"Robots are pouring onto battlefields as if a new species of mechanotronic alien had just landed on our planet," the publication says in an editorial on their development in its July issue. "The prospect of androids that hunt down and kill on their own accord (shades of Terminator) should give us all pause. An automatic pilot that makes its own calls about whom to shoot violates the 'human' part of international humanitarian law, the one that recognizes that some weapons are so abhorrent that they just should be eliminated."

Since 2003, 7,000 unmanned aircraft and 12,000 ground vehicles have entered the U.S. military inventory, "entrusted with missions that range from seeking out snipers to bombing the hideouts of al-Qaeda higher-ups in Pakistan," writes P.W. Singer in an accompanying article titled "War of The Machines."

Singer, who directs the 21st Century Defense Initiative at The Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C., a non-profit research think tank, says robots include:

# Lockheed Martin's High-Altitude Airship, an unmanned blimp that carries a radar the length of a football field and can fly at nearly 19,800 meters for over a month at a time.

# Contractor QinetiQ North America's MAARS robot, resembling a tank that is armed with a machine gun and grenade launcher that does sentry and sniper duty.

# The miniature surveillance "bot" from contractor AeroVironment that "mimics a hummingbird in size and its ability to hover over a target" and which flaps its wings frenetically as its cameras observe a scene.

# The Counter-Rocket Artillery and Mortar, or C-RAM, which resembles Star Wars robot R2-D2 and is armed with a machine gun that can shoot down incoming missiles and is used to protect the Green Zone in Baghdad.

# The TALON ground robot that can defuse bombs and peeks over obstacles to hunt for enemies.

# The ChemBot, conceived by the University of Chicago and contractor iRobot, of Bedford, Mass., and which is "a bloblike machine that shifts shape, such that it is able to squeeze through a hole in the wall."

# The Predator drone that can track 12 targets at once and which has been used in combat since 1995. This unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV) from General Atomics is armed with two lethal Hellfire missiles that have killed as many as 40 al-Qaeda leaders but which, by some estimates, have killed as many as 1,000 civilians across Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Author Singer writes that robots are machines built to operate in a "sense-think-act" paradigm. Information from their sensors is relayed to computer processors or artificial intelligence software that decide whether to activate their mechanical "effectors."

"The global Positioning Satellite system, video-game-like remote controls and a host of other technologies have made robots both useful and usable on the battlefield during the past decade," Singer writes. "The increased ability to observe, pinpoint and then attack targets in hostile settings without having to expose the human operator to danger became a priority after the 9/11 attacks...," he writes.

What's more, Singer intimates that we ain't seen nothin' yet. "The inexorable growth in computing power means that today's recently enlisted soldiers may end their careers witnessing robots powered by computers literally a billion times more capable than those currently available," he writes.

In an editorial titled "Terminate the Terminators," Scientific American warns, "Some might call a ban on autonomous robots naïve or complain that it would tie the hands of soldiers faced with irregular warfare. But although robots have clear tactical advantages, they carry a heavy strategic price."

"The laws of war are an act not of charity but of self-interest," the editorial continues. "The U.S. would be weakened, not strengthened, if chemical and biological weapons were widespread, and the same is true of robots. They are a cheap way to offset conventional military, and other nations and groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon are already deploying them...We can never put the genie back into the bottle, but putting a hold on further development of this technology could limit the damage."

While this is perfectly true, the sentiment of the Editors is unlikely garner much support inside the Pentagon, which now dominates the planet military from 1,000 bases in the U.S. and 800 more overseas and has the financial wherewithal to manufacture countless robots, which Hezbollah does not.

The prospect of waging wars on battlefields ll,000 kilometers distant by remote control from computer terminals near Las Vegas, Nev., without exposing its own personnel to harm may seem like a dream come true to the Pentagon---but because of its persistent aggressiveness much of the rest of humanity may see it as a nightmare. As the Scientific American article points out, as a result of the deadly Predator strikes, a leading Pakistan newspaper has already branded the U.S. a "principal hate figure." That is, of course, precisely how the "Empire," with its Imperial Walkers and robot soldiers, was perceived by the "human" rebels in the 1977 movie "Star Wars." Need I say more?

Sherwood Ross is an American public relations consultant "for good causes." He has contributed to many national magazines and formerly worked for major dailies and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com

Giving priority to bioweapons research at NIH, started under the Bush Administration and continuing under President Obama, "diverts resources from critical public-health and scientific objectives," says Richard Ebright, Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.

"The negative impact has been most severe in bacteriology, in which NIH research priorities have been catastrophically re-ordered--with research on bacterial bioweapons receiving more support than research on the top five bacterial causes of death combined--and in which non-bioweapons research has suffered catastrophic losses in resources and personnel," Ebright said.

Ebright cited the examples of research into two bacterial pathogens: "Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which claim 40,000 and 20,000 U.S. lives each year, respectively. Each kills more Americans than HIV-AIDS (15,000 U.S. lives) "but neither of these bacterial pathogens is on the list of NIAID Priority Pathogens," Ebright pointed out. (NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is the subdivision of NIH responsible for infectious-disease research.)

"These two killer bacterial pathogens are not in NIAID's 'Category A', with the anthrax bacterium and the smallpox virus, or even in NIAID's 'Category B' or 'Category C,'" Ebright says. "Something is wrong--very wrong--when NIAID fails to prioritize the top infectious cause of U.S. death," he said in an email to this reporter.
Other top bacterial causes of U.S. deaths include Enterococcus faecium/faecalis, Clostridium difficile, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. "Of these, only the last is on the NIAID Priority Pathogens list and this pathogen is only in Category C," Ebright said.

Asked "What is the mood of the scientific life sciences community at this time toward the Administration?" Ebright responded, "Hopeful expectation" but "growing concern that, thus far, there has been more continuity [from the Bush Administration] than change."

The scope of the government's involvement in bioweapons research, may be gauged from its estimated expenditure of $70 billion since 9/11 and the fact that, according to Ebright, more than 400 U.S. institutions are engaged in such work.

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, said that in constant dollars the $70 billion "is twice what they spent on the Manhattan Project to develop the A-bomb--ergo, this is a weapons program."

Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 for the U.S., said President Bush "turned the NIH into a front organization for biowarfare work," and "(President) Obama is simply continuing the Bush policies" and is "now even exporting biowarfare capabilities to Third World Countries."

Asked about the scope of the nation's biowarfare activities, Boyle estimated there are "about 13,000 death scientists involved...(so) Dr. (Josef) Mengele has arrived on American campuses all over and the universities' Institutional Review Boards (to review biowarfare research programs) are a joke and a fraud, too." (Mengele was a German SS officer and physician who, during WWII, performed diabolical experiments on prisoners at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland.)

Boyle said, "There is so much money involved that universities simply are not going to turn down these proposals no matter how reprehensible they might read..."

At his own University of Illinois, Boyle said, previous biowarfare research and development contracts with the Pentagon clearly stated: "We have selected pigs (to gas with biowarfare agents) because they have a circulatory system and a respiratory system similar to human beings."

Boyle said, "I am sure similar type biowarfare contracts that are clearly anti-human, anti-ethical, illegal and criminal on their face alone have been approved all over (at) American universities by now. Money talks. Ethics walks."

Sherwood Ross formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and contributed regular columns to Reuters and UPI. His articles on biowarfare have been published in The Humanist and other magazines. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com

Washington has been pressuring its NATO allies to pour in more fighters even though Europeans don't want any part of it. The New York Times reported Nov. 25th the U.S. is asking NATO for 10,000 more troops above the 45,000 already in place. That could bring total Allied forces to about 150,000. Toss in 70,000 private contractors and the total force soars to over 200,000. Yes, Afghanistan is shaping up as another Viet Nam.

Obama apparently never seriously considered ending the war diplomatically. Recall his blustering campaign rhetoric about defeating the Taliban; recall the public commitment last December of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to strengthen military bases in Afghanistan. Gates was the Bush official Obama continued in office.

Even as polls show a majority of Americans want U.S. forces out of Afghanistan and that Americans do not believe the war is worth fighting, President Obama---a former editor at the CIA front Business International Corporation in 1983-84---embraces a position in line with the long-held CIA view the U.S. must control the Middle East's energy resources. It was the CIA that overthrew Iran in 1953 after Tehran nationalized its oil production, depriving British Petroleum of its lucrative swindle. Afghanistan is valued today for the oil and gas pipelines the U.S. wants built there, no matter what other reasons Obama gives.

"In the late 1990s," writes Washington reporter Bill Blum in his "Anti-Empire Report," "the American oil company, Unocal, met with Taliban officials in Texas to discuss the pipelines... Unocal's talks with the Taliban, conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration...continued as late as 2000 or 2001." Adds Paul Craig Roberts writing in the December Rock Creek Free Press of Washington, D.C., the U.S./U.K. military aggression in Afghanistan "had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan." Roberts explains:

"The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from 'terrorism,' and the utter fools would believe the lie." The war, Roberts continued, is to guard the pipeline route. "It's about money, it's about energy, it's not about democracy."

According to an AP dispatch of November 26th, "The president promised this week to 'finish the job' begun eight years ago...but liberal Democrats already are lining up against it (escalation), in part because of the also-surging cost---up to $75 billion a year." Describing the war in workplace terminology makes it sound as if Obama is running a personnel agency that was dispatching workers to build some public works, not as though he is continuing President George Bush's illegal war.

Apparently, only escalation in Afghanistan was considered by Obama. As The Washington Post reported last December, "standing at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is making a 'sustained commitment' to that country, one that will last 'some protracted period of time.'" The story goes on to discuss $300 million in new construction at just one base, including a new power plant, electrical and water distribution systems, and housing for 1,500 personnel. Gates hardly would have made a "sustained commitment" if Obama planned to withdraw. And every day the war goes on while Obama mulls his options is a day of victory for the hawks.

In January, a Defense Department report stated "building a fully competent and independent Afghan government will be a lengthy process that will last, at a minimum, decades," The Nation magazine's Jonathan Schell reports (Nov. 30). So far from defeating the Taliban are Allied forces that US military contractors "are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes," Aram Roston writes in the same issue. "It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting." In fact, an American executive there told Roston, "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money."

Nevertheless, the slick orator from Illinois continues U.S. aggression in the energy-rich Middle East. Obama clearly is no liberal, much less a progressive. He is a reactionary. He is advancing the militarist policies of the Bush-Cheney regime. He is defending the CIA. He is increasing the total Pentagon budget. He is expanding an illegal war into Pakistan. Once this is understood, the other pieces of Obama policy fall into place. Obama is continuing the illegal "extraordinary rendition" kidnappings authorized by President Bush. Obama rejects prosecuting CIA torture goons who broke the law and refuses to release photos of their grisly handiwork. Obama balks at signing a treaty to ban land mines that has been affirmed by 150 nations. Obama expands the Predator assassination attacks claiming hundreds of civilian lives. And so on, ad nauseam.

The military-industrial complex will support Obama's escalation of these wars in order to cash in on those lucrative defense contracts valued at $700 billion a year while good jobs in other sectors of the U.S. economy, starved for investment capital, continue to shrink; while cities continue to decline; while handgun massacres become commonplace in our schools and offices; while homeowners are forced into the streets; while start-ups can't get loans; and while Wall Street loots the Treasury. In short, Obama is propelling the once great USA toward Third World status.

What's more, in all the recent debate in Washington, who has heard a word of concern for the impact of escalation on the suffering civilian populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

"Our military demands ever more troops," Veterans Speaker Alliance's founder Paul Cox said at an Oakland, Calif., rally, last week with Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the initial Afghan aggression. "Meanwhile, our economy is in the toilet, health care costs are out of control, and we can't afford to educate our children. But somehow, there's always money for war." Rep. Lee called for putting "this stage of American history--a stage characterized by open-ended war--to a close."

Europeans---who are supporting a NATO organization that has no real purpose since the end of the Cold War---would agree with Lee. As the New York Times reported Nov. 25th: "America's European allies have remained noncommittal about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. France and Germany in particular have continued to limit their combat role, with both countries refusing to deploy troops in the south of the country, where Taliban forces are strongest."

If the majority Democrats won't end it, Americans could embrace the Green Party, which has consistently called for pulling U.S. forces out of the Middle East, sharply reducing the Pentagon budget, and shifting spending to respond to true public needs. Right now, voting Green appears to be the way to let the peace dove out of its cage.

(Reach the author, a former reporter for the Chicago Daily News, at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

"Give him your purse!" I insisted, meaning that hanging on to it wasn't worth our lives. Still, she refused and the tug-of-war in the parking lot of my apartment building continued.

"Here!" I said to the gunman, pitching my wallet to him, "take this!" He caught the wallet, turned and fled across a wide, deserted ballpark. Even in the darkness, we could follow him running for a long way, silhouetted in the lights of the U.S. Capitol, lit up at night ahead of him like a giant white cake.

A few days later I received a call from a Maryland department store inquiring if I had sent a young man to buy a TV set on my credit card. A store detective arrested the youth and I dutifully showed up in court on the day of the trial only to learn he had skipped.

Not long afterwards, a judge who lived in my building made page one of the Washington Star for resisting the gunmen who jumped him in the same parking lot. >From his hospital bed he told reporters we Americans had to "stand up" to armed robbers, a noble sentiment spoken through his pain, considering all the bullets they pumped into his body.

We were lucky, my friend and I. We could have been killed, as so many others are being killed each day. As Jill Lepore writes in the November 9th "The New Yorker," the U.S. "has the highest homicide rate of any affluent democracy, nearly four times that of France and the United Kingdom and six times that of Germany." UK averages about 60 gun homicides annually and Germany averages fewer than 200. More Americans are being murdered on our city streets than in all our foreign wars.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert last April 24th estimated 12,000 Americans are shot dead each year, 2,000 of them children, and 70,000 more are wounded but, like the D.C. judge, survive. Do the math: the total number of Americans shot dead each year is three times that of all U.S. troops killed in Iraq in six years of fighting. There is rage in our hearts; there is war in our streets.

A big factor in the homicide rate is the availability of guns. In a typical year, guns are responsible for two of every three murders. There are 238 million privately-owned firearms in USA. Big city mayors and police chiefs favoring curbs on hand guns and automatic weapons seem unable to overcome the clout of the gun lobby in Congress. Americans have modified or ignored much of the U.S. Constitution over the years yet the National Rifle Association insists that the 2nd Amendment phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is sacrosanct, even as innocent people are mowed down by the thousands.

Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, writes, "One of the ugly truths about many gun-control advocates is that they're more concerned about pushing for gun control than they are about reducing violence." Note how LaPierre disparages their motives, when, in fact, some people become gun-control advocates only after the murder or wounding of a family member or friend. It's quite likely that if homicidal waves of handgun violence did not occur nearly every day, as they do, nobody would bother chalking the slogan "Gun Control Now!" on the NRA wall.

"A vastly disproportionate number of murders and murder victims are young adult men," writes The New Yorker's Lepore. "When baby boomers reached that age bracket, the homicide rate soared. Now that they've aged out of their most lethal years, the rate has fallen." Fallen, yet still unacceptable. Marcus Baram of ABC News reported last April 23 that teenagers in Chicago are 10 times more likely to be the victims of gun violence than their counterparts outside the city limits. Between 2002 and 2006, more than 650 Chicago teens were shot and killed! This is nearly as many as all U.S. troop deaths since the start of the war in Afghanistan. Are defenders of "gun rights" blind to the fact we have a war raging in our city streets?

Surely, one factor contributing to the homicide rate is poverty. How many times have you read about youths from affluent suburbs arrested for armed robbery? Can you think of one? Not only are children in blighted cityscapes---where supermarkets and chain retail outlets fear to tread-- deprived of legitimate job opportunities but if they commit crime, do time and are set free, their criminal past makes it tough for them to find gainful work. It's not uncommon for six or seven out of every ten ex-cons to be returned to the Big House within three years of their release, the Justice Department reports. Worse, as "economy measures," legislators right now are closing down prison drug rehab, educational, and vocational programs that would give ex-cons a fighting chance to succeed. There's money for wars in three countries in the Middle East and money to operate a thousand military bases around the world but we short-change our own.

Another contributing factor to the high homicide rate may be the stiff sentences politicians' mandate, enacting laws that limit the sentencing discretion of judges. In his treatise "On Crimes and Punishments," published in 1764, Italian nobleman Cesare Beccaria wrote, "The countries and times most notorious for severity of punishment have always been those in which the bloodiest and most inhumane of deeds were committed."

Famed Chicago lawyer Clarence Darrow argued harsh laws did zero to deter crime. In 18th Century England, he noted, pickpockets worked the crowds at public hangings even though picking pockets was punishable by hanging. Today, stiff sentences have contributed to putting a record 2.3 million Americans behind bars, so many that judges from Alabama to California are ordering governors to make their prisons livable. Legislators are considering paroling oldsters rather than building more lock-ups.

In Congress, bills are being debated (1) to require criminal background checks for all would-be buyers at gun shows, reversing the no-questions-asked practice; (2) to limit bulk sales of handguns; and (3) to ferret out that small minority of reckless licensed gun dealers whose sales account for 60% of crime scene weapons. Such laws can work. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.) claims since enactment of his bill preventing domestic abusers from buying a gun, more than 150,000 attempted gun purchases have been blocked.

In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger recently signed a law obligating sellers of handgun ammunition to record the names of buyers and other information about their purchase. A similar law in Sacramento from mid-January, 2008, through August, 2009, helped police find 229 prohibited people who had illegally bought ammunition---173 of them with previous felony convictions. And by matching ammo purchases with names on the state's prohibited persons file, the Sacramento D.A. could charge 181 illegal ammunition buyers with felonies, according to an article on the Huffington Post.

Californians are reacting to a series of horrific shooting murders. For one, there was the Los Angeles city worker on Feb. 25, 2005, who sprayed his boss and another employee with AK-47 bullets after being reprimanded for showing up late for work. For another, there was the murder at a traffic stop of four Oakland police officers last March 21 by a shooter with a long criminal record. Other states need to follow California's initiative.

Another anti-violence step would be to pay children to stay in school. This could put money into the pockets of young males who might otherwise pull stick-ups, such as the one in Washington referred to above. One organization, the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship, (NIF-ty for short) advises public school children on how to earn money buying and selling, and many trained kids open their own retail outlets. NFTE founder Steve Mariotti, a former Ford auto executive, got the idea after he was mugged jogging in Manhattan by some youths for the few bucks he was carrying. His outfit reports it has helped 230,000 young people run businesses in 22 states and 13 countries.

Beyond these steps, educators need to press for courses to teach non-violence in our public schools. After all, American children are deluged with violence-filled Hollywood movies and video games where killing is trivialized. The Non-Violence Project USA Inc., whose symbol is a handgun with a knotted barrel, is one non-profit that engages teens in pro-social activities, recognizing the wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi's observation, "If we are to achieve real peace, we shall have to begin with children."

Executive Director Diane Landsberg of the Miami chapter in Coral Gables, Fla., says, "We have become a very rude and impatient society. We are taught to rush but not to wait. Courtesy and politeness matters. In order to get respect you've got to give respect." One positive action might be for the NRA's LaPierre to show his critics some respect, to give their ideas a chance, as in Sacramento, to make a difference.

(Reach the author, a former reporter for the Chicago Daily News, at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

"The secrecy surrounding the understandings was important because there is growing antipathy toward America in Pakistan, as well as a history of distrust," Hersh writes in the November 16th issue of The New Yorker magazine.

"Many Pakistanis believe that America's true goal is not to keep their weapons safe but to diminish or destroy the Pakistani nuclear complex," he writes. The arsenal is a source of great pride among Pakistanis, "who view the weapons as symbols of their nation's status and as an essential deterrent against an attack by India."

Pakistan keeps its nuclear warheads separate from their triggers to prevent anyone from launching a warhead without at least pausing to put it together. A U.S. rapid-response team of terrorism and nonproliferation experts is stationed at the ready at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, is at the ready to fly to Parkistan if the security of any of its 80-plus nukes is threatened.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari "spoke with derision" in an interview about U.S. concern over the vulnerability of his country's nuclear arsenal, Hersh said. "In your country, you feel that you have to hold the fort for us. The American people want a lot of answers for the errors of the past, and it's very easy to spread fear. Our Army officers are not crazy, like the Taliban. They're British-trained. Why would they slip up on nuclear security? A mutiny would never happen in Pakistan."

Moreover, an unnamed senior Pakistani official said to have close ties to Zardari added, "you'd like control of our day-to-day deployment. But why should we give it to you? Even if there was a military coup d'etat in Pakistan, no one is going to give up total control of our nuclear weapons. Never. Why are you not afraid of India's nuclear weapons?"

The official answered his own question with, "Because India is your friend, and the longtime policies of America and India converge. Between you and the Indians, you will fuck us in every way. The truth is that our weapons are less of a problem for the Obama Administration than finding a respectable way out of Afghanistan."

A former senior U.S. intelligence official told Hersh the Pakistanis gave the U.S. intelligence about their warheads, some of the warheads' locations, and their command-and-control system. However, a U.S. military spokesman for Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "I am not aware of our receipt of any such information."

In the July/August issue of Arms Control Today, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former director of the Department of Energy's intelligence operation, warned of the "lethal proximity between terrorists, extremists, and nuclear weapons insiders" in Pakistan. "Purely in actuarial terms, there is a strong possibility that bad apples in the nuclear establishment are willing to cooperate with outsiders for personal gain or out of sympathy for their cause. Nowhere in the world is this threat greater than in Pakistan..." He added, "Anything that helps upgrade Pakistan's nuclear security is an investment" (in America's security).

The question of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is made more perplexing by U.S. efforts to pursue its Afghan enemies on Pakistani soil and involve that country's military in its operations. Sultan Amir Tarar, a retired Pakistani intelligence official, told Hersh that the U.S. campaign will backfire. "The Americans are trying to rent out their war to us." If Obama persists, he added, "there will be an uprising here, and this corrupt government will collapse." Tarar is further quoted as saying, "The longer the war goes on, the longer it will spill over in the tribal territories, and it will lead to a revolutionary stage."

Tarar believes the U.S. has to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban, even if that means direct talks with Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, Hersh reported. He noted that stepped-up fighting in the tribal areas of Pakistan could further "radicalize" that nation.

How respect for the U.S. is declining in Pakistan was reflected by a source described as "a retired senior Pakistani intelligence officer" who told Hersh, "My belief today is that it's better to have the Americans as an enemy rather than as a friend, because you cannot be trusted. The only good thing the United States did for us was to look the other way about an atomic bomb when it suited the United States to do so."

And in India, which has been at loggerheads with Pakistan since the 1947 partition, an official told Hersh, "They like us better in Pakistan than you Americans. I can tell you that in a public-opinion poll we, India, will beat you."

Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, currently living in exile in London, told Hersh that he is troubled by U.S.-controlled Predator drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan, which began in 2005. "I said to the Americans, 'Give us the Predators.' It was refused. I told the Americans, 'Then just say publicly that you're giving them to us. You keep on firing them but put Pakistan Air Force markings on them.' That, too, was denied."

Speaking of Predator attacks, Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai told Hersh, "What the (Pakistani) Army did not understand, and what the Americans don't understand, is that by demolishing the house of a suspected Taliban or their supporters you are making an enemy of the whole family."

The issue of nuclear weapon instability in Pakistan reflects on the series of historic American decisions to (a)manufacture and use atomic weapons in World War Two in the first place, and (b) to spend literally trillions of taxpayer dollars over the years to increase their numbers and lethality and (c)to help nations such as Israel, India and Pakistan to build their nuclear arsenals over the objections of the international authority. The U.S. (d) has also sold warplanes capable of carrying nuclear bombs both to hostile neighbors India and Pakistan, further increasing the possibility of their use.

(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer and public relations consultant for good causes. He formerly reported for the Chicago Daily News and worked as a columnist for wire services. Reach him at sherwoodr10@gmail.com)

"People convicted of possessing even one ounce of marijuana can face a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in jail, and having even one plant in your yard is a federal felony," progressive organizer Jim Hightower and co-author Phillip Frazer point out in the November issue of "The Hightower Lowdown."

Police arrest someone in America every 36 seconds on marijuana charges, with a record 872,000 arrests made in 2007, "more than for all violent crimes combined," Hightower and Frazer point out. They note that 89 per cent of all marijuana arrests "are for simple possession of the weed, not for producing or selling it."

They argue the drug war "is doing far more harm than marijuana itself ever will," because (1) it diverts hundreds of thousands of police agents from serious crimes "to the pursuit of harmless tokers"; (2) it costs taxpayers at minimum $10 billion a year to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana users and sellers; (3) it enables government to snatch the cars, money, computers and other properties of people caught up in drug raids even if they have had no charges filed against them; and (4) it allows "police agents at all levels to trample our Bill of Rights in their eagerness to nab pot consumers."

The drug war has also unleashed a torrent of racism in the form of unjust sentencing, which confines crack-cocaine users who are mostly black to prison for longer terms than powder snorters, who are mostly white.

Hightower and Frazer say authorities have perverted the infamous "Patriot Act" of 2001 for use in non-terrorism cases, allowing "sneak-and-peak" search warrants to be used in drug war probes, including pursuit of marijuana users. The Act's provisions were supposed to be applied only for suspected terrorist acts. Only three of the Justice Department's 763 requests for "sneak-and-peak" last year were used for terrorism searches, they report in Lowdown.

By outlawing drugs, Hightower and Frazer contend, Congress has created "a vast, murderous narco-state within Mexico" to satisfy U.S. consumer demand for the drugs. And Plan Colombia, the multi-billion operation started by Bill ("I didn't inhale") Clinton in 2000 to eradicate cocoa production there, has failed, judging by the 15 per cent increase in coca production.

For all the legislation against it, pot is more plentiful than ever and 10 per cent of Americans told surveyors they have enjoyed using it in the previous year while four in ten say they used it at some point in their lives. Plus, a 2005 survey found 85 per cent of high school seniors claimed pot was "easy to get", easier than alcohol, which is a regulated drug, Hightower Lowdown points out.

The publication quotes a University of Michigan student who told them, "If the government trusts society to use alcohol responsibly, it is idiotic to assume citizens are somehow incapable of responsible use of cannabis."

A Gallup opinion poll in 2005 found that 51 per cent of Americans stating alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana and 52 per cent saying it should be legalized, taxed, and regulated.

State and local governments, Hightower and Frazer report, "have begun walking step by step away from the weed war." Since 1996, 13 states from Rhode Island to Alaska have passed laws to allow growing and distribution of doctor-prescribed marijuana for medical purposes. What's more, pot possession is no longer criminalized in a dozen states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon.

The drive now is for outright legalization of pot, the authors say. This would enable officials to take the exorbitant profit and violence out of illicit black-market weed by legalizing it and turning it into a revenue-producer that would rake in tax dollars.

Instead, the Office of National Drug Control Policy says, Americans spend $9 billion a year buying pot from Mexico; $10 billion on pot from Canada, and $39 billion on home-grown pot, now America's Numero Uno cash crop---"topping the value of corn and wheat combined." By one estimate, legalization would produce annual tax revenues of $6.2 billion. In Portugal, which legalized all drugs in 2001, hard drug use has showed a stunning decline while the numbers of people getting detox aid has soared, Time magazine reported last April 26th. By contrast, USA has the highest rates of drug use in the world.

As Rep. Barney Frank has said, "I now think it's time for the politicians to catch up to the public. The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly."

There is, however, a downside to the legalization of pot: some of the individuals in the legal system who depend on the arrests of pot smokers might have to find worthwhile jobs instead. Look at all the paychecks that get cut: The cops make their collars. The bail bondsmen get their rake off. The prosecutors make their cases. The social workers write up their interviews. The clerks push their papers. The lawyers collect their fees. The judges render their verdicts. The prison guards make their rounds. The vendors sell their baloney sandwiches. The construction firms build their additions. And the shrinks nod their heads.

One last thought: cigarettes kill 440,000 Americans every year and sicken millions---but no one reportedly ever has been killed by smoking a joint. If the growers and peddlers of pot belong in jail, where do the manufacturers of brand name cigarettes and cigars belong? In two years' time they kill more Americans than all the Blue and Grays who died (620,000) in the Civil War. Indeed, in the next two years, 440 times as many Americans will be killed by smoking cigarettes than all U.S. troops killed in six years of fighting in Iraq. While this writer opposes the use of all drugs, and does not indulge himself, it's easy to see the prosecution of pot smokers and growers for victimless crimes is, as Hightower Lowdown (lowdown@pipeline.com) reports, "preposterous."

(Reach the author, a former reporter for the Chicago Daily News, at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

"It's ("strategic blunder") probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," Chomsky quipped, referring to the big Nazi defeat by the Soviet army in 1943.

"There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that if we can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world," he said.

In a lecture at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th, Chomsky warned against expecting significant foreign policy changes from Obama, according to a report by Mamoon Alabbasi published on MWC News.net. Alabbasi is an editor at Middle East Online.

"As Obama came into office, (former Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style," Chomsky said.

Chomsky said the U.S. operates under the "Mafia principle," explaining "the Godfather does not tolerate 'successful defiance'" and must be stamped out "so that others understand that disobedience is not an option."

Despite pressure on the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, Alabbasi reported, Chomsky said the U.S. continues to seek a long-term presence in the country and the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under Obama.

"As late as November, 2007, the U.S. was still insisting that the 'Status of Forces Agreement' allow for an indefinite U.S. military presence and privileged access to Iraq's resources by U.S. investors," Chomsky added. "Well, they didn't get that on paper at least. They had to back down," Alabbasi quotes him as saying.

Chomsky said Middle East oil reserves are understood to be "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

Concerning Iran, Chomsky said the U.S. acted to overthrow its parliamentary democracy in 1953 "to retain control of Iranian resources" and when the Iranians reasserted themselves in 1979, the U.S. acted "to support Saddam Hussein's merciless invasion" of that country.

"The torture of Iran continued without a break and still does, with sanctions and other means," Chomsky said. According to Alabbasi, Chomsky "mocked the idea" presented by mainstream media that a nuclear-armed Iran might attack nuclear-armed Israel. Iranian leaders would have to have a "fanatic death wish" to attack Israel, which reportedly has 200 nuclear weapons or more.

"The chance of Iran launching a missile attack, nuclear or not, is about at the level of an asteroid hitting the earth," Chomsky said. He said the presence of U.S. anti-missile weapons in Israel are really meant for preparing a possible attack on Iran, not for self-defense, as they are often presented.

Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

By banning journalists from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of "Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press)."

"The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves," Vine said on the interview show "Books Of Our Time," sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

"They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor," Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.

Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said.

"They were moved because they were few in number and not white," Vine added. The U.S. government circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the island.

"Through Diego Garcia," Vine pointed out, "the U.S. can project its power throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the U.S." He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130 in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.

"Bases have been essential tools of U.S. military and economic power since not long after independence," Vine pointed out. "We had bases all the way to the Pacific. After the Civil War, the U.S. began to acquire coaling bases in the Pacific."

Although the Chagossians were forcibly removed in 1971, they still hope to return, Vine says, and refer to their period of exile as one of "profound sorrow." Vine says they would be happy to live on the unused eastern portion of the island and work at the base but the U.S. instead "imports contract labor from other areas so they can send them home when the job is done." The island's exiled survivors and their descendants today number about 5,000.

Long off limits to reporters, the Red Cross, and all other international observers and far more secretive than Guantánamo Bay, many long suspected the island was a clandestine CIA "black site" for high-profile detainees, Vine wrote in a related article. Journalist Stephen Grey's 2006 book "Ghost Plane" documented the presence on the island of a CIA-chartered plane used for rendition flights. On two occasions former U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey publicly named Diego Garcia as a detention facility. And a Council of Europe report named the atoll, along with those in Poland and Romania, as a secret prison.

The island became "a major launch pad" for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, Vine said. In addition to its capacious harbor, the island readily supports some of the largest U.S. warplanes, including Air Force B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s. Two years ago, the Pentagon awarded a $32 million contract to add a submarine base to the island's arsenal.

Diego Garcia had been a British possession until 1966, when London allowed the U.S. to use it as a military base in exchange for cancelling a $14-million British debt for a military hardware purchase. Some idea of the size of the base may be conveyed by the fact it is said by the Pentagon to contain 654 buildings.

In a related article about Diego Garcia, Vine has written: "With support for the Chagossians' struggle growing in both the United States and Britain at the same time that revelations about a secret CIA prison are spreading, the United States must finally act to remedy the damage done by another Guantánamo damaging too many lives and undermining its international legitimacy. The United States must allow the Chagossians to return and assist Britain in paying them proper compensation; the United States must close the detention facilities and open Diego Garcia to international investigators; the United States must end the painful irony that is a base the military calls the 'Footprint of Freedom.'"

(Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com.)

They won't say precisely why they "honored" Chomsky, but Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt told the Miami Herald that "Interventions" (City Lights Books) might negatively "impact on (Gitmo's) good order and discipline."

The Pentagon, of course, insists on "good order and discipline" running its prison camp. Chomsky likes order, too. What he objects to is the Pentagon spreading disorder globally.

Instead of thanking the Pentagon for his "honor," Chomsky, is said to be angry. The Herald quotes him as saying, "This happens sometimes in totalitarian regimes."

Indeed! Nazi newsreels show Hitler's brown shirts igniting huge bonfires in German streets into which they pitched banned books. Hitler banned over 4,000 books ranging from anti-war novel "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque to Jack London's "The Call of The Wild."

And just as Communist Russia wouldn't let its citizens read "The First Circle" and "Cancer Ward" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, comrades in the Pentagon refused to allow Gitmo prisoner Hamza al Bahlul to read Chomsky's "Interventions," sent him by a defense lawyer.

The Pentagon's ban mimics Iran's campaign to kill British novelist Salman Rushdie for his 1988 epic "The Satanic Verses." Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeni indicted Rushdie as "blasphemous against Islam." The Pentagon, according to The Herald, won't authorize a book that is "anti-American, anti-Semitic, (or) anti-Western." Note the similarities of the Pentagon's objections and the Ayatollah's. Kissin' cousins, maybe? Some might suspect its Pentagon censorship that's "anti-American."

Censorship of Chomsky is not unique. The Pentagon has long pressured Hollywood to show the military in a favorable light. It also bans photographers from war zones if they snap pictures of slain U.S. troops. "I took pictures of something they didn't like, and they removed me (from Iraq)," complained photographer Zoriah Miller who, like Chomsky, may also be said to be angry. "Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don't see a clearer definition of censorship," he said.

Back to Chomsky: What has he written the Pentagon doesn't want Gitmo prisoners to read? Perhaps it's where he quotes President Bush's remark "the United States---alone---has the right to carry out 'preventive war'...using military force to eliminate a perceived threat..." Chomsky adds this is the "supreme crime" condemned at Nuremberg.

If the Pentagon is upset over "Interventions" they'll be really ticked at Chomsky's "Imperial Ambitions (Metropolitan Books)." In that book, he writes about how the Pentagon's troops burst into Falluja General Hospital, (November, 2004) on asinine grounds it was "a center of propaganda against allied forces," and kicked the patients out of their beds and handcuffed them and their doctors to the floor, which Chomsky rightly branded "a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions."

The Pentagon might also oppose Chomsky for accusing them of genocide:

"If civilians managed to flee Falluja, they were allowed out---except for men. Men of roughly military age were turned back. That's what happened in Srebrenica in 1995. The only difference is the United States bombed the Iraqis out of the city, they didn't truck them out. Women and children were allowed to leave; men were stopped, if they were found, and sent back. They were supposed to be killed. That's universally called genocide, when the Serbs do it. When we do it, it's liberation."

Banning Chomsky will only call attention to his incisive depictions of Pentagon war crimes. While the Pentagon may worry Chomsky's work might get Muslim prisoners angry, maybe it should be concerned that Chomsky's comments such as the following on the Military-Industrial Complex might yet arouse bamboozled and disgusted U.S. taxpayers:

"Empires are costly. Running Iraq is not cheap. Somebody's paying. Somebody's paying the corporations that destroyed Iraq and the corporations that are rebuilding it. In both cases, they're getting paid by the U.S. taxpayer. Those are gifts from U.S. taxpayers to U.S. corporations.....first you destroy Iraq, then you rebuild it. It's a transfer of wealth from the general population to narrow sectors of the population."

Time to replace the Pentagon with the Peace Corps. It accomplishes far more with far less.

(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

"Even if a precise account is elusive," writes Jane Mayer in the October 26th The New Yorker, "the outlines are clear: the C.I.A. has joined the Pakistani intelligence service in an aggressive campaign to eradicate local and foreign militants, who have taken refuge in some of the most inaccessible parts of the country."

Based on a study just completed by the non-profit, New America Foundation of Washington, D.C., "the number of drone strikes has risen dramatically since Obama became President," Mayer reports.

In fact, the first two strikes took place on Jan. 23, the President's third day in office and the second of these hit the wrong house, that of a pro-government tribal leader that killed his entire family, including three children, one just five years of age.

At any time, the C.I.A. apparently has "multiple drones flying over Pakistan, scouting for targets," the magazine reports. So many Predators and its more heavily armed companion, the Reaper, are being purchased that defense manufacturer General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, of Poway, Calif., can hardly make them fast enough. The Air Force is said to possess 200.

Mayer writes, "the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force." Today, Mayer writes, "there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy." And according to Gary Solis, who teaches at Georgetown University's Law Center, nobody in the government calls it assassination. "Not only would we have expressed abhorrence of such a policy a few years ago; we did," Solis is quoted as saying.

David Kilcullen, a counter-insurgency warfare authority who co-authored a study for the Center for New American Security, of Washington, D.C., has suggested the drone attacks have backfired. As he told The New Yorker, "Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased."

And because of the C.I.A. program's secrecy, Mayer writes, "there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war."

The New Yorker further reports the Obama Administration has also expanded the sphere of authorized drone assaults in Afghanistan. An August Senate Foreign Relations Committee report said the Pentagon's list of approved terrorist targets held 367 names and included some 50 Afghan drug lords "who are suspected of giving money to help finance the Taliban," Mayer reports. She quotes the Senate report as stating, "There is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds goes to Al Qaeda."

It is the military's version of the drone assaults that operates in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the C.I.A.'s drones hunt terror suspects in countries where U.S. troops are not based and is "aimed at terror suspects around the world," Mayer writes. The C.I.A. effort was launched by Obama's predecessor, and a former aide to President George W. Bush says Obama has left nearly all the key personnel in place.

Running the C.I.A. program is a team of operators that handle Predator flights off runways in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Once aloft, the Predators are passed over to controllers at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., who maneuver joysticks and monitor events from a live video feed from the drone's camera.

The magazine article reports the government plans to commission "hundreds more" of the drones, including "new generations of tiny 'nano' drones, which can fly after their prey like a killer bee through an open window."


Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer who formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and other major dailies. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com