January 8, 2003
Media Compilation #107: The British-American Invasion of Iraq: Consequences, Myths and Risks
Dear journalist
Here is what got my attention for you these past few days. If the world media were to play their role and bring this information to the public, an unthinkable carnage could be prevented in Iraq. The question is what is preventing them to act as the conscience of the world?
Best regards,
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com
This compilation is archived at
http://www.EarthRainbowNetwork.com/Archives2003/MediaCompilation107.htm
CONTENTS
1. U.N. Sees 500,000 Iraqi Casualties at Start of War
2. ANSWERing Bush's big myths about Iraq
3. U.S. Deleted Iraqi-run Florida Chemical Plant from UN Weapons List
4. Army's secret 'people zapper' plans
See also:
Battle of the boffins (Jan 4)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/03/1041566227384.html
Weapons manufacturers have an array of frightening new high-tech devices ready to play a part in any attack on Iraq. If the fighting starts in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his forces will be instant guinea pigs for a new generation of US weapons which may be used for the first time in all-out war.
A War for Oil? (Jan 5) By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05FRIE.html
(...) Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be - in part - about oil. To deny that is laughable. (...) But when we tell the world that we couldn't care less about climate change, that we feel entitled to drive whatever big cars we feel like, that we feel entitled to consume however much oil we like, the message we send is that a war for oil in the gulf is not a war to protect the world's right to economic survival - but our right to indulge. Now that will be seen as immoral. And should we end up occupying Iraq, and the first thing we do is hand out drilling concessions to U.S. oil companies alone, that perception would only be intensified. And that leads to my second point. If we occupy Iraq and simply install a more pro-U.S. autocrat to run the Iraqi gas station (as we have in other Arab oil states), then this war partly for oil would also be immoral. CLIP
Act Now Against War (Jan 7) by George Monbiot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,869807,00.html
Those against an attack on Iraq must do more than shake their heads at the television
The rest of Europe must be wondering whether Britain has gone into hibernation. At the end of this month our prime minister is likely to announce the decision he made months ago, that Britain will follow the US into Iraq. If so, then two or three weeks later, the war will begin. Unless the UN inspectors find something before January 27, this will be a war without even the flimsiest of pretexts: an unprovoked attack whose purpose is to enhance the wealth and power of an American kleptocracy. Far from promoting peace, it could be the first in a series of imperial wars. The gravest global crisis since the end of the cold war is three weeks away, and most of us seem to be asking why someone else doesn't do something about it. It is not often that the people of these islands have an opportunity to change the course of world events. Bush knows that the Americans' approval of his war depends, in part, upon its credibility overseas: opinion polls have shown that many of those who would support an international attack would withdraw that support if they perceived that the US was acting alone. An international attack, in this case, means an attack supported by Britain. If Blair pulled out, Bush could be forced to think again. Blair will pull out only if he perceives that the political cost of sticking with Bush is greater than the cost of deserting him. Bush's war, in other words, depends upon our indifference. As Gramsci remarked: "What comes to pass does so not so much because a few people want it to happen, as because the mass of citizens abdicate their responsibility and let things be." CLIP
North Korea adds fuel to nuclear crisis (Jan 8)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,870746,00.html
George Bush's decision to go easy on Kim Jong Il leaves his plans to invade Iraq looking ever more inconsistent. (...) the prospect of a clash in North Korea with nuclear implications would produce an international backlash that could derail even the Bush administration's determined advance on Baghdad. Most strategic analysts say that - short of a coup in Baghdad - a significant worsening of the North Korea confrontation is just about the only scenario that could postpone an invasion of Iraq until next winter. The untimely eruption of defiance in Pyongyang has thus forced the White House to improvise hastily to plug the holes it has punched in the Bush doctrine. There is, for instance, an administration-wide ban on using the word "crisis" in relation to North Korea. CLIP
North Korea Warns 'Sanctions Mean a War' (Jan 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20990-2003Jan7.html
White House Agrees to Direct Talks With N. Korea (Jan 8)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24853-2003Jan7.html
Court Rules U.S. Can Hold Citizens as 'Enemy Combatants' (Jan 8)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/national/08CND-DETAIN.html
Government Openness at Issue as Bush Holds Onto Records (Jan 3)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/010403A.wh.secrecy.htm
The Bush administration has put a much tighter lid than recent presidents on government proceedings and the public release of information, exhibiting a penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both parties.
Bush accused of civil rights clampdown (January 5)
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,868965,00.html
President George Bush is presiding over the most secretive administration in 'living memory', according to American civil rights groups and congressmen. Critics accuse him of orchestrating an unprecedented clampdown on freedom of information and the press. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in documents and proceedings being classified secret and an overall shutdown of the free flow of information over the government's political and legal conduct. They are also concerned over what they see as alarming restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act. CLIP
FBI agents say White House scripting 'hysterics' for political effect (Jan 4)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30312
Intelligence pros say the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and to keep President Bush's approval ratings high, Capitol Hill Blue reports. The Thursday report said that the administration is engaging in "hysterics" in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. CLIP
Our quality of life peaked in 1974. It's all downhill now (Dec 31)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,866785,00.html
We will pay the price for believing the world has infinite resources.
With the turning of every year, we expect our lives to improve. As long as the economy continues to grow, we imagine, the world will become a more congenial place in which to live. There is no basis for this belief. If we take into account such factors as pollution and the depletion of natural capital, we see that the quality of life peaked in the UK in 1974 and in the US in 1968, and has been falling ever since. We are going backwards. The reason should not be hard to grasp. Our economic system depends upon never-ending growth, yet we live in a world with finite resources. Our expectation of progress is, as a result, a delusion. This is the great heresy of our times, the fundamental truth which cannot be spoken. It is dismissed as furiously by those who possess power today - governments, business, the media - as the discovery that the earth orbits the sun was denounced by the late medieval church. Speak this truth in public and you are dismissed as a crank, a prig, a lunatic. CLIP
1.
From: http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2004746
U.N. Sees 500,000 Iraqi Casualties at Start of War
January 7, 2003
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - As many as half a million Iraqis could require medical treatment as a result of serious injuries suffered in the early stages of a war on Iraq, U.N. emergency planners said in a document disclosed Tuesday.
The total includes some 100,000 expected to be injured as a direct result of combat and a further 400,000 wounded as an indirect result of the devastation, according to estimates prepared by the World Health Organization, the document said.
The confidential U.N. assessment was drafted a month ago but an edited version was posted Tuesday on the Web site of a British group opposed to sanctions on Iraq http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/undocs/war021210.pdf
U.N. officials confirmed the authenticity of the document, which assumes that unlike the 1991 Gulf War, a new war in Iraq would develop beyond an initial aerial bombardment into a large scale and protracted ground offensive.
"The resultant devastation would undoubtedly be great," the U.N. planners concluded. The estimates were based on material from several different U.N. organizations.
The U.N. staff has been quietly planning for months how to cope with the humanitarian fallout from a conflict in Iraq.
But the process has been kept largely under wraps for fear it might be interpreted as a sign the world body had concluded the weapons inspections now under way would fail to avert war.
The confidential assessment assumes that Iraqi oil production would be shut down and the Iraqi electricity network, railway and road transportation systems would be significantly damaged.
U.N. officials had previously disclosed that as many as 4.5 million to 9.5 million of Iraq's 26.5 million people could quickly need outside food to survive once an attack began.
HUGE HOMELESS PROBLEM
War would also produce a huge refugee problem, driving some 900,000 Iraqis into neighboring countries, with about 100,000 of those requiring immediate assistance as soon as they arrived, according to the U. N. estimate.
Another 2 million could be driven from their homes but remain inside Iraq, where access by relief agencies would be a particular problem due to the fighting, the planners say.
The U.N. arms inspections resumed last month, after a four-year hiatus, under a U.N. Security Council resolution giving Baghdad a final chance to eliminate any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or face "serious consequences."
Chief arms inspector Hans Blix is due to provide an interim report to the Security Council on his findings Thursday. His first in-depth report is set for Jan. 27.
President Bush, who favors a "regime change" in Baghdad, has threatened to disarm Iraq through force if it fails to act on its own, although Washington says no decision has been made to go to war.
According to the assessment, Iraq can be expected to have four months' supply of basic medical supplies on hand at the start of a conflict. However, some key supplies would still likely be in short supply or nonexistent, it said.
Children under 5, pregnant women and mothers who are breast-feeding their infants "will be particularly vulnerable because of the likely absence of a functioning primary health care system in a post-conflict situation," it said.
"Furthermore, the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions is very likely," it said. "Diseases such as cholera and dysentery thrive in the environment ... When determining the requirement for pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, these factors must be considered.
See also:
U.N. Study Sees 500,000 Iraqis Facing Injury in Case of War (Jan 8)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/international/middleeast/08IMPA.html
2.
ANSWERing Bush's big myths about Iraq
Myth # 1
The United States has the right to wage preemptive war against Iraq
Preemptive war is war of aggression. Under international law, a preemptive war may be justified as an act of self-defense only where there exists a genuine and imminent threat of physical attack. Bush's preemptive war against Iraq doesn't even purport to preempt a physical attack. It purports to preempt a threat that is neither issued nor posed. Iraq is not issuing threats of attack against the United States. It is only the United States that threatens war. There has been no evidence that Iraq is capable of an attack on the U.S., let alone possessing the intention of carrying out such an attack.
Myth # 2
The U.N. Security Council can lawfully authorize preemptive war
The United Nations Security Council cannot authorize a potential nuclear U.S. first strike and war of aggression that violates the U.N. Charter, international law and the law prohibiting war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity. The U.N. Charter – which creates the Security Council and which grants the Council its authority – requires the “Security Council to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (Article 24)
The U.N. Charter requires international disputes or situations that might lead to a breach of peace to be resolved by peaceful means. (Article 1 and Chapter VI) In other words, a nation may not wage war based on the claim that it seeks to prevent war. A nation may use force unilaterally in self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs" against it. (Article 51)
Myth # 3
The United States Congress can lawfully authorize preemptive war against Iraq
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that ratified treaties, such as the U.N. Charter, are the "supreme law of the land." The U.N. Charter has been ratified by the United States, and the Congress may not take actions – including wars of aggression – in violation of the Charter. Wars of aggression, and even the making of the threat of a war of aggression, violates the international humanitarian law to which all nations are bound. Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S. in a war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing or legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war crimes.
Myth # 4
The U.S. government intends to "liberate" the Iraqi people
The October 11, 2002, New York Times revealed the true plans of the United States: "The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.… In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American military commander – perhaps Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of the United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates – who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945." (“U.S. has a plan to occupy Iraq, officials report")
The true intention of the U.S. government is to recolonize Iraq. Prior to the 1960s, U.S. corporations made 50 percent of their foreign profits from investments in oil from this region. The Bush administration wants Iraq to denationalize its oil wealth – 10% of the world's supply. This war is an attempt to reconquer Iraq and all of its natural resources. The Bush administration wants to reshuffle the deck in the Middle East and undo all of the achievements of the national liberation movements from the last sixty years. They want to eliminate independence for all countries in the region and assert their domination and control – not in the interest of the vast majority of people – but for access to oil.
Myth # 5
Iraq is a military threat to the world
There is no record to support this claim. During the Gulf War of 1991, while the United States bombed Iraq with a barrage that included 110,000 sorties, Iraq did not destroy even one U.S. tank or plane. Desert Storm destroyed, according to U.N. weapons inspectors, 80% of Iraq's weaponry. As part of the inspections that followed, 90% of Iraq's remaining military capability was destroyed. Iraq has been paying indemnities to Kuwait and U.S. oil corporations since 1991 and has not had the financial capacity to build another arsenal. In addition, there has not been a threat by Iraq of any kind against any other country.
Myth # 6
Iraq threw out the weapons inspectors
Iraq did not tell the inspectors to leave. The weapons inspectors withdrew in December 1998 because the United States told them to pull out so that the U.S. could launch a bombing campaign on Baghdad. The next day, on December 16, the U.S. unleashed Operation Desert Fox, which included dropping 1,100 bombs and Cruise missiles on Iraq. After the bombing campaign, a Washington Post report confirmed the assertions of Iraq that the inspections were intelligence-gathering exercises conducted on the orders of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon used the information collected from the so-called inspections to set up coordinates for its bombing operations. After this revelation, the Iraqi government quite understandably did not let the inspectors back in.
Myth # 7
Sanctions are a kinder, gentler way to deal with Iraq
The plan for sanctions on Iraq came from the Pentagon, not the Department of Health and Human Services. It was a central part of the Pentagon's war strategy against the Iraqi people. Sanctions have been more devastating than the Gulf War itself. "UNICEF confirms that five to six thousand Iraqi children are dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of the sanctions, and that figure is probably modest," Denis Halliday told a Congressional hearing in October 1998. Halliday, who had just resigned his post as U.N. Assistant Secretary General and head of the U.N. humanitarian mission in Iraq, spoke of the "tragic incompatibility of sanctions with the U.N. Charter and the Convention on Human Rights."
Myth # 8
The UN allows U.S. and U.K. planes to bomb the "No Fly Zones"
The United States agreed to a ceasefire with Iraq in February 1991. The no-flight zones over two-thirds of Iraq were imposed by the U.S., Britain and France 18 months after the Gulf War. The United Nations has never sanctioned the no-flight zones. France has since condemned them. The so-called no-flight zones are in violation of international law. Iraq has every right under international law and all known laws in the world to defend itself in these U.S.-declared no-flight zones. According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, Iraq has the right of self-defense in all of its country, including these "no-flight zones."
Myth # 9
The people support a war on Iraq
Not even opinion polls support this phony assertion. The polls confirm that there is wide opposition to a war. Normally there is wide support for a president who is about to launch a war. Instead, Congressional offices report overwhelming constituent opposition to a unilateral war on Iraq. Worldwide, the opposition is even bigger. While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a vocal acolyte of Bush, few in Britain support a war on Iraq. Already, a march against war of 400,000 was held in London. Similar demonstrations have been held in Rome and Madrid. The general sentiment in Europe was summed up by the Greek Development Minister who said, "We are totally opposed to any military conflict ... even if there is a UN Resolution." Around the world, the sentiment is no different. New Zealand's government opposes the war. No country in the Middle East supports a war on Iraq. Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all oppose a war. As do France, Russia and China.
Myth # 10
War will be good for the economy
It already costs U.S. taxpayers $50 billion per year to keep U.S. armed forces in the Persian Gulf. The estimated $200 billion for a war on Iraq will come straight out of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and welfare. The average working-class taxpayer will foot the bill. The upper classes have already had their taxes greatly reduced so that they pay only a small part of the bill.
Myth # 11
This war will be quick and painless
War is rarely quick, never painless. A new war will be neither. The 4.8 million people in Baghdad face an invasion by the most modern and lethally equipped military in the world. Iraq is a nation of 22 million people. They will bear the brunt of the pain and the deaths of the war.
Myth # 12
Gulf War Syndrome is a myth
The Veterans Benefits Administration Office noted that 36% of Desert Storm vets have filed claims for service-related disabilities. A primary reason is because the U.S. used Depleted Uranium. In July 1990, "The U.S. Army Armaments Munitions and Chemical Command admitted DU posed longterm risks to natives and combat veterans... . Low doses have been linked to cancer." Gulf War vets have a 500% greater incidence of Lou Gehrig's disease than the general population. Desert Storm female vets have a 300% greater incidence of bearing children with birth defects. For male vets the figure is 200%.
---
Prepared by the International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
A c t N o w t o S t o p Wa r & E n d R a c i s m
NYC: 39 West 14 Street #206, New York, NY 10011
212.633.6646
nyc@internationalANSWER.org
Wash. DC: 1830 Connecticut Ave. NW, Wash. DC 20009
202.332.5757
dc@internationalANSWER.org
San Francisco: 2489 Mission St., #24, SF, CA 94110
415.821.6545
answer@actionsf.org
http://www.actionsf.org
http://www.internationalANSWER.org
3.
From: http://www.tomflocco.com/US%20Deleted%20Iraqi%20run%20Fl%20Chem%20Plt.htm
U.S. Deleted Iraqi-run Florida Chemical Plant from UN Weapons List
By Tom Flocco
January 03, 2003
Most recently activated American soldiers are unaware that they will likely be facing the same deadly chemical and biological agents provided illegally to Iraq by their own government just prior to the last Gulf War – and that high-ranking Bush 41 cabinet officials profited from secret investments in these companies manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. (WMD)
This, while war with Saddam Hussein is considered by most to be a foregone conclusion, what with 70% of Congress having already voted to permit the president to order troops into combat in the Middle East.
Members of George Sr.’s cabinet held sizable and conflicting financial positions in Gulf War-related companies linked to a SECRET IRAQI POLICY DOCUMENT which was classified at the time and kept from Congress. Amazingly, however, Congress has continued to allow the now-unclassified document to remain partially redacted.
Moreover, the war-related WMD financial holdings were substantial enough in 1990 to necessitate presidential advisor George W. Bush’s father the president to employ a CONFIDENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAIVER -- ALSO KEPT SECRET FROM CONGRESS -- in order to absolve his cabinet and others from future legal action should Gulf War military families ever question or litigate the private and undisclosed financial links of high-ranking government officials to Iraq.
Incredibly, a potential tragedy facing American military families will be the outrage that some of the chemicals Saddam will use against Americans in ground combat were actually manufactured by an Iraqi terrorist on United States soil just before the Gulf War at a plant in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Wall Street Journal even provided a MAP SHOWING THE CIRCUITOUS ROUTE THE WMD CHEMICALS AND MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT TOOK FROM BOCA RATON, FLORIDA TO HOUSTON, TEXAS, THEN TO CHICAGO, THEN BALTIMORE – ALL BEFORE REACHING AQABA, JORDAN AND BEING TRUCKED OVERLAND TO IRAQ.
There is ample evidence that President George H. W. Bush and his advisor George Jr. were quite aware that the Boca Raton plant was in full operation and under the control and supervision of the Iraqi terrorist and chemical engineer for a number of years while CIA operatives were facilitating the chemical transfers directly to Saddam Hussein even just before the Gulf War – chemicals used on American troops only a few months later!
Stories of an administration desperate to quickly employ warfare abroad to divert attention away from stock fraud, a mismanaged economy, and the September 11 investigation cover-up at home are already being reported outside the United States.
According to Anu de Monterice’s translation of a 12-18-2002 truncated version of the Iraqi weapons dossier in the German periodical Taz (die tageszeitung), there is a huge portion of missing data in Iraq’s recently submitted report to the United Nations concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons arsenal. (de Monterice’s translation can be found on Jeff Rense’s news website at Rense. com)
The lengths to which the current Bush Administration will go in attempting to keep secret and mislead the American people regarding the true extent of the transfer of WMD to Iraq is best illustrated in a story in the London Sunday Herald. (12- ? - 2002)
The 8000 page deletion and cover-up – left virtually unreported in the American media – begs the question: What did the U.S. take out of the report?
According to a United Nations source in New York, “in effect the U.S. is saying trust us, and there are many who just will not.”
“Current and former UN diplomats are said to be livid at what some have called the ‘theft’ of the Iraqi document by the United States,” the Sunday Herald reported.
A former UN official is also displeased with the American cover-up, which will prevent Congress from learning the truth even as the president rushes to activate and deploy troops to the Gulf before Congress is able to commence and investigation in January.
Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant general secretary and UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq until 2000, called the deletion of eight thousand pages from Iraq’s report “an outrageous attempt by the U.S. to mislead,” also according to the Herald.
Of key importance is the fact that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (U.S., UK, France, China, and Russia) have access to the complete version, but agreed that the U.S. be allowed to edit the report [8000 pages worth] since “the contents were ‘risky’ in terms of security on weapons proliferation.”
While it is understandable that government officials would be concerned about “political ramifications” related to personal, private, and undisclosed investments in weapons of mass destruction -- which may ultimately be used yet once more against American troops -- congressional inaction regarding an investigation of such unconscionable acts is more than a disgrace.
However, CONCEALING AN IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS PLANT IN FLORIDA becomes even more outrageous when one considers that a confidential May 31, 1990 billing statement links lawyers from former Bush 41 Secretary of State James Baker’s Houston law firm Baker & Botts to telephone conferences, the drawing up of enzyme contracts, and holding secret formulas connected to another lawyer from Iraqi terrorist Ihsan Barbouti’s main Houston office of his Boca Raton chemical company.
This, according to Robert Bickel, senior investigator and legal analyst in the Oklahoma City law offices of John Michael Johnston and investigative collaborator with Judicial Watch’s chief counsel Larry Klayman, while bringing suit because U.S. Federal agents ignored evidence indicating Iraqi involvement in the aftermath of the April, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Building.
Bickel is one of several who are aware of facts relating to U.S. government protection of Ihsan Barbouti, by allowing his terrorist-related chemical and nerve gas plant to operate untouched for years in Florida. Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline, placed some 30 reporters on the story, completing an incredible Nightline expose of the Boca Raton factory in July, 1991.
While American troops wait anxiously for their upcoming orders regarding war in the Gulf, American citizens may want to know more about why an administration already steeped in secrecy and clandestine activity is withholding information which is politically embarrassing – or worse – from its citizens and Congress, not to mention its trusting soldiers.
For how can a president explain that while he was an advisor during his father’s administration, both knew about an Iraqi-operated nerve gas plant in Florida, that members of his father’s cabinet held financial investments and were linked to lawyers who drew up legal contracts for an Iraqi terrorist, and that CIA operatives then sent the manufacturing equipment and raw materials able to penetrate and break down American gas mask filters -- to Iraq -- which was then used months later on his own soldiers?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards?) WHERE IS CONGRESS?
Where are the American people?
4.
From: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,825082,00.html
Army's secret 'people zapper' plans
November 3, 2002
The Observer
Britain has been involved in secret talks with the United States over the development of so-called non-lethal weapons, including lasers that blind the enemy and microwave systems that cook the skin of human targets.
The Observer has established that British and US military leaders met at the Ministry of Defence HQ in London to discuss the operational benefits of such technology when used as a 'persuasive tool' against people from enemy regimes.
Documents obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act detail talks about battlefield uses of the weapons and whether they could be used to back up economic sanctions against target countries. The weapons include lasers that can blind and stun an enemy and cut through metal to disable vehicles.
Another weapon discussed was a system that uses microwave beams to heat the water in human skin in the same way as a microwave oven cooks a meal. The third category of weapons was the use of gases similar to those deployed to end the terrorist siege in a Moscow theatre, which killed more than 100 hostages.
The disclosures prompted demands last night from opposition politicians for a full statement on Britain's involvement in developing such weapons. Opposition MPs and campaigners believe the fact that the military is considering developing and using these weapons in war or as a tool to threaten other states breaches a number of international arms and humanitarian treaties.
Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, called on the Government to 'come clean' on Britain's involvement and will demand Foreign Secretary Jack Straw gives details.
'These reports have serious implications,' Campbell said. 'If Britain and American are together seeking to exploit loopholes in existing international arms convention, our credibility will be severely undermined. Suggestions that we use such weapons as part of any sanctions programme is a level of policy which must be discussed on the House of Commons.'
British personnel at the secret meeting with the US military included Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham and Dr Martin Hubbard, who heads the non-lethal weapons research programme at Porton Down, Wiltshire. US officers included Major General Bice, deputy commander of the US Marines in Europe, and Brigadier-General Richard Zilmer, deputy director of US operations at European Command Headquarters.
The documents reveal the full scope of the new weapons programmes that the US military is developing. The first was high-power microwave technology that cooks an enemy's skin. Its military name is the Vehicle-Mounted Active Denial System (V-Mads), but it has already been nicknamed the People Zapper. It works by harnessing electromagnetic power to fire an invisible pulse of energy at light speed towards a target. The beam causes the water molecules under the skin to vibrate violently, producing heat and discomfort. Scientists believe the system could heat a person's skin to about 130 degrees in two seconds.
The US delegation admits there might be problems with legal claims by victims.
The documents reveal that both the British and US military believe laser beams have a 'number of potential applications and desirable attributes as a non-lethal weapon'. They are impressed that laser guns can be 'tunable' either to stun or kill. Although laser weapons that permanently blind are banned under international law, the documents show officials are studying low-energy lasers that blind temporarily and others that produce a stunning effect.
The classified document, which is an 'assessment report' of a meeting that took place on 30 November 2000, admits the term 'non-lethal' was inaccurate.'
SUBSCRIPTION TO THE EARTH RAINBOW NETWORK MEDIA LIST
If you would like to subscribe to the Earth Rainbow Network automated Media listserver and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, please click on this SUBSCRIPTION page.
