Flyby News Home - Flyby News Archives - Casinni NoFlyby - Flyby Links

Flyby  News

"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"

US Dirty Tricks * YAY Turkey * War Plans - Reactions

02 March 2003

"War is just a racket.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems
to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses."

--Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

1) US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
Russia to use veto power to "maintain world peace"
2) Turkish Deputies Refuse to Accept American Troops
3) War Plan for Iraq Largely in Place

US Prepares to Use Toxic Gases in Iraq
Official US Diplomat's letter of resignation to Colin L. Powell
The Constitutionality of War with Iraq - Update on Boston Law Suit
4) Kucinich's Prayer for America VIDEO
The Salon Interview: Dennis Kucinich

Editor's Notes:

The first item, if not so serious, would be funny. The US gets caught playing dirty tricks to win the vote for war on Iraq in the United Nations. The Bush administration is getting desperate. They lost their secondary terror-producing launching pad from Turkey. The article in item 2 states that it was more like sounds of silence since 'more Turkish lawmakers supported the measure than opposed it, but the resolution failed because the total number of "no" votes and abstentions exceeded the number of favorable votes. Under the Turkish Constitution, a resolution can become law only if it is supported by a majority of the lawmakers present.' But the fight is not over, and the US is still planning an attack regardless. Meanwhile Russia stated that it will use its veto power in the United Nations. This change in tone came following the intelligence information posted in previous issue, which makes it appear possible that Saddam might have agreed, and the rebuke at the UN was the response of Russia after a peace proposal for disarmament, US oil business in Iraq, and peaceful relations were guaranteed, but would Bush want peace? His actions and words tell another story, skull and bones and dark consequences.

Item 3 is about the Bush war-plan ready for an attack phase for merciless harm to life for generations. Following the Washington Post article, item 3, you will find another resource on the US now equipped with toxic riot-control agents in Iraq, which is in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Also, another resource, a heroic, patriotic letter of resignation to Colin L. Powell by an official US diplomat in protest of the threatening US war policy. I am sorry for all of us that the news is so jam-packed with critical info on overload. In this item, too, is a link-update on the Boston law suit questioning the Constitutionality of the Bush War with Iraq. Contrary to media reports, this justice action remains active, and Tuesday is the next scheduled Hearing. Only Congress can declare war. In essence, this is words of the US Constitution. Bad precedents for illegal wars since WWII don't count. Item four includes a short review by Goodsister on the Kucinich prayer for America (speech), and a link to the video. Also, this item has excerpts and a link to theSalon interview with Dennis Kucinich. This guy is truly an inspiration. Flyby encourages you to get to his site, and sign up to help his grassroots campaign to transform current policies and structure for democracy and government.

And please, take action this week to counter dirty tricks of Bush administration for war on Iraq.

Support disarmament-inspection plans supported by Germany and France.

UN member nations need to hear from us this week and next until they take Pro-Active measures to ensure Peace.

For "Uniting for Peace to Resolve the Iraq Crisis" information, see:,41257,


To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other.

-- Martin Luther

1) US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war

Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members.


The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.

Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq. The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia. The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'.

The complete article is posted:,6903,905899,00.html

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Russia to use veto power to "maintain world peace"
Posted: 1213 PM (Manila Time) | Feb. 28, 2003
Agence France-Presse

BEIJING - Russia will use its veto power in the United Nations to maintain world peace if needed, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday, without specifically mentioning Iraq.

"Russia has veto power. If needed, and under the conditions of maintaining world peace and stability, Russia will use its veto," Ivanov said through a translator at a press conference in the Chinese capital.

For the complete article, see:

2) Turkish Deputies Refuse to Accept American Troops

From: "Bill Smirnow"
Subject: Turkey Votes No Re Accepting US Stormtroopers
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 04:10:56 -0500

Thank God someone's stood up to the SOBs. Maybe dominos will start falling. Let's remember that this "may be war" if becomes a war is still illegal [not to mention astonishing immoral] on at least 2 counts- violation of the UN Charter in the form of Article 51 & violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Irrespective of weather there' war or not the sociopath that's currently occupying the White House after the 200 Coup De Etat [] needs to be impeached along with his entire cabinet. A worse case scenario has 3.6 million people being killed in which the USA & UK attack Iraq, Saddam unleashes bio and/or chem weapons and the USA uses nuclear weapons. 3.6 million potential murders and the media push for Bush's & Blair's bloodbath knowing this.
-Bill Smirnow

NY Times -
Turkish Deputies Refuse to Accept American Troops

NKARA, Turkey, March 1 - The Turkish Parliament today dealt a heavy blow to the Bush administration's plans for a northern front against Iraq, narrowly rejecting a measure that would have allowed thousands of American combat troops to use the country as a base for an attack. More Turkish lawmakers supported the measure than opposed it, but the resolution failed because the total number of "no" votes and abstentions exceeded the number of favorable votes. Under the Turkish Constitution, a resolution can become law only if it is supported by a majority of the lawmakers present.

For the complete article, see:

3) War Plan for Iraq Largely in Place
US Prepares to Use Toxic Gases in Iraq
Official US Diplomat's letter of resignation to Colin L. Powell

War Plan for Iraq Largely in Place
Quick, Simultaneous Attacks on Ground and From Air Envisioned ...
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page A01

After more than a year of intense work, the Bush administration's plan for an assault on Iraq is essentially in place and is based on an unusual approach that envisions simultaneous air and ground operations combining the U.S. advantages in firepower, speed and precision, according to several people familiar with the strategy. . .

. . .Indeed, the end of the fighting may be the beginning of the real difficulties for the U.S. military, some experts said, noting that the Bush administration is planning for a lengthy military occupation. "The major concerns," said Andrews, "are still pretty much what happens after the shooting stops."

2003 The Washington Post Company
The complete article was posted at this following URL link:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

US Prepares to Use Toxic Gases in Iraq

Published on Sunday, March 2, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
US Prepares to Use Toxic Gases in Iraq
by Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell

The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. "Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.

The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.

For the complete article, see:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Official US Diplomat's letter of resignation to Colin L. Powell

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships t he world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast mis-allocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation>

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The Constitutionality of War with Iraq - Update on Boston Law Suit

BY Marta Steele

MFSO plaintiff Laurie Manis is alive and well after her appearance on MSNBC's Special Edition report February 24 at 10 PM. That I can certify, having been in rapid email communication with her since I first began covering the lawsuit last weekend.

The most important news is that despite Joe Scarborough's (MSNBC) assertion that the judge "ruled against the suit and "found no evidence of conflict between the executive and the legislature" in the October Resolution as it stands, Laurie countered that "[o]ur case was appealed within minutes of being dismissed yesterday. By the way, Judge {Joseph L.] Tauro did not 'toss it out.' [today's Boston Globe insisted the judge "dismissed it" on Monday"!] He ruled that it was out of his jurisprudence precisely so it could be appealed in a higher federal court. (that is, Scarborough misinformed the viewing public on MSNBC)." Scheduling of the appeal, accomplished February 26, is already in place for March 4. "[T]he US First Circuit Court of Appeals [for the First District] agreed to an expedited hearing. The Court turned down the government's request for more time. The hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, at 9 A.M. in Boston."

For the complete article, see:


4) Kucinich's Prayer for America VIDEO
The Salon Interview: Dennis Kucinich

The following was posted by Goodsister,
moderator of kucinich4president list serve:

"I had read the text of this speech, but not until fairly recently did I have the pleasure of seeing this video. And I was more deeply moved than I thought possible. There is something oddly poetic about the Congressman's delivery, as well as his choice of words. And in the throes of this suppression of our voices, we are starved for poetry as never before.

Remember that this speech was given a year ago, long before his decision to run for President was made. I believe, in fact, that it was this speech that galvanized the first surges of support for DK to step up and lead us out of this appalling Bush nightmare. His singing those bits of our anthems at the beginning, in that quiet lilt that sounds Irish to me, raised the hair on the back of my neck. I felt I was witnessing a public expression of deep and very private feelings of patriotism and despair.

In any case, the speech is incredible. Crown thy good, America.
(Text below, but click on link to see video)

-- Goodsister


The Salon Interview: Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich spoke with Salon by telephone:


Salon -- Do you really, truly think you have any chance to win the Democratic presidential nomination?

Kucinich -- Yes. Because I'm the only candidate who has a message which encompasses international politics and domestic politics and shows the links between the two. I'm the only one. The only one who has a real economic platform for the United States; it's fair to say I come from the FDR school of the Democratic Party, which is a full-employment economy, to work for lower interest rates, to cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and return to bilateral trade conditioned on workers rights, human rights, and environmental principles, guaranteed healthcare for everyone, guaranteed Social Security.

Your speech to the DNC last Saturday was about the war and about foreign policy.

Successes on domestic policy have been undermined with our move towards war, and they will continue to be undermined. Whether it's Lawrence Lindsey, the president's former chief economic advisor, or Professor [William] Nordhaus of Yale, they both talk about the impact of the war on the economy, and they see the cost of the war as anywhere from $99 bil to a trillion or more, depending on the costs of bombing, the costs of occupation, the costs of reconstruction of Iraq. Two hundred billion dollars was Lindsey's estimate. In addition to that, we all understood that the rising cost of oil would have a very damaging effect on the national economy.

I led the effort in the House of Representatives; I organized 126 Democrats to challenge the administration's policy. And this is not only about Iraq. The White House relies on preemption and unilateralism, and in this complex world that can only mean more danger to United States.

And despite having a generally pro-life voting record, you support Roe v. Wade?

Yes; I've never been for overturning it. In fact, I had an opponent in 1998, Joe Slovenec, who was from Operation Rescue, and one of things he was pressing for in the campaign was a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I've never been for that.

I know that my voting record indicates very clearly that over a five-year period I have voted in ways that have been supportive of those who have worked to make sure that quality of life is affirmed. And there have been some cases in which those votes can be construed to be part of the polarity that this country's in. But expanding one's view is beyond changing one's mind.

Well, can you explain to me precisely what that view is?

I support a woman's right to choose, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. And on the other hand, I want to work to create alternatives to abortion. And I think it's possible to do both. Most Americans would like a leader to be elected who steps out of the polarity and tries to reconcile people and recognize that people may hold viewpoints that seem diametrically opposed.

In 1996 when you won your congressional seat, you declared, "I believe that life begins at conception." Have you changed your mind on that?

No, no. Not at all. That's what I think. But we live in a pluralistic society and there are many different spiritual beliefs in this Congress.

If I were a pro-choice Democrat how could I trust you?

I think what I've been able to demonstrate to people is they see someone who wants to lead this nation, someone who has the capacity for growth and the ability to look at complex and even divisive issues anew, and that I've done that.

Let me ask you about another apparent inconsistency. On "Meet the Press," in arguing against the war, you argued that the way to remove Saddam Hussein from power "is continue to use sanctions which thwart his efforts to grow." But in the Progressive magazine last November, you wrote, "The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children." How do you reconcile those two statements?

I probably should have used a modifier on "Meet the Press." I should have said smart sanctions. I would oppose some sanctions -- no military equipment, nothing for the nuclear industry; most people would agree with that. But I wouldn't want sanctions on dialysis equipment, on surgical instruments, on oxygen tents, on water-purification chemicals. I wouldn't want sanctions on nasal gastric tubes or on any kind of medical supplies or anything of use to the water.

Are there any conditions under which you would support military action against anyone?

There are two conditions. After an attack on our country or an imminent threat backed by incontrovertible evidence. Those would be my foundations of principle. But no such evidence exists in case of Iraq, and Iraq has not attacked our country.

You know, the day after attack there was a National Security Council meeting and, according to Bob Woodward in "Bush at War," in that meeting you had [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld saying, 'Let's go after Iraq.' That's on page 49 of his book. Check it out if you haven't read it already.

So this plan to go after Iraq has been on the boards for a long time.

But would those rules, those "foundations of principle," have permitted the U.S. to take action to stop the Nazis before Pearl Harbor? It would seem that President Kucinich wouldn't think we should take any action.

You're taking about a condition before the advent of the United Nations. Now that we live in a world where there's a structure and a United Nations charter, Hitler's activities would have been the subject of a Security Council action and the world community could have responded.

For the complete article, go to

Flyby News encourages you to visit and sign up for email notices from

Dennis Kucinich official web site for US President -

For a real change.. that is if we have an election, and can thwart off the efforts
of a terror-coup d'etat-group that acts to control and/or destroy the world.

Reminder -- this week -- take action to support the Uniting for Peace to Resolve the Iraq Crisis

A "Fair Use Policy" that describes Flyby News' use of copyrighted material is posted at

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and not necessarily those of Flyby News.

Your feedback, networking Flyby News, and forwarding us articles of interest, are welcomed and appreciated. You can write to the publisher/editor Jonathan Mark


=====Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era====>

= = = = = = = = = = =

Email address: