[Nettime-bold] 2 interesting articles from Guardian, 1 from Herald Tribune, and the life in general

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

Academics in US silenced. 
Torture debated as a possibility. 
The double-speak of American goals in the war on evil.

Meanwhile: CDC warned of the shortage of the flu vaccine in the 
US - but many web sites and magazines suggested the flu vaccine 
as a good way to ward yourself against the anthrax-like flu 
symptoms, so that you know when the 'real thing' hits - even 
Giuliani urged New Yorkers to get flu vaccine. So, now, no doctor 
has it. And the department of health locations are overbooked, 
meaning a lot of people simply can't get the vaccine.
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/html/imm/immclin.html

Also, there is a curious delay with payments of unemployment 
compensation by the Department of Labor in New York State - I 
know that since I live in the neighborhood where a lot of people 
receive them - people are edgy: some didn't get their check for past 
three reporting cycles, and they are arguing at the local post office.

Last week I spent in Rutland, Vermont - the city of a population 
that would fit in one of the WTC towers - there nearly every house 
flies American flag outside, and the general support for American 
war on evil is unquestioned. But that does not mean that there is a 
lack of healthy suspicion of government and foreign policy. In other 
words, bombing per se is not automatically endorsed. People 
would like to see OBL, Al Qaeda, Taliban and the rest of the terror 
network gone. However, they are not buying into the black and 
white, good and evil story. They do understand that the past and 
present US foreign policy has a lot to do with existence of the 
terror network. It became clear to me that people even outside of 
big urban areas in the US use common sense in assessing the TV 
news and comparing them with various Internet resources.

> International Herald Tribune
>    Growing numbers of pundits are openly discussing allowing 
U.S. 
>    law enforcement to use torture against suspects. That has 
>    critics worrying that perhaps a barrier to the mistreatment 
>    of the accused is in danger of falling. (11/06/01)
> http://www.free-market.net/rd/572080741.html


   The Guardian         Tuesday November 6, 2001

   Sound of silencing
   US academics who dare to discuss the Allied bombing face 
censure,
   says Lee Elliot Major


   An academic uprising is brewing to defend the right to speak out
   against US government policy, amid growing concerns that 
government
   and university officials are disciplining lecturers who question the
   response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

   Hundreds of academics have signed up to a statement 
advocating the
   right to hear critical and dissenting voices over US foreign policy
   and the Afghanistan bombing campaign, which the campaigners 
are
   planning to publish in the New York Times.

   It follows a series of attacks on academics daring to question the
   Bush administration publicly. The US government is also 
planning to
   introduce new powers forcing universities to disclose confidential
   details about overseas students as part of a new computerised
tracking
   system to prevent terrorists from entering the US on student 
visas.

   The statement, which is circulating widely among academics in 
the US
   and UK, says: "In the crisis precipitated by the terrible events of
   September 11, members of academic communities across the 
US have
   participated in teach-ins, colloquia, demonstrations, and other
events
   aimed at developing an informed critical understanding of what
   happened and why.

   "Unfortunately, some participants in these events have been
threatened
   and attacked for speaking out. Trustees of the City University of 
New
   York are planning formal denunciations of faculty members who
   criticised US foreign policy at a teach-in. There have been similar
   efforts to silence criticism at the University of Texas at Austin,
   MIT, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University
   of Massachusetts at Amherst, and elsewhere."

   It concludes: "We call on all members of the the academic 
community
to
   speak out strongly in defence of academic freedom and civil
liberties,
   not just as an abstract principle but as a practical necessity. At a
   moment such as this we must make sure that all informed voices 
-
   especially those that are critical and dissenting - are heard."

   The American Association of University Professors has not 
signed up
to
   the statement, but its general secretary, Mary Burgan, has 
warned
   against an anti-intellectual backlash. "It is predictable that after
   we had passed through the initial phases of reaction to 
September 11,
   we should want more subtle analyses. And so the discourses of
   academics - passionate as well as cool - have commenced," she 
said.
   "And so have the voluble reactions of those who believe that 
thinking
   out loud in our colleges and universities is so subversive that it
   ought to be stopped, somehow. A distrust of intellectuals has 
always
   lurked beneath the surface of American popular opinion. Now it 
has
   begun to leak out again."

   In one of several recent attacks, academics at City University of 
New
   York who suggested that US foreign policy was partly to blame 
for the
   terrorist attacks were publicly denounced by the university's
   chancellor for making "lame excuses" for the terrorists. A 
professor
   at the University of Texas at Austin, meanwhile, attracted the 
wrath
   of the university's president for publishing an article arguing that
   the US itself has perpertrated "massive acts of terrorism" in its
   dealings with other countries.

   Students have also been calling for the heads of academics who
   questioned the US government's actions. A political science 
professor
   speaking at a vigil at California State University, Chico, was
heckled
   by students, and has been bombarded with hate letters.

   A survey by Harvard University's Institute of Politics has shown 
that
   nearly four out of five college students support the airstrikes in
   Afghanistan, and more than two-thirds back the use of US ground
   troops.

   The US Senate has stepped back from initial proposals to ban 
new
visas
   for overseas students after it was reported that one of the 
September
   11 hijackers entered the US on a student visa. The government is,
   however, introducing a tracking system that will give police
   information about the names, universities, dates of attendance 
and
   degree subjects of some 500,000 overseas students.

   Initial indications suggest that overseas student numbers to the 
UK
   could be boosted by the US moves. There is little sign that UK
   academics are being censured. In one incident, however, anti-war
   posters were taken down at the University of Keele.

   Views on how September 11 has affected the academic sector 
feature
   this week at www.EducationGuardian.co.uk

   UK university centres related to Middle East studies

   Birmingham
   Cambridge
   Derby
   Durham
   Edinburgh
   Edinburgh Institute
   Exeter
   Glasgow
   Institute of Ismaili Studies
   London School of Economics
   Lancaster
   Leeds
   Manchester
   Oxford
   SOAS
   St Andrews
   Wales Lampeter

   US university centres for Middle East studies

   Arizona
   Binghamton
   California at Berkeley
   Chicago
   Columbia
   Harvard
   Indiana
   Georgetown
   Michigan
   New York
   Pennsylvania
   Portland
   Texas
   UCLA
   Utah
   Washington
   Yale

   Other centres for Middle East studies
   Ben-Gurion
   Bergen
   Birzeit
   Hamburg
   Tel Aviv
   Academic associations for Middle East studies
   American Institute for Yemeni Studies
   Arab Social Science Research
   The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies
   The Canadian Committee of the Middle East Studies Association
   The European Association for Middle Eastern Studies
   The Institute for Palestine Studies
   Middle East Studies Association of North America
   US peace studies experts
     
________________________________________________________
_________


Our war aims - in general
AL Kennedy
Monday November 05 2001
The Guardian


And now our daily news report from Washington - your other 
national
capital. Today, in our series of Clean Cut Americans - General 
Elmer
Coyote, former commander of Gamma Force: 

So, General, how can you help the tiny minority who are feeling 
wobbly
to understand the sad necessity of our War Against Badness, as 
currently
conducted by our wise and restrained leaders?   

Thank you kindly, I'd be glad. First off, I'd have to say that anyone
who is, as we put it in military circles, a real live normal human 
being
will, by their very God-given nature, accept that everything we're 
doing
over in Afghanistan and on the home front is absolutely for the 
best.  

As you know, the United States, and your United Kingdom never 
interfere
with foreign powers, but once we are roused, we act. The way may 
be
stony, still our will is strong and our war aims are absolutely clear,
although subject to the secrecy which must inevitably arise in 
matters
of virtuous defence.  

You couldn't give us a teeny clue about them, though?   

We seek not to overthrow the Taliban, but to overthrow the Taliban,
which may take a while, or not that long at all, if you compare it to
Vietnam - not that you ever, ever should - and after victory we will
allow the Afghan people to elect a new government, or we will allow 
them
to elect the new government provided, which will be based, or not 
based,
around the Northern Alliance which is either a really keen bunch of
patriots, or a rabble of camel-jockey terrorists slightly less
well-equipped than the Taliban, and we will find Bin Laden and we 
will
kill him, or bring him to justice in another deadly way resulting in his
law-abiding and perfectly reasonable death when vengeance will be 
ours,
but not in a vengeful way.  

And when this is all over, Afghanistan will be a happy land, full of
merry, hopping children - hopping, mind you, not because they are
amputees, but because they are living in an earthly paradise of
recognisable banking and investment systems. We are fighting to 
defend
our way of life and don't you forget it. Amen.  

And could you expand a little on the qualities that make our way of 
life
so very, very good?   

I had the honour to teach the current commander of the US forces 
when he
was a student at the College of Death Studies and he is a fine, 
warm
man. I think of him now, because often we would sit up nights and
discuss what made our way of life so precious. And it's, quite 
simply,
this: cowards, terrorists, communists and Muslims, they kill 
civilians
on purpose, whereas we in the west kill civilians as a sad 
necessity. We
don't enjoy it.  

Some lunatics and subversives would say that, either way, you still 
end
up with innocent casualties, mutilated babies and so forth.   

That is war and war is hell. And if they're so innocent, what are they
doing in Afghanistan, anyway - the place is a shithole. And if, for
example, a mother knows we decapitated her daughter with the 
very best
of intentions, really as a kind of accident, it will surely make all the
difference to her. And I know your prime minister agrees. That's 
part of
what makes the special relationship so special.  

Yes, what about that special relationship?   

It's special. It's full of specialness and it's really a relationship.  

Which means?   

That Britain and the Britishers, above all others, understand that UK
politicians should be able to come stateside and pretend they have 
more
influence than a bucket of hog piss over the most powerful country 
in
the world.  

And you also understand that, when all's said and done, we're 
going to
do what we damn well like, because our interests are the finest
interests in the world, but you can come along for the ride and
peripheral dividends. And we could get a little sickened by all this
whining about grenades that look like bandage rolls and "won't 
people
get confused?" and "why keep bombing Red Cross stations?"  

And the rumours that all US infantrymen who enter Afghanistan 
carry a
length of pipe with instructions to connect and lay them in the
direction of the Caspian?   

Whatever this war is about, it is not about control of the vast 
Caspian
sea oil deposits. The United States has never had any interest in 
oil.
President Bush has never had any interest in oil. Neither the United
States or the United Kingdom have ever cynically exploited a 
conflict
for their own commercial advantage, or made a profit out of death.  

So no worries there, then. Thanks.  

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold