There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Thank Charlie Sheen Here + Iran Attack Coming Soon !! BravoCharlie91
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:16:22 -0400
Subject: Thank Charlie Sheen Here + Iran Attack Coming Soon !! BravoCharlie91
Thank Charlie Sheen Here + Iran Attack Coming Soon !!
BravoCharlie911 - Home
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Get your Dual Citizenship at the bottom
Executive Order 13292
War Against Iran, April 2006
Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292 By Jorge Hirsch
04/01/06 "Anti-War" -- -- History repeats itself, but always with new
twists. We are back to the good old days when a Declaration of War
preceded the start of a war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th,
the old order, we are now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by
an aerial "Blitzkrieg" in the coming days.
In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive
to take action. In the new millenium,
The Executive declared war last March 16th, then Congress will
pass H.R. 282, "To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its
threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran."
This bill and previous ones like it are in direct violation of the
legally binding Algiers Accords[pdf] signed by the United States and
Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The United States pledges that it
is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to
intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's
internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest to the 353
policymakers sponsoring the bill.
The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council
approved will not be a trigger for military action after 30 days; true
to its promise, the US will attack before the 30-day deadline imposed by
the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment activity,
i.e. before the end of April. The "justification" is likely to be
an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with Iran's involvement.
The Declaration of War against Iran
I n the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the Congressional Declaration of
8, 1941 stated: " Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed
unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the
United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the
Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United
States is hereby formally declared; and the president is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces
of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war
against the Imperial Government of Japan."
Similarly, the formal war declaration against Iran, the National
Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:
* "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than
* "The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks
to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the
aspirations of its people for freedom."
* "[T]he first duty of the United States Government remains what it
always has been: to protect the American people and American interests.
It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the
anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power,
before the threats can do grave damage."
* "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's
attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD."
* "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
* "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so
devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers
* "[T]here will always be some uncertainty about the status of
* "Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for
state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
* "Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the
risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations
and around the globe."
* "Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also
enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health
threats, such as avian influenza."
This has to be combined with the 2005 U.S. State Department
"FINDING. The United States judges that, based on all available
information, Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in
violation of the BWC." In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it
clear that the US will use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
* ."..using all elements of national power..."
* "Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a
critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad
composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved
and this is further reinforced by the just released "National Military
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"[pdf] that states
"Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and
nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to
deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."
There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it
intends to develop nuclear weapons. The sole purpose of that claim,
which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a
diplomatic stalemate at
the UN that will allow Bush to state that other nations share the US
but not the resolve to act. However the actual trigger for the bombing
to begin will not be the long-term and by now discredited nuclear
threat, rather it is likely to be the threat of an imminent biological
There is no casus belli against Iran based on its nuclear program.
The IAEA has found no evidence that in the 20 years of its development
there has been
any diversion of nuclear material to military applications. The Bush
administration now officially acknowledges that the issue with Iran
arises from a "loophole" in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that
allows non-nuclear countries to pursue uranium enrichment. However it is
not a loophole, the right to a full civilian nuclear program is an
integral part of the compromise, that made non-nuclear countries agree
to it. For the US to call it a loophole means to abrogate the treaty
unilaterally and propose a different treaty that non-nuclear countries
will have no motivation to agree to.
The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program
that gives Iran "knowledge" or "capability" to build a nuclear weapon is
unacceptable. It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology.
The State Department
says that "Iran is expanding its biotechnology and biomedical industries
by building large, state-of-the-art research and pharmaceutical
production facilities. These industries could easily hide pilot to
industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW program, and
could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment." Why isn't the
US demanding that Iran stops its biotechnology research and development,
and that it transfers all biotech related activities to Russia?
The key lies in Executive Order 13292, which made information on
mass destruction" and on "defense against transnational terrorism"
classified. If concrete details about Iran's alleged biological
weapons programs were made public, they would be subject to public
scrutiny and they
would be discredited, as the allegations on Iran's "nuclear weapons
have been. The US is likely to have "assembled" classified information
on Iran's biological weapons programs and shared it with selected
individuals, including members of Congress, under the constraint that
classified information cannot be made public. For example, at the June
25, 2004 House subcommittee "MEMBERS ONLY CLASSIFIED BRIEFING on Iran,
Middle East Proliferation and Terrorist
Capabilities." The unclassified portion of that briefing states "It is
time for Iran to declare its biological weapons program and make
arrangements for its dismantlement."
There is likely to be a team of "experts" lined up by the administration
that will support its claims that Iran had a biological weapons program
representing an imminent threat. There is always room in science for
differing opinions, and if an open scientific debate is not possible
information is classified, any outlandish claim can find some
supporters in the scientific community. The most likely biological
threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time element associated
with it, is the threat of a
bird flu pandemic caused by a deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by
migrating wild birds.
The Biological Threat
Consider for example Dr. Ward Casscells, a renowned cardiologist that
late become an "expert" in bioterrorism. Even more recently, Dr.
Casscells joined the Army as a colonel . According to the US Defense
Department, "his years of research on now-spreading avian flu are now
deemed cutting edge." However, I know of no independent credible
scientific body that makes the same assessment: Dr. Casscells has
written a total of four papers on the effect of influenza on cardiac
disease which have been cited by no other scientists. His paper
"Influenza as a bioweapon" has a grand total of 5 citations, meaning a
mere 5 other papers refer to it; "cutting edge" scientific papers have
hundreds or thousands of citations. His only other paper on the subject,
"Influenza as a bioterror threat: the need for global vaccination" has
Nonetheless, Dr. Casscells' outstanding credentials as a scientist will
be invoked by the administration if he vouches for the credibility of
"intelligence" indicating that a dangerous mutated bird flu virus has
been developed in an Iranian underground bioweapons laboratory. Dr.
been surveilling the Middle East to "scope out the possibility for a
widespread outbreak" of bird flu. Because he has been advocating the
view that "Bird flu is poised to be an explosive problem" and has
predicted the use of influenza as a bioweapon, he is likely to be
inclined to believe such
claims. Similarly his scientific colleagues at the "Defense of Houston"
committee, that work on anticipating bioterrorism threats and are highly
lauded by the administration and very well funded by Army grants.
The Bush administration has spent vast sums of money in combating
bioterrorism threats, reportedly over $7 billion per year, without any
evidence or precedent for bioterrorism attacks. Nevertheless there will
always be plenty of scientists that will flock to where the grant money
is and devote efforts to validate conclusions that are valued by the
organizations giving the grants, and news media duly publicize the hyped
threat of bioterrorism. Still, last year over 700 scientists including 2
Nobel laureates signed a petition objecting to the diversion of funds
from projects of high public-health importance to biodefense, calling it
a "misdirection" of priorities. Dr. Richard H. Ebright, a renowned
molecular biologist, states that "A majority of the nation's top
microbiologists the very group that the Bush administration is
counting on to carry out its biodefense research agenda dispute the
premises and implementation of the biodefense spending."
On the supposed threat of bird flu, while it is continuously being hyped
by the administration , , , , , expert opinion is that it
a serious threat , , , , ,  and is politically
motivated. The blaming of bird flu spread on wild birds is also highly
questionable , .
On March 15th, right before the disclosure of the new National Security
Strategy, I suggested the bird flu casus belli against Iran, that would
"necessitate" bombing of Iranian facilities before the bird migration
begins in the Spring. Several elements emphasized in the March 16 NSS
to support that scenario, as discussed above. In a March 20 press
concerning federal preparedness for avian flu, Secretary Michael Leavitt
(who also warned a few weeks ago to store tuna and milk under the bed to
prepare for bird flu ) stated "Think of the world if you will as a vast
forest that is susceptible to fire. A spark if allowed to burn will
emerge as an uncontainable fire. That's a pandemic. If we are there when
the spark happens, it can be squelched. But if allowed to burn for a
time it begins to
spread uncontrollably." An aerial attack on Iranian installations may be
touted as the "squelching" of the bird flu pandemic spark.
Does Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?
The answer is contained in the Statement by the president of October 16,
2002, in signing into law the congressional authorization to use force
against Iraq. It states
"...I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to
use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I
appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my
signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the
long-standing positions of
the executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority
to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other
threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers
In other words: "I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need it
will not need it next time with Iran."
The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult with
Congress "in every possible instance", yet allows the president to
introduce Armed Forces into hostilities without Congressional
authorization; it simply compels him to terminate hostilities within 60
to 90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. Plenty time enough.
I t is unlikely that there will be a public announcement of the
impending attack before it starts, since it would generate opposition.
Allies do not want to be implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who
will be officially notified that an attack is about to take place? Most
likely, Iran itself.
Direct conversations between the US and Iran are about to start,
nominally on the subject of Iraq only. They will also provide the only
direct conduit for the US to communicate with Iran without
intermediaries. An "ultimatum" unacceptable to Iran, as was delivered
publicly to Iraq on March 17th, 2003,
could be delivered privately to Iran through that route.
The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the
The initial US attack on Iranian facilities is likely to be "measured":
a highly accurate strike on selected facilities "suspected" of
bioweapons work, with cruise missiles launched from submarines or ships
in the Persian Gulf. That is a component of the CONPLAN 8022 Global
Strike mission, which recently became operational and also includes
nuclear preemptive strikes.
The "clear" reasons and "just" cause for the administration to attack
stated as follows: if a bird flu pandemic can cause 150 million deaths
and there is even a one percent probability that the "intelligence" is
right, i.e. even if there is a 99% "uncertainty about the status of
hidden programs", the expected number of deaths that would be prevented
by bombing the Iranian facilities is the product of those two numbers,
i.e. 1.5 million, vastly larger than the few thousand Iranian casualties
due to "collateral damage."
Any military reaction by Iran to the attack, perhaps even a verbal
will be construed as "aggression" by Iran towards the US and Israel, and
result in large scale bombing of Iranian missile, nuclear and other
facilities. Does that sound absurd? Recall that the US and Britain
bombed Iraq's no-fly zones well before the Iraq invasion, and Iraqi
response was labeled "aggression toward planes of the coalition forces."
Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack, and
certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow.
Why will this happen? Because it was "pencilled in" a long time ago. The
actions of the US against Iran in recent years have been clearly
directed towards a confrontation, to suppress the rise of Iran as a
strong regional power that does not conform to US interests.
Can it be Prevented?
A small group of thugs is about to lead America across a line of no
return. On the other side of this line there is no nuclear taboo, no
restraint on preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no
incentive for non-nuclear nations to remain non-nuclear. A global
nuclear war and the destruction of humanity will be a distinct
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a million
people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is demonstrating
against the Iran war that will radically change the life of Americans
for generations to come. The more informed sectors of society,
scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the political
establishment, the military,
are not taking a strong stand against the impending war. Congress is
Only people in the know can stop this. Resigning from the job is not
good enough , , . People in the know have to come forward with
information that brings the impending attack to the forefront of
attention of Congress and the American public and thwarts it. Not doing
so is being complicit in a plan that will bring tragic consequences to
America and the world.
Else, all that will be left is to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Robespierre, Mussolini, Petain, Ribbentrop, Goering, Ceausescu also
positions of power and prominence at some point in their careers.
Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California
Get Your Dual Citizenship in the
Confederate States of America
Another Country that was invaded by Washington D.C. in
1862 and has been occupied ever since.
This has nothing to do with discrimination or slavery.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: