom radio streams for users. "I'm not aware of any Internet radio service that believes they can sustain a business at the rates set by this decision." The board stipulates further double-digit royalty rate increases through 2010.

Bad for Business

Even large companies such as Yahoo Music may not be able to afford the new rates, says the Digital Media Assn. (DiMA), which counts Yahoo as a member. "DiMA companies are reevaluating the viability of the Internet radio business," said Jonathan Potter, executive director of DiMA, in a statement. As a result, some Webcasters may have difficulty raising money from venture capitalists and may have to shutter their business or seek to be acquired by large companies that can absorb the losses. "The rates have come on the high end of what's been expected, and valuations will be lower," says Rags Gupta, a former Live365 Internet Radio executive who now consults for venture capitalists and digital media companies.

Bummer for the growing slice of U.S. listeners flocking to Internet radio. As much as 19% of U.S. consumers 12 and older listen to Web-based radio stations, according to a survey of 3,000 Americans released by consultancy Bridge Ratings & Research on Feb. 21. That's up from 15% a year ago and indicates some 57 million weekly listeners of Internet radio programs. More people listen to online radio than to satellite radio, high-definition radio, podcasts, or cell-phone-based radio combined.

A "Sinking Ship"?

To cope, some broadcasters are already considering moving operations overseas, out of the CRB's reach. Others are looking into playing fewer songs and expanding talk shows. Some may run more ads. Trouble is, most listeners want mainly music. And increasing the frequency of ads or raising ad rates won't work for some smaller sites, where advertisers haven't exactly been knocking down the door. "We were just getting our foothold, now we have to start all over again," says Bryan Payne, CEO of Spacial Audio, a seller of software and services for Internet broadcasters. "We are all on the same sinking ship."

Unless the CRB decision can be reversed or renegotiated on appeal. Indeed, the decision itself states that it "does not mean that some revenue-based metric could not be successfully developed as a proxy for the usage-based metric at some time in the future by the parties." Many Webcasters are counting on DiMA and larger Webcasters to renegotiate the deal. On Mar. 7, when a subcommittee of the House committee on Energy & Commerce will hold a meeting on the future of radio, DiMA is expected to offer criticism of the decision. Some Webcasters hope Congress will get involved and establish different royalty rates for small broadcasters. The now-expired Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002 stipulated that certain noncommercial Web radio stations didn't need to pay royalties at all, while other small businesses only paid a percentage of their expenses or sales.

Jeff Bachmeier, president of Minneapolis-based Web radio station Club 977, says the recording industry benefits from the existence of small Webcasters and should be willing to be a party to renegotiated terms. "I don't think the labels want Internet radio to go away," he says. After all, people often discover songs on the radio and then buy the actual recordings. A DiMA survey of 1,008 online music radio listeners and music services subscribers published in January found that nearly half are spending more than $200 per year on music, and nearly 30% are spending more than $300. Before the Internet, an average consumer only bought about $100 worth of CDs a year.

Negotiations over fees could take months, however, while the impact on the Web radio industry is expected to kick in almost immediately. "It's just sad for Internet radio because it has such high potential," says Paul Palumbo, founder of consultancy AccuStream iMedia Research. "Wranglings over copyright will limit its growth," he says. "It's going to cause confusion, concern, and pulling back."

Kharif is a reporter for BusinessWeek Online in Portland, Ore. 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Leaders Don't Kill People...

By Michael Boldin

If I have my facts straight, George W. Bush has never killed a single person in his life. All the torture and death that people attribute to him has been carried out by people who were "only following orders."

Psychologically, I find this quite interesting.  As a person, it doesn't appear that Bush would or could hurt anyone, especially not innocent people.  But, as "commander-in-chief," he can order and oversee actions that result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents without even batting an eye.  A friend and critic of mine believes that leaders such as Bush assume full responsibility for the actions of a nation's military.  I strongly disagree.

We've all heard the excuses over and over again.  The soldiers aren't responsible because they're following orders.  The military isn't responsible because they have to obey the civilian leadership.  The President isn't responsible because he was given bad intelligence.  The intelligence agencies aren't responsible because they had bad informants, and made the best call they could under the circumstances.  And, of course, Congress isn't responsible either.  Why not?  I don't really know.  Maybe it's because they're utterly incompetent.

Seriously, though, we have a major problem here.

RESPONSIBILITY

So, who is responsible for the death and destruction in Iraq? 

Who? The pilots who dropped the bombs? The commanding officers?  The secretary of defense?  The President?  Or, as the war hawks would like us to believe, is it the people defending their homeland from invasion?  If they'd just stop resisting.our peace-loving, democracy-spreading military wouldn't have to defend themselves and kill these people, right? 

Who is responsible might not even matter, because the truth is no one will be held accountable, and there will be no trials or prosecutions for the countless innocents that have been killed in America's foreign wars.  The result is that the politicians are further emboldened to wage even more wars in the future.

STANDING ARMIES ARE DANGEROUS TO YOU

Historically, governments have misused standing armies in two main ways, both of which inevitably result in tyranny for the People.  The first is to engage in foreign wars, which invariably result in massive spending, which enables the government to place a bigger and bigger tax burden on the people.  This was well-stated by James Madison, the "father of the Constitution":

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

Governments generally call for increased patriotism at home while these foreign wars are being waged.  The politicians demand greater powers and reduced liberties for the people; claiming that these moves will help bring peace. Explaining this second way standing armies are misused, Madison continued:

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

The concept here is simple.  Governments use their armies to stir up, or even produce, enemies by meddling in the affairs of people in different countries.  Then, they attempt to scare their own people with cries that the "enemy" is ready to invade, and that war is absolutely necessary to stop these evil killers.  Once war breaks out, the government then demands additional power over the people to supposedly "protect" them in time of war.

Sound familiar?

WHERE THE REAL DANGER LIES

American history is filled with politicians who used foreign adventures to boost their political standing at home.  The war in Iraq, now lasting over 15 years and Presidents from both political parties, demonstrates why the Founding Fathers so vehemently opposed standing armies.

The use of our military to invade nations or do "police actions" in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Serbia, Vietnam, and elsewhere, is both unconstitutional and immoral.  The death toll resulting from this aggressive foreign policy has become massive.

Ask yourself this.  Is the Iraqi insurgent fighting in Baghdad more threatening to you than warrantless spying or massive war spending?  Is al Qaeda more menacing than the suspension of Habeas Corpus?  Is the "terrorist" in Iraq a greater danger to your freedom than all those politicians who signed the Patriot Act without even reading it? Just exactly who or what is the greatest threat to your rights?

To those not blinded by interest, the answer is clear.  It's not individuals like Clinton or Bush.  It's not the military.  It's not the NSA, the Supreme Court, or Congress.  The greatest threat to your liberty is your own government; it's the system which has allowed all this to happen!   And, sadly, it's been this way for many years.

But, the politicians couldn't get away with much if we didn't give them the tools.  The government couldn't grow in power without the billions of dollars they take from us each year.  The politicians wouldn't be able to wage war without the massive military machine which has become synonymous with American foreign policy.

I say to you, look at who your leaders are, and ask yourself if these people can be trusted with such power.  Presidents such as Truman, Bush, Johnson, and Clinton have used the military in ways which have resulted in the deaths of millions.  They used the same standing army that people like George Washington and Patrick Henry warned us against.  Don't tell me that this country needs such a military force.  A national militia would never have done such things.

SOLUTIONS

In contrast to this bloody mess, the founders envisioned a society that would be protected by militias on the state level. A national defense would only be put together when the nation itself was directly threatened by invasion. 

What's my suggestion? Well, I'm sure many of you won't like it, but that's the way things go.  I say let's get rid of the whole damn military.  Stop spending countless billions and billions to maintain a global presence.  Bring all the troops home once and for all!

Just think, if the military was disbanded then there would be no more overseas bases.  There would be no more bombings of faraway nations.  There would be no more terrorists created by a meddling foreign policy. There would be no more regime changes.   There would be no more foreign wars.  There would be no more war funding bills to debate.  There would be no more use of weapons like agent orange and depleted uranium.  There would be no more enemy combatants.  There would be no more military prisons.  There would be no more collateral damage.  And, most importantly, the root of the problem would finally be smashed into pieces; the treacherous policy of American interventionism.

Thus, there is only one solution to this grave danger to our freedom and prosperity.  We the People must act on the warnings of the Founding Fathers against standing armies and foreign entanglements.  We must shut down the American military empire, close every single overseas base, and bring all the troops home.  The troops would then be released into the private sector, where they would be quite effective in leading local militias to defend the nation in the highly unlikely event of a foreign invasion.

REAL NATIONAL DEFENSE

Do I want a defenseless country? Absolutely not - I want a defenseless government! I want a government that doesn't have the power or the tools to wage anymore foreign wars, and thus, one that doesn't have the excuse to take away your liberty to "protect" you.

There is an alternative that one would call a real national defense.  This is one where the people themselves are responsible for the defense of their country.  The individual American was considered to be so effective and important to the defense of America that the Constitution specifically mentioned it in the 2nd Amendment. 

Those in power, and their followers, of course, would never want this to become reality, though.  They'll try to scare you away from such a strong system of defense.  They'll warn you of all the great dangers that will "surely" come.  But, don't believe such things, for they are the lies of tyrants!

Here's one I've heard time and time again.  "If we didn't have the military, you'd be speaking German or Japanese right now!"  Don't make me laugh!  The Japanese were able to pull off one surprise attack by air, and the Germans weren't even able to cross the English Channel, much less the Atlantic Ocean! 

So what would happen if another country ever began preparing masses of ships and planes, and millions of soldiers to invade the United States?  The Founding Fathers gave us the answer.  Such an invading force would be met by the power of tens of millions of free, well-armed American citizens who would quickly rise to resist and defeat any such invasion. 

Think it can't work?  Think again.  Invading and successfully occupying nations with an armed population is a feat rarely accomplished.  The people of Afghanistan were able to drive out the mighty Soviets, and just a small percentage of the Iraqi people are currently making occupation untenable for the mightiest military in the history of the world.

A NEW DIRECTION

What would we do about murderous foreign dictators?  Yes, you got it.  The Founding Fathers gave us an answer to that as well.  First of all, the government would no longer force you to give them any money.  And more importantly, the government would no longer have the ability to go around looking for tyrants to destroy, and populations to "save" through war.  Instead of endless foreign entanglements, we'd build the freest and most prosperous nation in history.

Of course, those Americans who would want to leave their families and jobs to support revolutionary movements in other parts of the world would always have the freedom to do so.    

Thus, in determining our future, we have a clear choice.  Should we continue down the path we are on today?  Should we continue on this path of empire, with massive standing armies, hundreds of overseas bases, foreign wars and sanctions?  Should we continue our foreign policy which creates hatred in millions and millions of people; thus making you a target of their retaliation?  Should we continue down the path of ever-growing taxes and regulations, as well as the endless loss of liberty that always comes with empire? 

Or, should we change direction?  Should we take our nation down the path that the Founder Fathers envisioned?  Should we create a society where government is strictly limited and forbidden from invading foreign nations?  Should we build a society where freedom and prosperity reigns; a nation that would serve as a model for the rest of the world?   If we choose this path, every person on earth would always know that there would be at least one refuge for the oppressed, the United States of America.

We can have something different, and I, for one, choose the path of liberty.

By Michael Boldin, who is an outspoken critic of the American political system. He is a senior editor and contributing writer for http://www.populistamerica.com.  Michael welcomes your feedback at mboldin@populistamerica.com

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK