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

Flyby  News

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

War for Terror * 9/11 Shadow * Israel * Mexico

06 July 2006

War: first, one hopes to win;
then one expects the enemy to lose;
then, one is satisfied that he too is suffering;
in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.

-- Karl Kraus

(1874 ­ 1936)

1) Washington - Losing 'War on Terror'
- - C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
- - CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04
- - CIA Hid Key Info on 9/11 Thugs
2) Scholars for 9/11 Truth under Attack
3) Israel violating international law in Gaza Strip

- - A Black Flag
- - Switzerland says Israel violating international law in Gaza Strip
4) Mexican Election Fraud – Examined
- - Armed Madhouse and the huge task ahead of us

You can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake."

-- Jeanette Rankin

Editor's Notes:

North Korea shooting off missiles on the 4th of July is only a tidbit of the madness occurring around the globe at this time. Item one is of no surprise; a study showed that since 9/11/01 ‘the world has not become a safer place.’ Other articles cover incidences of CIA losing faith in their own unreality. Yet, the last article, by Seymour Hersh, has hopeful news of integrity left in some of those of the US military. “A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ”

So it is not time for us to lose faith. Item 2 shows the courage and patriotism of ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth.” The threats against them are getting ugly and desperate. Please keep exposing 9/11 truth. FN has recently updated information on your getting 9/11 truth DVDs at cost.

Item three touches upon similar circumstances with Israel as with the US. Their policies are making more terrorism result, not less. This item includes an article of Switzerland condemning the Israeli government for breaking international laws in their assault in Gaza.

And item four covers the election in Mexico, eerily similar to the election thefts in the US. Yet, as Yogi Berra might add, the game of saving democracy ‘ not over until it is over.’

"If we make peaceful revolution impossible,
we make violent revolution inevitable."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

1) Washington - Losing 'War on Terror'

- - C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
- - CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04
- - CIA Hid Key Info on 9/11 Thugs

Washington is Losing 'War on Terror': Experts
by Michel Moutot
Published July 5, 2006 by Agence France Presse

Despite high-profile arrests, security operations and upbeat assessments from the White House, the United States is losing its "global war on terror," experts warn.

Five years after Washington launched its hunt for those responsible for the September 11 attacks, the world has not become a safer place, and a new large-scale strike against America at some point appears likely, they say.

Truncated, for complete article, see:

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

- - C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
By Mark Mazzetti
New York Times
July 4, 2006

The bean counters shut down another charade, formalizing the "benign neglect" Osama has enjoyed since Tora Bora (?), Rawalpindi (??), Dubai (???), Bosnia/Kosovo (????)... - Ed.

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

Truncated, for complete article, see:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - CIA: Osama Helped Bush in '04
By Robert Parry
Consortium News

Tuesday 04 July 2006

On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as "Osama's endorsement of John Kerry." But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.

This stunning CIA disclosure is tucked away in a brief passage near the end of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders. Suskind wrote that the CIA analysts based their troubling assessment on classified information, but the analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office

Truncated, for complete article, see:

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

- - CIA Hid Key Info on 9/11 Thugs
by Derek Rose
New York Daily News
July 3rd, 2006

Perhaps another piece of the puzzle for those still wondering why CIA chief George Tenent received Bush's profuse thanks and the Medal of Freedom instead of 30 to life in Leavenworth. - Ed.

The feds bungled a key opportunity to possibly nix the 9/11 terror plot, it was reported yesterday.

An Arabic-speaking FBI agent had requested information about a Jan. 5, 2000, Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia, but the CIA never turned it over, The New Yorker reported.

The ambitious FBI detective, Ali Soufan, was so upset when he eventually got the information - after 9/11 - that he vomited.

Soufan, who had been investigating the 2000 attack on the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole that killed 17 sailors, realized the two plots were linked.

"And if the CIA had not withheld information from him he likely would have drawn the connection months before Sept. 11," The New Yorker reported. The intelligence Soufan had sought showed that a one-legged jihadi named Khallad - a key Al Qaeda lieutenant linked to the Cole bombing - had attended the Malaysia meeting where the Sept. 11 plot was hatched.


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

The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy.
Issue of 2006-07-10
Posted 2006-07-03

On May 31st, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced what appeared to be a major change in U.S. foreign policy. The Bush Administration, she said, would be willing to join Russia, China, and its European allies in direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. There was a condition, however: the negotiations would not begin until, as the President put it in a June 19th speech at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, “the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.” Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started. The question was whether the Administration expected the Iranians to agree, or was laying the diplomatic groundwork for future military action. In his speech, Bush also talked about “freedom for the Iranian people,” and he added, “Iran’s leaders have a clear choice.” There was an unspoken threat: the U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President’s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.

Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.

A crucial issue in the military’s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. “The target array in Iran is huge, but it’s amorphous,” a high-ranking general told me. “The question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?” The high-ranking general added that the military’s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. “We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,” he said.

“There is a war about the war going on inside the building,” a Pentagon consultant said. “If we go, we have to find something.”

In President Bush’s June speech, he accused Iran of pursuing a secret weapons program along with its civilian nuclear-research program (which it is allowed, with limits, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). The senior officers in the Pentagon do not dispute the President’s contention that Iran intends to eventually build a bomb, but they are frustrated by the intelligence gaps. A former senior intelligence official told me that people in the Pentagon were asking, “What’s the evidence? We’ve got a million tentacles out there, overt and covert, and these guys”—the Iranians—“have been working on this for eighteen years, and we have nothing? We’re coming up with jack shit.”

A senior military official told me, “Even if we knew where the Iranian enriched uranium was—and we don’t—we don’t know where world opinion would stand. The issue is whether it’s a clear and present danger. If you’re a military planner, you try to weigh options. What is the capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive response—like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior aides “really think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary,” he said.

In 1986, Congress authorized the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to act as the “principal military adviser” to the President. In this case, I was told, the current chairman, Marine General Peter Pace, has gone further in his advice to the White House by addressing the consequences of an attack on Iran. “Here’s the military telling the President what he can’t do politically”—raising concerns about rising oil prices, for example—the former senior intelligence official said. “The J.C.S. chairman going to the President with an economic argument—what’s going on here?” (General Pace and the White House declined to comment. The Defense Department responded to a detailed request for comment by saying that the Administration was “working diligently” on a diplomatic solution and that it could not comment on classified matters.)

A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ”

The military leadership is also raising tactical arguments against the proposal for bombing Iran, many of which are related to the consequences for Iraq. According to retired Army Major General William Nash, who was commanding general of the First Armored Division, served in Iraq and Bosnia, and worked for the United Nations in Kosovo, attacking Iran would heighten the risks to American and coalition forces inside Iraq. “What if one hundred thousand Iranian volunteers came across the border?” Nash asked. “If we bomb Iran, they cannot retaliate militarily by air—only on the ground or by sea, and only in Iraq or the Gulf. A military planner cannot discount that possibility, and he cannot make an ideological assumption that the Iranians wouldn’t do it. We’re not talking about victory or defeat—only about what damage Iran could do to our interests.”

Truncated, for the complete article, see:

2) Scholars for 9/11 Truth under Attack
Member's children threatened by name,
teacher's position under assault

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) July 4, 2006 --- The author of an article about the attack on the World Trade Center has found himself under attack for having published it in a new on-line publication, Journal of 9/11 Studies. Entitled "The Flying Elephant", the article discusses evidence that a third airplane was captured on video at the time of the WTC attack. He has now received a thinly-veiled threat against his children, who are cited by name, suggesting it would be a good idea if his article were to simply "go away".

Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan society of experts and scholars committed to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11. The journal, which is archived at, is its latest attempt to create forums for discussion and debate about these important issues beyond its web site, which is archived at The author, Reynolds Dixon, a writer and Professor of English, former lecturer and Fellow at Stanford University, has withdrawn from the society.

"Threats of this kind have no place in a democratic nation", said James H. Fetzer, the founder of S9/11T. "These are the tactics of brown-shirts and totalitarians who fear the discussion of controversial questions that threaten the government's control over the governed. This is a despicable act and we are not going to back down!" He added that the organization itself will assume responsibility for the study, which Reynolds has relinquished. "We cannot allow advances in understanding what happened on 9/11 to be suppressed by threats to our members. The stakes are simply too high."

In Wisconsin, another member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Kevin Barrett, who has been active in efforts to inform the American people about discoveries that have been made by Scholars--including that the Twin Towers were destroyed, not by the impact of airplanes or the ensuing fires, but by sophisticated controlled demolition; that Vice President Dick Cheney gave a "stand down" order to not shoot down the plane approaching the Pentagon; and that the FBI has now confirmed that it has "no hard evidence" connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11--confronts the loss of his job.

A Wisconsin legislator, Stephen Nass, Republican of Whitewater, has called for the University of Wisconsin-Madison to immediately fire him from his teaching position. The UW Office of the Provost has announced that it will conduct a 10-day review of Barrett's plans for an introductory fall course in Islam and of his past performance as a teacher at UW-Madison. Provost Patrick Farrell has endorsed his freedom of speech, but "We have an obligation to insure that his course content is academically appropriate, of high quality, and that he is not imposing his views on his students."

Prominent experts and scholars who are members of S9/11T include Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the George W. Bush administration; Bob Bowman, who directed research on the "Star Wars" program in both Republican and Democratic administrations; Andreas von Buelow, the former director of Science and Technology for Germany; and David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of theology at the Claremont Graduate School and author or editor of four books on the events of 9/11.

Concern about academic freedom at UW-Madison extends beyond the Scholars group. Ron Rattner, an attorney from San Francisco, CA, for example, has written to Provost Farrell with the observation that, "When teachers are intimidated against seeking and speaking truth on a campus renowned for its liberal and progressive traditions, we are in trouble". He added, "Universities are for inquiries, not inquisitions. UW must operate in the traditions of La Follette, not McCarthy". Robert La Follette was noted as a progressive leader, while Joe McCarthy portrayed his opponents as subversives.

Fetzer observed that the right wing is continuing to attack faculty who speak out on 9/11. "During an appearance on Hannity & Colmes (June 22, 2006), with Ollie North sitting in for Hannity, I made points about controlled demolition, the "stand down" order, and the FBI's position," he said, "but but they were more interested in whether I was discussing these things with my students than whether they were true." On a subsequent appearance on Laura Ingraham's program (June 30, 2006), "She had her staff chanting about 'nutty professors' before I was even introduced. Then, after I made some telling points at the end of the program, they edited their archived copy and cut it off after a long harangue attacking me. That is intellectually dishonest."

Many other members of S9/11T, including Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin, have spoken out in defense of academic freedom and in opposition to censorship and curtailing research into 9/11. "These nasty threats against the children of one member and the freedom of speech of another", Fetzer said, "make a sorry statement about this nation on the eve of the 4th of July." Coincidentally, Fetzer will appear with Barrett at the Mid-West Social Forum on Sunday, July 9, 2006, from 9-10:30 AM, at the Student Union of UW-Milwaukee, to discuss 9/11.

Contact information:

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(218) 726-7269 (office)
(218) 724-2706 (home)

Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 1 - June 2006

Another site:

For more resources on this topic, see:

Bush Conspiracy and 9/11 Investigative Reports,
looking into the unanswered questions.

3) Israel violating international law in Gaza Strip

- - A Black Flag
- - Switzerland says Israel violating international law

- - A Black Flag
By Gideon Levy

A black flag hangs over the "rolling" operation in Gaza. The more the operation "rolls," the darker the flag becomes. The "summer rains" we are showering on Gaza are not only pointless, but are first and foremost blatantly illegitimate. It is not legitimate to cut off 750,000 people from electricity. It is not legitimate to call on 20,000 people to run from their homes and turn their towns into ghost towns. It is not legitimate to penetrate Syria's airspace. It is not legitimate to kidnap half a government and a quarter of a parliament.

A state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organization. The harsher the steps, the more monstrous and stupid they become, the more the moral underpinnings for them are removed and the stronger the impression that the Israeli government has lost its nerve. Now one must hope that the weekend lull, whether initiated by Egypt or the prime minister, and in any case to the dismay of Channel 2's Roni Daniel and the IDF, will lead to a radical change.

Everything must be done to win Gilad Shalit's release. What we are doing now in Gaza has nothing to do with freeing him..

Truncated, for the complete article, see:
also posted

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

- - Switzerland says Israel violating international law
in Gaza Strip

Published by The Associated Press
Last update - 20:19 04/07/2006

Switzerland said Monday that Israel has been violating international law in its Gaza offensive by heavy destruction and endangering civilians in acts of collective punishment banned under the Geneva conventions on the conduct of warfare.

"A number of actions by the Israel Defense Forces in their offensive against the Gaza Strip have violated the principle of proportionality and are to be seen as forms of collective punishment, which is forbidden," the Swiss Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"There is no doubt that Israel has not taken the precautions required of it in international law to protect the civilian population and infrastructure," it said. The statement did not name the Geneva Conventions, but it referred to provisions of the 1949 treaty, which is regarded as the cornerstone of international law on the obligations of warring and occupying powers.

Truncated, for the complete article, see:


4) Mexican Election Fraud – Examined

- - Armed Madhouse and the huge task ahead of us

Uncounted votes raise questions about projections, fears of unrest
By Kevin G. Hall and Jay Root
Published Jul. 04, 2006 by McClatchy Newspapers

MEXICO CITY - Discovery of 3.5 million uncounted ballots in Mexico's disputed presidential election cast doubt on early projections showing conservative Felipe Calderon in the lead, raising fears of prolonged uncertainty and political unrest.

Hinting at insider corruption and citing a series of voting "irregularities," advisers to leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador are demanding a manual recount of every single vote and did not rule out street protests to ratchet up pressure on federal election authorities.

"You cannot come to a final outcome if you do not count all the votes," said Manuel Camacho Solis, a top Lopez Obrador aide. "We are going to demand that the votes are counted ... We have the right to go to the streets and we have the right to express our opinion with full freedom."

A simple recount begins Wednesday, but a full-blown election contest could drag Mexico through weeks of uncertainty and tension.

Calderon's ruling National Action Party, or PAN, dismissed the allegations of irregularities, portraying Lopez Obrador as a sore loser.

The standoff has left Mexico the equivalent of one hanging chad away from a Latin American version of the disputed 2000 U.S. presidential election - only with a greater potential for unrest among the country's poor masses, who already are receptive to the idea of fraudulent elections.

There had long been fears that a close election split could spark violent protests and plunge Mexico into a destabilizing crisis. Those fears seemed to ease after early results showed Calderon clinging to a thin but seemingly stable lead. Now the edgy feel is back, even though Lopez Obrador and his advisers have promised to act responsibly and work within established electoral procedures.

As of late Monday, preliminary vote totals released by Mexico's Federal Election Institute (IFE) showed Calderon leading with a little more than 400,000 votes, or 1 percent more than Lopez Obrador. A mandatory recount of vote tallies is scheduled to begin Wednesday - and the revelation that 3.5 million votes went uncounted has become Exhibit A in the growing controversy.

Luis Carlos Ugalde, head of Mexico's Federal Election Institute, acknowledged that the ballots had not been included in Election Day reports. He stressed in an interview with Televisa that it doesn't matter because an official winner won't be announced until the agency concludes its nationwide recount, perhaps by Friday.

He said the tally sheets representing the millions of uncounted votes were set aside on election night because of various "inconsistencies," such as indecipherable markings on the voting booth records.

Asked if the tallies will be included in the recount, Ugalde told the Televisa network: "Of course they will. These tallies will have to be reviewed at a table with representatives from all the parties."

The elections chief also warned that the preliminary tally, known by the Spanish initials PREP, shouldn't have been taken as projecting a winner. That was a rebuke to both candidates who declared themselves victorious.

It's unclear how important the uncounted votes will turn out to be. Some might be ruled invalid. Lopez Obrador would have to win an unusually large portion of the uncounted 3.5 million votes to reverse Calderon's lead.

Lopez Obrador aides said the votes were evenly distributed throughout the country and not concentrated in one particular region.

"I think that, given the margin, I think it will be very difficult for the vote to overturn," said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center-right think tank in Washington. He was in Mexico to observe the elections. "We still have to wait and see for the counting of the votes and then probably the adjudication process. This is probably going to go until Aug. 31."

That's a reference to the deadline the IFE has set for hearing election challenges. By law, a winner must be announced by Sept. 6, officials said.

Even if the 3.5 million votes don't swing the election, the PRD says it has other "inconsistencies" that prove the results are flawed, including double voting in a Calderon stronghold. They also say that hundreds of vote tallies show markings in congressional races but inexplicably no preference in the presidential contest.

A McClatchy photographer working in the troubled southern state of Oaxaca witnessed discrepancies between the vote tallies posted outside voting stations in the town of Tlalcolula and the data appearing on the IFE's Web site. The photographer also found examples of the presidential vote not counted.

PRD officials are also hinting that Calderon may have a conflict of interest in the election agency itself, saying that could explain why computerized returns showed both candidates actually shedding votes in the wee hours of election night.

Namely, Camacho, the Lopez Obrador adviser, said the campaign was looking into allegations that Calderon's brother-in-law had been involved in the creation of vote-tallying software used by the IFE.

"We are investigating this," he said.

Calderon's brother-in-law Diego Zavala has confirmed that he participated in a bid for election-count software but didn't win. The weekly news magazine Proceso on June 11 reported that the top election official overseeing election-reporting software, Rodrigo Morales, is an old friend of Calderon, raising questions of conflict of interest.

Arturo Sarukan, a top Calderon adviser, referred questions about election software to the IFE. As for the broader allegations of irregularities and skewed results, he said he was certain that Calderon's victory would hold and that the PRD's drive to discredit the IFE, one of the few Mexican institutions held in high esteem, would backfire.

"We haven't seen any irregularities," he said. "They are making a fatal error."

Gabriel Guerra Castellanos, a political analyst, columnist and spokesman for former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, said the IFE's technical work is above question. It's communication with the public and political parties, however, leaves much to be desired.

"The IFE has been real slow in terms of providing information. It has allowed this vacuum (on information), he said, adding, "If you give people excuses to question things, somebody is bound to do it."
also posted

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mexico Election Vote Count Begins Today Under Cloud of Uncertainty
By Mark Weisbrot
t r u t h o u t | Press Release

Wednesday 05 July 2006

Electoral commission's mistakes undermine credibility of the election.

Washington, DC - The credibility of Mexico's electoral process was thrown into question on Tuesday morning when the head of Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), Luis Carlos Ugalde, acknowledged that as many as 4 million votes had not been counted in the preliminary vote count that began after the polls closed on Sunday.

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

Published by Greg Palast
July 3rd, 2006 in Articles

The election race south of the US border is officially too close to call. Now, where have we heard that before?

As in Florida in 2000, and as in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls show the voters voted for the progressive candidate. The race is “officially” too close to call. But they will call it - after they steal it.

Reuters reports that, as of 8pm eastern time, as voting concluded in Mexico, exit polls showed Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the “leftwing” party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leading in exit polls over Felipe Calderon of the ruling conservative National Action party (PAN).

We’ve said again and again: exit polls tell us how voters say they voted, but the voters can’t tell pollsters whether their vote will be counted. In Mexico, counting the vote is an art, not a science - and Calderon’s ruling crew is very artful indeed. The PAN-controlled official electoral commission, not surprisingly, has announced that the presidential tally is too close to call.

Calderon’s election is openly supported by the Bush administration.

Truncated, for the complete article, see:

For updated articles from Greg Palast, see:

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

- - Armed Madhouse and the huge task ahead of us
By Joan Brunwasser
Published on July 4, 2006 by OpEd News

For more on this issue, and what you can do, visit:
Campaigns for reclaiming a lost USA democracy

Translate this Page!

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and not necessarily those of Flyby News.
A "Fair Use Policy" that describes FNs' use of copyrighted material is posted at
Your feedback for story suggestions and networking Flyby News are welcomed and appreciated.
You can write to the publisher/editor Jonathan Mark via email:
If you would like to receive more Flyby News alerts for the New England
region, send an email to & insert "subscribe" in subject

Flyby News is educational and nonviolent in focus, and has supported critical campaigns
for a healthy environment, human rights, justice, peace, and nonviolence,
since the launching of NASA's Cassini space probe in 1997.

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

= = = = = = = = = = =

Email address: