Are we seeing the signs of splits among American economic and political elites? Parts of the military are banging the drums, so too the Right, and defense contractors. But the full page, corporate ads in places like the New York Times do not call us to war. They talk of American spirit, resolve,

compassion, etc., but not untargeted war. Most of Wall Street wants neither a big war nor an uncertain war. They like political stability at home just like they require it abroad. True, there is a huge outburst of cultural patriotism (oh, to have stock in Anin & Co!), but people are flying the flag for all kinds of reasons -- as much fear and a hunger for public expression as for search and destroy. Congress for the moment is all on board the same charger (until Bush's popularity wanes), but leaks from the Pentagon and State Department suggest that the fighting boys are not in agreement. Those preaching caution and a limited strike are in a weak position because a surgical intervention will not produce bin Laden, dead or alive. Those preaching a broad operation (take out Saddam Hussein, settle old scores, etc.) are in a weak position because it is a slippery slope to political and regional chaos. Bush has created the expectation that the government will act now or very soon, and at the same time he prepares us for the long haul. This sounds like an effort to find a military compromise between two dangerous (from the U.S. standpoint) positions. The danger is that Bush has sounded the alarm, Congress has folded, and one thing will lead to another (sound familiar?). The opportunity is that there are divisions within, that the commercial media will soon (after the funerals) start sounding the concerns, that some corporate sectors will caution prudence, and that the popular memory of the antiwar movement can be revived. Is it a good time for us to intervene in any way possible?

Tony Platt

THE 26-DAY LAPSE BETWEEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S WAR OF WORDS AND actual military measures was ominous primarily for the draconian measures being adopted domestically, although it highlighted elite-level differences in approaches to bringing to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks on targets in New York and Washington. Undoubtedly, the presidential election itself was evidence of a schism in the American polity. There was evidence of a split within the Bush administration itself before September 11: Secretary of State Powell vs. national security advisor Rice in foreign policy, militarists vs. social conservatives vs. economic conservatives in terms of the general agenda, etc. The tax cutters won the first round, but the military hawks will now have their day (at least until mid-term elections again put economics in command). After the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, symbols of global capitalism and militarism, other splits emerged (calls from neoconservatives like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz to target Saddam Hussein in Iraq), but mostly, it seemed, they were at a loss to formulate a response, except for a generalized "war on terrorism." Such a war does not respond to conventional military interventions; it is a form of low-intensity conflict. Indeed, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the closest analogy for the conflict would be the drug war. As must be clear to the economic elites, this terrorist attack is also a case of blowback, in this case traceable to the CIA-sponsored intervention against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later to the Gulf War and U.S. support of the Taliban to stabilize the area for piping oil to the West. As in the Vietnam War era, opium and heroin have been thrown into the mix to finance counterinsurgency forces and unpopular regimes. Well into 2001, the U.S. continued its sponsorship of the Taliban by sending $43 million to reward it for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God (though after Sept ember 11, the Taliban unleashed its opium stockpiles from previous years on the market).

International Cooperation or America First?

Generally, conservative elites (and the stock market) yearn for stability above all, but a hawkish interventionist group within the Republican Party is assertive and influential in the media and in the Defense Department. Another wing of the party, more closely tied to big business, and especially the oil companies, prefers multilateralism and diplomatic engagement to military confrontation. After the September 11 attacks, differences regarding the appropriate response and targeting stem from the contradictory strategies of these two factions. Since George W. Bush has no foreign policy experience or expertise, his advisers determine Middle East policy and the direction of the anti-terrorism "war." The initial foreign policy team national security adviser Condoleezza Rice helped Bush assemble was composed of hard-right ideologues from the Reagan and Bush Sr. national security apparatuses, with the central figures being Paul Wolfowitz, now the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, who has preferred to re main in the background, first as the Bush campaign's informal foreign policy adviser and now the head of Bush's advisory Defense Policy Board. With Wolfowitz at Defense are undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith, assistant secretaries Peter Rodman and J.D. Crouch, and members of the advisory Defense Policy Board Perle chairs. (1) Others include undersecretary of state John Bolton, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, George Shultz, Ronald Reagan's secretary of state, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Robert Zoellick, the United States trade representative, who argues that the Bush administration needs expanded trade power to help build the alliance against terrorism. Joining Armitage among the hawkish interventionists in the administration are other members of the former Iran-Contra counterterrorism crew that got its practical experience mainly in Nicaragua (such as Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, Roger Noriega, Otto Reich, and Solicitor General Theodore Ols on, some of whose nominations had stalled due to dreadful human rights records, but sailed through after the September 11 events).

The Wolfowitz-Perle faction advocates a position of U.S. supremacy and militarist unilateralism, regardless of international sentiment. They view Israel as preeminent in U.S. policy in the Middle East, brought to the Pentagon pro-Israel activists who dramatically increased weapons sales to Israel, actively undermined the Oslo peace process, and are cool to the idea of normalizing relations with Iran. They have transformed their Cold War impulse into a strategy of isolating "rogue states," including Russia and China. Flowing from this is their support of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which provides U.S. funding for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. After Vice President Cheney said the evidence pointed only to bin Laden and al Qaeda, neoconservative political appointees allied with Wolfowitz at the Pentagon leaked stories on Iraq's alleged role in the terrorist attacks. Richard Perle announced that countries that harbor terrorists must themselves be destroyed, and included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria a s state sponsors. Such statements can easily be construed as mounting a war against Islam, and an attack on Iraq would be unacceptable to Russia, China, Turkey, and the Arab League. This faction is dismissive of coalition-building approaches that might dampen the administration's appetite for military action. One of their lobbying arms that overlaps with the official Defense Policy Board, the Project for the New American Century, sent President Bush a letter urging him to make the removal of Saddam Hussein part of the campaign against terrorism. Available on their web site and widely disseminated in major news outlets, it stated, "failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." The letter is not easily dismissed by the most right-wing administration in modern history since among the 41 signatories were editors of The New Republic and the Rupert Murdoch-controlled Weekly Standard, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, a former Reagan appointee now with the Carnegie Endowment, Reagan Doctrine alum, Jeane Kirkpatrick, the American Enterprise Institute's Jeffrey Gedmin, William Bennett, Richard Perle, Gary Bauer, Francis Fukuyama, and some pro-Israel Democrats. According to Richard Falk, hard-liners within the Bush administration believe that the U.S. should claim control over the response by invoking the international-law doctrine of "the inherent right of self-defense," in opposition to those more diplomatically inclined, who favor seeking a mandate from the U.N. Security Council to act in collective self-defense.

Arrayed against the neoconservative interventionists, and seemingly now determining the boundaries of the anti-terrorism war, are less ideological corporate globalists who favor U.S. coexistence and cooperation in a globalizing world. This camp perceives the Middle East largely in terms of oil interests and favors a more even-handed approach to Israel and the Arab world. Among them are Vice President Dick Cheney (the secretary of defense under George Bush Sr.), who as the chief executive of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services provider, denounced sanctions against Iran because of missed business opportunities. Influential are personalities associated with George Bush Sr.'s administration, especially former secretary of state James Baker (George W. Bush's chief strategist in the contested Florida election), and national security aide Brent Scowcroft. (James Baker, former President George Bush, and former CIA Director Frank Carlucci are among the chieftains of the Carlyle Group, a low-profile Washingto n, D.C., investment firm managing $14 billion in assets; it is a major contractor for the Pentagon because of its stakes in a various defense-related companies, and until October maintained financial ties with the family of Osama bin Laden.) Secretary of State Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War despite his initial opposition to it, is also in this camp. In the early days of the new Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz was selected over Richard Haass, who is identified with the Baker-Bush Sr. wing of the Republican Party that opted against continued pursuit of Saddam Hussein's forces in 1991 and clashed with the pro-Israel lobby over loan guarantees in 1992. Haass feared that arming the Iraqi National Congress would trigger a region-wide war with Syria, Iran, and Turkey, advocated taking a firmer stand with Israel, and favored a more nuanced policy with Iran.

During the Clinton administration, there was movement to build a coalition of Muslim states supportive of U.S. (and transnational) oil interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. The "human rights" intervention on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians was proof of this. Globalizing elites have long propped up fundamentalist Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, not the least because they are corrupt and despotic. They keep the oil flowing, if at the cost of the rights and freedoms of Muslims (a recent poll indicated that 61% of America's Muslim community believe the U.S. should reduce its support of undemocratic regimes in the Muslim world and another report classified only 11 of the world's 47 Muslim countries as democracies). This region accounts for more than 65% of the world's oil and natural gas production and by 2050, it will account for more than 80%. Today, terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia coincide with the world's principal energy sources in the 21st century. Not surpris ingly, although Afghanistan lacks oil, the Bush administration is using the promise of energy investments in Central Asia to nurture political alliances in the region with Russia, Kazakhstan, and, to some extent, Uzbekistan. According to Neela Banerjee, the State Department is exploring the potential for post-Taliban energy projects in the region, and perhaps even reviving plans for the pipeline Unocal Corporation negotiated with the Taliban four years ago to carry landlocked Turkmenistan's rich natural gas deposits via Afghanistan into Pakistan. To date, the oil industry has shown little interest, preferring a project to export Caspian Sea oil and gas through Iran. Despite hopes in the oil business that the anti-terrorism campaign could improve relations between Iran and the U.S., President Bush is maintaining the policy against doing business with Tehran.

With Afghanistan's legitimate economy destroyed by 22 consecutive years of warfare, opium poppy cultivation is the only way many Afghans have to survive. The general region is the epicenter of heroin production (there are over 417 active heroin laboratories in Afghanistan). Last year, the Afghan opium crop made up 72% of the world's supply, yielding $40 million in taxes to the Taliban, and the anti-Taliban fighters of the Northern Alliance control immense stockpiles in northern territories. Reagan-era neoconservatives now in the Bush foreign policy apparatus supported the intervention in Kosovo because it fit with their agenda of punishing rogue states (in this case, Milosevic's Serbia). That the U.S.-backed Kosovo Liberation Army was heavily involved in drug trafficking and included in its ranks Islamic extremists trained in al Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan was not an obstacle. The intervention offered an opportunity to score points in the Muslim world at the Serbs' expense, offsetting the legacy of unreser ved U.S. support for Israel. However, the neoconservatives despised the "nation-building" component of peacekeeping forces, a position often repeated by the George W. Bush administration. Another important initiative they promoted was the expansion of NATO. At the end of the Clinton administration, the neoconservatives pushed through legislation authorizing the funding of "freedom fighters" to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This is also the plan materializing in Afghanistan: create a coalition to replace the Taliban around the Northern Alliance, the only remaining mujahedeen force with a territorial toehold, despite its checkered human rights record and ties to drug trafficking.

Slippery slopes become precipices with this approach. Iran's Shiite leaders have supported the Northern Alliance, as has India. Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has refused to cooperate in any attack on Afghanistan (though not in food relief for Afghan refugees), but a strong reform movement in the Iranian government favors warming ties with the West. Nuclear-armed Pakistan, the staunch backer of the Taliban and funnel of Arab terrorists into the jihad, would need to redeploy troops to its border with Afghanistan and tone down its proxy war against India Kashmir if a Northern Alliance coalition were to oust the Taliban. Pakistan could collapse into civil war or experience a coup by its fundamentalist intelligence service and military leaders if the current President General Pervez Musharraf makes a frontal attack on the Taliban. A Northern Alliance victory could lead to a long period of instability in Afghanistan. Post-Soviet Russia armed the Northern Alliance to stem the northward march of the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism. This is the prime reason the Russian leadership is willing to accept at least a near-term U.S. military presence in its former southern republics Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, and perhaps Azerbaijan. Bin Laden affiliates are active in and threaten to destabilize those areas, as well as Chechnya. Because of their permeable borders, bombing Afghanistan could strand another million refugees in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, making these already extremely unstable former Soviet republics entirely rudderless. Central Asia as a whole could experience an environmental catastrophe, caused by the drying up of Lake Aral, which is already in its third year of drought. The best bet for the forces of stability? Do little militarily that could disrupt the region, but appear very active. Make lots of arrests at home and pass draconian anti-terrorism legislation.

Countering Terrorism: PATRIOT and Homeland Defense

The immediate domestic reaction to the September 11 tragedy was to increase policing and border enforcement powers, dramatically enhancing the ability of investigators to conduct electronic surveillance, detain foreign suspects, and seek stiffer criminal penalties in terrorism cases. The omnibus legislative forms were the House bill, PATRIOT (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001 -- based loosely on the additional police powers President Bush requested -- and Senator Leahy's Strengthening Our Domestic Security Against Terrorist Acts. The final legislative form, the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, was signed into law October 26, 2001. As Richard Falk observed, however, any attempt to protect ourselves against the range of threats that could be mounted by fanatics using everyday technology such as commercial jets, crop dusters, or water treatment and nuclear power plants as weapons of mass destruction would quickly turn the U.S. into a prison-state. Militarization of the country as a whole, with National Guard troops posted at airports and urban airspaces patrolled by jet fighters, will simply extend the wrongheaded militarization already in place at the U.S.-Mexico border. Before the terrorist attacks, leading military journals defined illegal immigration as a national security threat requiring a homeland defense plan. Yet the $4.3 billion joint military-B order Patrol efforts at the southern border have resulted in numerous human rights violations, but have done little to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants into the Southwest. Attorney General Ashcroft called the posting of 600 National Guard troops to Canadian border crossings and the sharing of the FBI's computerized fingerprint image system a "fortification, not militarization" of the northern border. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has proposed tighter integration of the military's four major regional commands (Europe, the Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and South Asia) with the FBI and Treasury Department to improve coordination between the military and civilian agencies in the global war against terrorism. Not surprisingly, developers of the newest military technologies useful in an open-ended "war against terrorism" -- image processing gear, surveillance equipment, and data analysis software -- say that the most sophisticated technology has been most widely adopted by the private sector or by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Border Patrol. Proposed restrictions in some cases run counter to the interests of the globalizing elites, who support open borders for goods, services, and, in the case of the Wall Street Journal, labor. Yet the events of early September led to a collapse of negotiations with Mexico's Fox government over regularizing three million undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. and the guest worker pro gram favored by agribusiness and other large U.S. businesses that can employ low-wage labor. The new ambiance plays into the hands of the culture warriors who oppose the dilution of an "American identity."

Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar immediately signed an order increasing the time an immigrant can be held without being charged, and soon Congress will consider legislation to give the INS broad powers to arrest and deport potential terrorists. The White House asked for authority to indefinitely detain foreign nationals identified by the attorney general as terrorist threats, but Congress scaled the proposal back to seven days. Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered interviews of some 5,000 Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 33 who entered the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas since January 1, 2000. Interestingly, police departments in Oregon and California, fearful of harming their relationships with minority groups, refused to cooperate. The results of the interviews will be entered into an electronic database. In addition, the names of 314,000 foreigners who disappeared after being ordered deported will be entered into the National Crime Information Center database so po lice can identify them during traffic stops or other identity checks. Most have committed administrative violations, such as overstaying a tourist visa, and are not criminals.

Barry Steinhardt, the associate director of the ACLU, noted that most of the September 11 terrorists were in the country lawfully and had identification documents on them. Nonetheless, the chairman of the House immigration subcommittee, Rep. George Gekas, stated that Congress could no longer reject out of hand a national ID card system for citizens and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt said Congress should open debate on security measures such as a national ID card. In a survey by the Pew Research Center, seven of 10 Americans favored requiring citizens to carry a national identity card at all times. Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison called for the United States to create a national identification system (with each citizen's photograph and thumbprint digitized and embedded in an ID card) and offered to donate the software to make it possible. (According to Privacy International's David Banisar, Oracle, the world's largest database management systems company, grew out of a contract with the CIA.) Th e PATRIOT Act calls for a study of how biometric identification systems -- such as face scans or prints tied to the FBI fingerprint database -- could be used at U.S. borders and consular offices to detain anyone wanted for a crime. Opponents of national ID cards argue that they substantially increase police power and facilitate information sharing among government agencies, an especially dangerous development since the PATRIOT legislation also grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records, without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order. In addition, biometric surveillance systems produce too many false readings that could unfairly sweep innocent people into the dragnet. Even if one ignores the unsavory use of such cards in Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa, national ID cards have not stopped car-bombing campaigns in Spain, France, or Italy. Biometric monitoring could scarcely have prevented the September 11 attacks because the pe rpetrators only became known terrorists after they boarded the plane.

Attorney General John Ashcroft immediately pushed for expanded electronic surveillance and wiretap authority -- without hearings in the House or Senate. In response, even reactionary Representative Bob Barr (R-Ga.) joined William Safire on the libertarian right to caution against rushing into "a vast expansion of government power in a misguided attempt to protect freedom. In doing so, we will erode the very freedoms we seek to protect." The revised House bill expanded law enforcement's ability to conduct secret surveillance, even of U.S. citizens, under the aegis of gathering foreign intelligence. This represents a major erosion of protections of citizens under the criminal codes, which places a greater burden on investigators to prove in court that they have just cause for such surveillance.

Beyond expanded information sharing between police, the CIA, and similar agencies, other problematic features of the act are the ease with which police could eavesdrop on the Internet and the potentially intrusive surveillance of users by their Internet providers. Although the alleged terrorists used communications technologies (and weapons) beneath the level of any self-respecting drug dealer, the incident is being used to justify intrusive surveillance of electronic communications. Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI began to visit Web-based e-mail firms and network providers to install their Carnivore spy system, now renamed DCS1000, a specially configured Windows computer designed to sit on an Internet provider's network and monitor electronic communications. The system taps substantial portions of traffic coming through an Internet service provider's networks in search of data from the target of the investigation. Republican lawmakers and the Justice Department s ought to enhance the FBI's powers to eavesdrop on the activities of cable subscribers, reversing consumer protections of the 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act, which required cable providers to notify customers immediately of search warrants. In addition, a software company has become embroiled in a controversy over whether it will place backdoors for the U.S. government in its security software. Such apparent collaboration with the FBI's "Magic Lantern" project raises privacy concerns since an e-mail attachment inserts FBI spyware inside any targeted computer to circumvent encryption by secretly recording a pass phrase and secret encryption key (indeed, all keystrokes), and then forwarding the confidential data to federal agents. Internationally, the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand use the Echelon system to share the product of global eavesdropping. The respective agencies exchange intercepted military, diplomatic, industrial, and private communications, using supercomputers to identify key words.

The attorney general also proposed legislation that expands the definition of federal terrorism offenses to include damaging computers by breaking into them or writing viruses. This highlights a wider problem of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which gives law enforcement a host of new powers that can only be used in cases of suspected terrorist activity, without tightening the definition of what constitutes "terrorism." Section 802 of the act creates a new crime of domestic terrorism, under which a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. This definition could apply to a protester who throws a rock through an office building ( such as occurred at a World Trade Organization protest) or a computer hacker.

Until recently, Silicon Valley executives generally have not supported Republican policies, and tend to support privacy rights, to the extent they still exist. For reasons of competitiveness, they bristled over export controls on encryption software and powerful computers. The battered but still powerful Silicon Valley firms behind the Internet will get a boost when the communications infrastructure is rebuilt in New York's financial district. Just as World War II brought the nation's heavy industry back to life, this new 21st century war will likely bolster a technology industry that has been directionless since the Internet bubble burst. The torrent of new spending about to be unleashed will more tightly bind Silicon Valley to the anti-terror/military establishment as demand surges for technologies to defend against potentially more lethal attacks involving chemical and biological weapons, microchips for sophisticated weaponry that will leapfrog the current generation of smart weapons, and communications te chnologies that facilitate video conferencing and other means of electronic gathering. At a time when private investment for technology firms in Silicon Valley and elsewhere had dried up, they stand to receive a major proportion of the $20 billion already allocated for the anti-terror campaign and the projected $33 billion increase in the defense budget approved by Congress in December 2001 for homeland security. More than $1.3 billion of the first $4.2 billion in emergency spending authority the Pentagon received after the attacks was devoted to improving intelligence gathering using reconnaissance aircraft like the $47 million Global Hawk and $3 million Predator drones, as well as to buying computers that handle the raw intelligence data collected by satellites and aircraft. Any mention of a military-industrial complex must now bring to mind Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, but also L-3 Communications Holdings, Microsoft, and Intel, whose Pentium processors are incorporated in the eq uipment of next-generation Land Warrior soldiers, as well as a slew of lesser-known biotechnology firms, mostly centered in California.

According to a senior policy analyst with Rand Corporation, Michael Wermuth, "most people have no idea of the scope of the government's power to respond, especially to chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attacks." The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Defense Department agency, initially funded the Internet and is now investing in the biotechnology industry to combat bioterrorism. Apart from spending by the Defense Department and other federal agencies on prevention and detection, the Bush administration has allocated $343 million for dealing with a biological attack, $113 million of which is for the Pentagon to protect soldiers in the field. Critics point out that despite the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in biodefense each year, U.S. policies on bioterrorism have been imprudent and misdirected. Current federal policy concerning potential biological weapons use emphasizes "domestic preparedness" responses over a preventive policy. Moreover, U.S. military and intelligence agencies are developing their own new anthrax strain and production systems, stealthily edging the U.S. toward an illegal offensive germ warfare program. In an ominous sign, the Bush administration repudiated the Biological Weapons Convention, which deals with implementing the prohibition on developing biological weaponry. Also troubling was the decision of a Bush administration biodefense group made up of representatives of the Defense Department, State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and other cabinet departments to retain the world's remaining stocks of smallpox, reversing a course set two decades ago to destroy the virus.

At one point, President Bush called the anthrax attacks on Washington, New York, and Florida the second wave in terrorism's war on America. Military hawks inside and outside the administration seized on the anthrax scare as a justification for the U.S. to bomb Iraq and overthrow the leadership in Baghdad. Yet Scott Ritter (the U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and a strong advocate for military action against Saddam Hussein in the days leading up to the Gulf War) discounted the Iraq link and top FBI and CIA officials interviewed by investigative journalist Bob Woodward expressed the belief that domestic extremists were responsible for the attacks, not Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization (or Iraq or Russia for that matter). Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, chairwoman of an arms control panel at the Federation of American Scientists, concluded from the available information that the killer is "an American microbiologist who had, or once had, access to weaponized anthrax in a U.S. governmen t lab, or had been taught by a U.S. defense expert how to make it." In the actual anthrax-related deaths, the high-grade additive that makes anthrax spores deadlier was developed by scientists at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, as part of the U.S. biological weapons program that supposedly ended in 1969. (The Washington Post and The New York Times reported that government officials have acknowledged that in 1998 scientists at the Army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah made anthrax in a powdered form that could be used as a weapon, that the original source of the terrorist material had to have been USAMRIID, and that the CIA used anthrax in its bioweapons research program.) Though spores mass-produced at a Pine Bluff, Arkansas, facility were destroyed, it is not known whether "seed stocks" from which new batches could be grown had also been destroyed.

According to Jeanne Guillemin, a Senior Fellow at MIT's Security Studies Program, "this is a kind of blowback from programs in the '50s and '60s.... We invested in weapons thinking we were increasing our security, and we are finding out we increased the risk beyond any calculation made earlier." Related to the larger anthrax panic, Attorney General John Ashcroft identified the primary suspect in the anthrax hoax on Planned Parenthood facilities as a member of the Army of God - antiabortion extremists who have claimed responsibility for killing doctors who perform abortions and for bombing clinics members; the group claims it would not hesitate to use anthrax if they had it. These instances support Guillemin's thesis that in terrorist threats, relative to conventional explosives, the obstacles to using biological weapons are great. Large numbers of people are already trained in the use of explosives and conventional weapons that can be readily acquired, while very few have ever made a biological weapon capable of decimating a population. Nonetheless, the current federal bioterror program seeks to incorporate the medical community into its counterterrorism agenda. Indeed, in the name of battling a 21st-century bioterror plague, the Bush administration is urging all 50 states to adopt legislation drafted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that allows public health authorities to take over hospitals, seize drug supplies, quarantine people exposed to infectious pathogens, draft doctors to treat them, force patients to be vaccinated, and order police to restrain residents from leaving contaminated areas -- measures critics have termed a public health "police state" because of the broad definition of a public health emergency that would trigger such extraordinary powers and the absence of civil rights protections.

Funds have also been lavished on combating other forms of terrorism, to questionable effect. According to Senator Dianne Feinstein, "a year ago we spent about $12 billion (annually) in over 40 different agencies combating terrorism." These 40 federal agencies and hundreds of state and local authorities are responsible for different pieces of any preemptive action to stop terrorist attacks within the country and to mobilize emergency resources if they do occur. The newly created Office of Homeland Security will coordinate the nation's response to terrorism. This high-level security office is the first in the nation's history devoted solely to coordinating internal defenses. The National Security Council will get a national director for combating terrorism (under the former head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, General Wayne A. Downing) and an Office of Cyber-Security (under President Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, Richard A. Clarke). In its sweeping review of military strategy released in Octob er 2001. the Pentagon elevated domestic defense to the first of the four core military missions and signaled that the Army will play a pivotal role in whatever responsibility is given to the military in homeland defense.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has called for a "cultural revolution" inside the CIA and FBI and for an independent investigation into why government did not foresee or prevent the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Each year, $30 billion are spent on intelligence gathering, but it failed to prevent this attack just as these agencies and the pundits failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union). Despite their colossal intelligence failure, intelligence and police bodies will receive expanded budgets and powers. The government already has enormous legal authority to respond to terrorist attacks, including statutes that allow the U.S. air forces to patrol city streets and engage in search and seizures. Nonetheless, the CIA is taking this opportunity to try to rescind a 25-year-old ban on U.S. involvement in foreign assassinations, and to permit the recruitment of overseas agents linked to terrorist groups (as well as paramilitary death squads). Of course, the sort of terro rism these measures seek to combat frequently originates with sectors of the extreme Right, as in Oklahoma, or with people that were trained under the umbrella of the U.S. covert initiatives, as in the case of Osama bin Laden. Undoing the work of the Church Committee has its parallel in loosening restrictions on FBI surveillance and allowing U.S. attorneys to approve wiretaps. Bush's anti-terrorism proposals also seek to expand the enormous powers the executive branch enjoys under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), initially passed to restrain the highly publicized abuses in the 1960s and 1970s by the FBI, CIA, and the Nixon White House, which had claimed executive branch authority to spy on U.S. citizens without judicial oversight. The current controversy involves the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a seven-judge body picked by Chief Justice William Rehaquist that approves "black bag" searches, wiretaps, and the bugging of homes in the interest of national security. The go vernment is now limited to using the act for gathering foreign or terrorist intelligence, but the proposed change would permit it to use EISA for criminal investigations. In criminal proceedings, defendants are not able to challenge the evidence obtained this way because they are not allowed to see the information relied on by agents making the surveillance requests. In December 2001,the Justice Department asked Congress to remove the requirement of a foreign connection for a FISA wiretap, a proposal that would make it far easier for the CIA to mount surveillance on people who have no known connection to actors overseas. Also that month, Attorney General Ashcroft proposed a relaxation of restrictions on FBI spying on religious and political organizations in the U.S., in effect a rechristening of the notorious Cointelpro program. Civil libertarians criticized the move, and senior career FBI officials expressed displeasure over not being consulted on this change and other Bush administration counterterrorism me asures. Going practically unnoticed was an October 12, 2001, memo in which Ashcroft vigorously urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information Act requests made by American citizens. The FOIA is a crucial democratic reform passed in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal; with Bush's November 1 executive order allowing him to seal all presidential records since 1980, the effect of the quashing is chilling.

The current political climate has also reversed the positive momentum in several areas: opposition to the death penalty and condemnation of racial profiling. Budgets have been sharply reduced for pretrial and alternative programs. And prison reform suffers since the Bureau of Prisons issued a regulation on October 31 allowing the government to listen in on conversations between prisoners and their lawyers and legal counsel if the attorney general believes there is reasonable suspicion the conversation is related to terrorist activity. There are open calls for profiling in the form of special security measures in airports regarding "Arablooking people." Never mind that existing law enforcement profiles of terrorists did not fit the alleged perpetrators of these terrorist acts or that the victims of "antiArab" hate crimes have been Sikhs from India (while the September 11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt). A new term has even entered the lexicon, "flying while brown," referring to the refusal of pilot s, and passengers, to take off with Middle Eastern-looking people aboard. The Movement for the Rights of Immigrants reports that 25 clients, all of them Latino, have been detained and questioned at the San Francisco airport since September 11. Moreover, any criticism of police abuse, such as the Ramparts unit in Los Angeles and the Diallotype police violence in New York, now verges on sacrilege given the daily adulation of police officers in America's ballparks. This approach will not make the streets safer for the average American. Neither can technological hubris: the application of the "electronic battlefield" developed during the Vietnam War to U.S. police work in the 1970s did not diminish the crime problem; indeed, the public remains insecure, violent crime rates remain high, and the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Then we were asked to abandon the search for crime causation in favor of "what works." Today we are asked to rely on technological and military solutions to terrorism, n either of which help us understand the conditions that promote terrorism in the first place.

How do we reconcile the need for justice and respect for the victims with the need to place moral and legal limits on state violence and on encroachments on civil liberties? The deliberate murder of innocents is a crime against humanity that must be redressed, in the U.S. and in other countries. More than 80 nations suffered the loss of one or more of their citizens on September 11. A reasonable prospect, therefore, was a multilateral response, involving the United Nations, the World Court, or some other international tribunal, where the al Qaeda conspirators would be entitled to the presumption of innocence at trial, but the trier of fact would be a panel of judges rather than of jurors. Given U.S. hostility to infringements on its jurisdiction by international bodies, and the fact that an international panel would probably not impose the death penalty, this approach was fraught with difficulty. Moreover, this expectation ultimately underestimated the determined unilateralist strain in U.S. policy: in short order, the Senate voted to keep American soldiers from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed International Criminal Court in The Hague; U.S. officials derailed talks to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; and the Bush administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, while proposing secret U.S. military tribunals to try suspected foreign terrorists. Early on, Richard Falk and Michael T. Klare stressed the political importance for the Bush administration to drop its war rhetoric and to treat the search for the perpetrators and their backers as a criminal investigation, with elementary due process. Klare called for combining global law enforcement collaboration with moral and religious combat. Apprehending bin Laden and putting his networks out of operation would require the cooperation of police and intelligence personnel around the globe -- including the Islamic world. Falk observed that the diplomacy needed to receive this cooperation might restrain the U.S. impulse to use for ce excessively and irresponsibly. Using restraint as a weapon and involving many countries would support the legitimacy of any retaliation and sidestep the jurisdictional problems of unilateral U.S. policing and intelligence penetration. Yet convincingly identifying the perpetrators or "providing proof," important to Muslim countries, which are understandably reluctant to believe that such horrendous acts were carried out in the name of Islam, clashed with the Bush administration's secrecy-based agenda.

To the dismay of some elements of the peace movement, Falk and others argued that a military response to apocalyptic terrorism, with its genocidal intent directed generically against Americans and Jews, is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to inflict punishment, and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad. (In truth, Falk outlines a position for limiting military intervention, after having dismissed a pacifist response as inappropriate and acknowledged that for better or worse, the U.S. had mobilized for war based on the claimed right of self-defense.) In terms of apprehension, the criminal justice system, which is intentionally deliberate and cumbersome, is ill equipped to track down and incapacitate foreign terrorists. The probable involvement of U.S. and British special forces in the apprehension phase dictates military rules of engagement, not law enforcement due process considerations. However, any use of force, Falk states, should be:

consistent with international law and with the "just war" tradition governing the use of force -- that is, it should discriminate between military and civilian targets, be proportionate to the challenge, and be necessary to achieve a military objective, avoiding superfluous suffering. If retaliatory action fails to abide by these guidelines, with due allowance for flexibility depending on the circumstances, then it will be seen by most as replicating the fundamental evil of terrorism. It will be seen as violence directed against those who are innocent and against civilian society.

As the war pressed on and reports of atrocities by Northern Alliance troops emerged almost daily, concerns arose over the legal obligations of U.S. personnel advising the alliance forces to halt abuses. Combatants who surrender are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and executions, murder, and torture are among the many acts that are considered war crimes under those international standards. If the United States continues to advise and supply Afghan troops suspected of war crimes, what message is it sending?

Similarly, once those involved in the September 11 attacks are brought to trial, the integrity of the justice system will itself be judged. As legal practitioners such as Dennis Riordan have noted, if our constitutional jurisprudence were diluted to the point that what is oppressive and wrong is judicially accepted as fair and right -- as when our Supreme Court approved the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II -- U.S. legal culture could suffer irreparable harm. Even in the federal courts, the rhetoric and reality of war could compromise the requirement for bin Laden and his associates to receive the procedural protections the Constitution guarantees to all who are charged with a crime in the U.S. Other concerns are not trivial: How are U.S. courts to handle the presumption of innocence, rules of evidence, failure to Mirandize, or the military's interrogation techniques in such cases? What if the problematic nature of the law of conspiracy or the inadmissibility in court, or the likely refusal of the government to reveal its evidence or the accusers, led to a politically impossible decision to acquit bin Laden? Far more troubling, however, are President Bush's November 13 executive order, "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism," which calls for secret military tribunals, and the public debate on the use of torture on those already detained here. Spain has declined to extradite eight men charged with complicity in the September 11 attacks unless U.S. authorities pledge not to try them with the military tribunals; indeed, it is unlikely that any of the 15 nations of the European Union -- all of which have renounced the death penalty and signed the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, whose terms the tribunals violate -- would agree to extradition that involved the possibility of a military trial. The use of hearsay evidence, allowable under Bush's order, would also trouble authorities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where it is forbidden. Anthon y Lewis has succinctly summarized the danger the order poses to Americans:

President Bush's order creating military tribunals to try those suspected of links is the broadest move in American history to sweep aside constitutional protections. The Bush order covers all noncitizens, and there are about 20 million of them in the United States -- immigrants working toward citizenship, visitors, and the like. In the vaguest terms, it covers such things as "harboring" anyone who has ever aided acts of terrorism that might have had "adverse effects" on the U.S. economy or foreign policy. The Bush military trials are to be in secret, before officers who are subordinate to officials bringing the charges; defendants will not be able to pick their own lawyers. And, unlike the Hague defendants, they may be executed. And the Bush order could easily be extended to citizens, under the administration's legal theory. Since the Sixth Amendment makes no distinction between citizens and aliens, the claim of war exigency could sweep its protections aside for anyone in this country who might fit the vague definitions of aiding terrorism. The Bush order was an act of executive fiat, imposed without even consulting Congress. And it seeks to exclude the courts entirely from a process that may fundamentally affect life and liberty. The order says that a defendant "shall not be privileged to seek any remedy...in any court," domestic or foreign.

What price are Americans willing to pay to defeat the threat of terrorism? In October, a Washington Post article by Walter Pincus reported that FBI and Justice Department investigators had become frustrated by the silence of jailed suspected associates of the al Qaeda network and were beginning to discuss using drugs or pressure tactics (such as those employed by Israeli interrogators) to extract information, or extraditing the suspects to allied countries where security services sometimes employ threats to family members or resort to torture. The Justice Department emphatically denied that torture was being considered, and Robert M. Blitzer, the former chief of the FBI counterterrorism section, condemned torture as an investigative technique. (We will overlook for this discussion the J. Edgar Hoover-era FBI Special Intelligence Service's acquiescence in torture in Brazil, the U.S. AID Police Assistance Program's involvement with torture in Guatemala and El Salvador, or the atrocities associated with the mili tary's Fort Benning facility known formerly as the School of the Americas.) The most alarming aspect of this story was the direction it took in the media. The major broadcast news divisions did not take on the topic, but the Fox News Channel ran a network-news style segment on the pros and cons of torture and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter's column entitled "Time to Think About Torture" alarmed human rights organizations, as did Harvard law professor and civil libertarian Alan M. Dershowitz's discussion in the Los Angeles Times of when it is justified to resort to unconventional techniques such as truth serum, moderate physical pressure, and outright torture. (Vicki Haddock notes that he has advocated the idea of "torture warrants" for years to Israel, which resorted to torture techniques such as encasing suspects in vomit-soaked hoods and shaking them violently until the Israeli Supreme Court barred such torture in 1999.) Dershowitz argues that under the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, "any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case -- such as a deportation hearing -- or against someone else." Astounded that the topic was being seriously entertained, critics noted it indicated how much the political-legal landscape had changed since September 11. Charles Levendosky made the case that torture assumes a suspect's guilt and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, resorting to torture provides at best the illusion of safety, and we lose our moral compass in the process. Even the use of truth serum is prohibited under international law and is cruel and degrading.

Accepting the logic of torturers also undermines the legitimacy of measures to redress the crime against humanity that took place on September 11. The "war" on terrorism is winnable only if we examine the structural causes of violence. As Falk argues, we must manifest a respect for the innocence of civilian life and reinforce that respect with a credible commitment to the global promotion of social justice. That commitment, more than efforts to portray the recent attacks as a criminal matter, may encourage Islamic governments to more readily comply with U.S. requests for assistance. They must be able to respond to destabilizing internal forces that are the product of the uneven development and cultural dominance that accompanies neoliberal globalization.

Antiwar or Justice Movement?

Is there a prospect for a renewed antiwar movement? It was reported that demonstrations took place on 140 college campuses in early October. The participants called for a nonviolent response (justice, not war) to the terrorist attacks. Protests built upon the antiglobalization demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, and Genoa, Italy, and linked the war on terrorism to racism at home and imperialism abroad. Unlike the 1960s and 1970s, this peace movement tended to eschew the word "antiwar." Elite-level splits played a role in building opposition to the Vietnam War, but the draft and a long period of structural unemployment turned college students into the streets. Working-class war veterans gave vibrancy to the antiwar movement. A mounting number of body bags could produce a similar response today if the neoconservative interventionists prevail in expanding the counterterrorist war to Iraq, Somalia, or Lebanon and Syria -- as Israel is promoting -- or even broader if possession of weapons of mass destruction be comes the criterion for target selection. The IMF has predicted a possible worldwide economic retrenchment due to the September events, and the U.S. economy has entered a recession, with massive layoffs and fewer prospects for college graduates. However, defense and technology-related counterterrorism spending will offer some stimulus. Moreover, we are not facing stagflation like that of the 1970s, which was structurally related to a long-term capital shortage caused by a combination of government borrowing for the Vietnam War, a baby boomer-related surge in consumer credit, and high commodity prices that cut into profits. However, Operation Enduring Freedom racked up a bill of at least $400 million by early November, and is projected to cost up to one billion dollars each month for the duration of the conflict. And though the case for a trillion-dollar missile defense system would seem to have collapsed on September 11, the Bush administration is single-mindedly pursuing its deployment. The logic of U.S. pow er in the world system (as well as acceptance of its political agenda) in the late 20th century was based on a combination of productive efficiency and military superiority. Today, only military superiority remains. The productive efficiency of U.S. enterprises faces very extensive competition, especially from the enterprises of its closest allies, but also from China, which has benefited most from the persisting U.S. economic slowdown. Franz Schurmann has observed that if America becomes ever more deeply entangled in the Afghanistan quagmire (or a wider, long-term anti-terrorist war), global markets ready and eager to move are reluctant to hitch their economies to the American locomotive. He adds that in the 1960s, President Johnson was so entangled in Vietnam that he couldn't deal with America's deteriorating economy, and Bush risks the same in Afghanistan.

There are similarities and differences, but given the anti-terrorist clamp down nationally, there may be room for, and new challenges to, a wide range of oppositional movements. Among the challenges posed by the Right is the pervasive neo-McCarthyist sentiment that any criticism of administration policy is treasonous: for Attorney General Ashcroft, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists." Georgetown University law professor Samuel Dash, the Senate Watergate Committee's chief counsel, responded: "It is sad that the attorney general treats honest criticism as un-American and unpatriotic. These are fear tactics that chill debate. President Nixon also treated critics as enemies." Equally disturbing is the misleading list compiled by the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni of 117 "anti-American statements" that excoriates college faculty members for invoking "tolerance and diversity as antidotes to evil" and point ing "accusatory fingers, not at the terrorists, but at America itself." The report received wide publicity because one of the council's founding members is Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney. The Center for Economic Research and Social Change has reported that Trustees of the City University of New York voted to condemn faculty members who criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in during the first week in October, and the president of the University of Texas at Austin publicly denounced a prominent faculty critic of U.S. policy. Moreover, efforts by prowar students, alumni, and prominent media outlets to silence criticism and dissent have been reported at the University of New Mexico, Brown University, MIT, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and California State University at Sacramento, where the 17,000 guests (but only some of the students) attending a midyear graduation ceremony refused to allow the president and publisher of th e Sacrament Bee to continue her address on tolerance of differing points of view and the threats to civil liberties posed by the federal government's investigation of the terrorist attacks. A challenge also exists for progressives to seriously address critics like Richard Falk and Michael H. Shuman (former director of the Institute for Policy Studies), who argue that the current conflict with terrorist forces resembles a threat tantamount to the ant-fascist struggles of the 1930s and 1940s, for which pacifist and traditional anti-imperialist approaches are not appropriate.

Beyond calls for justice and limits on militarist solutions, one could argue, as Hal Plotkin does, that history may have taken a very different course if after the last major crisis in the Middle East 25 years ago, the U.S. had embarked on a crash program to develop new solar, wind, geothermal, and fuel-cell technologies to successfully become energy independent, rather than pursuing a strategy of propping up autocratic regimes in the Middle East and Central Asia to assure the flow of cheap foreign oil. A collective effort to achieve a "humane globalization" must repudiate not only "oil imperialism," but also neoliberal forms of global dominance. If, as Falk argues, we are poised on the brink of a global, intercivilizational war without battlefields and borders and the idea of national security in a world of states has become obsolete, then the only viable security lies in articulating "human security." That cannot be achieved in a world of "humanitarian" military interventions or covert actions undertaken by national security states, which ultimately increase our vulnerability through blowback. Nor can it be achieved in a world where neoliberal economic policies exacerbate disparities in wealth between and within nations, impose uniform cultural values upon the dominated, and generate regional instability. According to Abdul Latif Arabiyat, a Jordanian politician associated with Zarqa University, 80% of all refugees today are Muslims, who believe the U.S. is not concerned with their plight. And as Robert D. Kaplan observes, the most dangerous movements are often composed of war orphans, who, being unsocialized, are exceptionally brutal (e.g., the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, and the Taliban in Afghanistan). Fueling contemporary insurgencies are illicit drugs, diamonds and other precious stones, and, in the case of the bloody civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, coltan ore (refined into tantalum for use in cell phones and computer chips). Choking off this sour ce of funds requires diminishing the demand for such goods in the rich North. The ineffectiveness to date of initiatives by the U.S. and the global community in subduing transnational crimes, from drug trafficking to money laundering to people smuggling, has not been encouraging.

This essay was initially drafted in the last week of September 2001, and was updated just before publication.

NOTES

(1.) Others in the 18-member bipartisan Defense Policy Board are hawk-minded unilateralists such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA director James Woolsey, Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, Admiral David E. Jeremiah, the former deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Defense and Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger, Richard L. Armitage, and Newt Gingrich. Among those pushing for an attack on Iraq are those inside the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment that believe the U.S. has the right and obligation to project power and win wars, in this case to put the Iraqi opposition in power: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, retired General Wayne A. Downing, the president's counterterrorism chief, I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, former State Department official Robert Kagan, and Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., the former chairman of the Senate For eign Relations Committee; Democrat Joseph Lieberman's positions are close to this group. On the other side are Secretary of State Powell, his deputy and friend, Richard L. Armitage (a nuclear hawk but military pragmatist), retired General Anthony C. Zinni, the new Middle East envoy, George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Vincent M. Cannistraro, the chief of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency from 1988 to 1990 and director of intelligence programs for the National Security Council in the Reagan administration.

REFERENCES

Abate, Tom

2001

"Bioterrorism Defenses Being Developed. Bay Area Companies Collaborate with Federal Agencies." San Francisco Chronicle (Wednesday, September 26).

ABC News

2001

"FBI Denies Reports of Planned Torture." At: http://abcnews.go.comisections/us/DailyNews/WTC_Investigation0l1025a. html.

Associated Press

2001a

"Iranian Leader Says Country Won't Help U.S. on Afghanistan." September 26.

2001b

"Publisher Heckled During Address Backing Liberties." San Francisco Chronicle (December 17).

Badkhen, Anna

2001a

"Unlikely U.S. Allies in Afghanistan. Anti-Taliban Coalition Is Motley Band with Shady Past." San Francisco Chronicle (Thursday, September 27).

2001b

"Drug Trade Could Bloom Amid Conflict. War Might Provide Smoke Screen for Traffic." San Francisco Chronicle (Thursday, October 4).

Banerjee, Neela

2001

"Oil, Politics, and the New Global Fault Lines." Associated Press (September 30).

Banerjee, Neela, with Sabrina Tavemise

2001

"As the War Shifts Alliances, Oil Deals Follow." New York Times (December 15).

Becker, Elizabeth

2001

"Bush Chooses Retired General as His National Counterterrorism Coordinator." New York Times (October 1).

Bedi, Rahul

2001

"Why? An Attempt to Explain the Unexplainable. The Rise of Al-Qaeda." Janes Weekly (September 14). At: Janes.com.

Broad, William J. and Judith Miller

2001

"U.S. Recently Produced Anthrax in a Highly Lethal Powder Form." New York Times (December 13).

Cannistraro, Vincent M.

2001

"Keep the Focus on Al Qaeda." New York Times (December 3).

Carlsen, William

2001a

"Sweeping Police Powers Raise Alarms. INS Expands Time Detainees in Terrorist Probe Can Be Held." San Francisco Chronicle (Wednesday, September 19).

2001b

"Secretive U.S. Court May Add to Power Bush Wants to Use Terrorism Panel in Criminal Probes." San Francisco Chronicle (Saturday, October 6).

2001c

"Bill Would Widen Powers of New Anti-Terror Office." San Francisco Chronicle (Saturday, September 22).

Cohen, Tom

2001

"Ashcroft Announces Pact with Canada on New Border Security Plans." Associated Press (Tuesday, December 4).

Coile, Zachary

2001

"Quick Passage of Bush Anti-Terrorist Package Unlikely. Liberal, Conservative Lawmakers Fear Loss of Civil Liberties." San Francisco Chronicle (Wednesday, September 26).

Connolly, Ceci

2001

"Bioterrorism Vulnerability Cited. GAO Warns That Health Departments Are Ill-Equipped." Washington Post (Friday, September 28): A16.

Crutsinger, Martin

2001

"IMF Warns Terrorist Attacks Could Trigger Global Recession." Associated Press (Wednesday, September 26).

Dahlburg, John-Thor

1995

"Pakistan Is Secret of Taliban's Success." The Guardian (London, November 23).

Dao, James

2001

"Military Budget Creates Rift in G.O.P." New York Times (July 26).

Dao, James and Steven Lee Myers

2001

"Military Looks at Surveillance Stockpile and Finds a Dearth. The Weapons: New Military Systems May Be Tested in Field in 'War Against Terrorism."' New York Times (October 1).

Dershowitz, Alan M.

2001

"Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?" Los Angeles Times (November 9).

Dillon, Sam and Donald G. McNeil, Jr.

2001

"Spain Sets Its Terms to Extradite 8; U.S. Must Guarantee Suspects Civilian Trials." New York Times (Saturday, November 24), in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Drudge, Matt

2001

"Bush Contemplates National ID Card for All Citizens." At: http://www.drudgereport.com/id.htm/.

Eakin, Emily

2001

"Dissenters on Campus Singled Out by Conservative Council; Professors Put on 'List' -- Fear 'Whiff of McCarthyism.'" New York Times (Saturday, November 24), in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Eggan, Timothy

2001

"Plan to Expand U.S. Powers Alarming Some in Colorado." New York Times (October 3).

Eggen, Dan

2001

"Ashcroft Defends Anti-Terrorism Steps; Civil Liberties Groups' Attacks 'Only Aid Terrorists,' Senate Panel Told." Washington Post (December 7): A01.

Epstein, Edward

2001

"U.S. Urged to Back Muslim Democracy; Major Policy Shift in Washington Called Essential in Fight Against Terrorism." San Francisco Chronicle (December 20).

Evangelista, Benny

2001a

"A Show of Security: Biometrics a Hot Topic at Comdex." San Francisco Chronicle (Wednesday, November 14).

2001b

"Terrorist Attacks Have Inspired Nationwide Interest in Surveillance." San Francisco Chronicle (Monday, September 24).

Falk, Richard

2001a

"A Just Response." The Nation (October 8).

200lb

"Defining a Just War." The Nation (October 29).

Feder, Bamaby J.

2001

"New Military Systems May Be Tested in Field in 'War Against Terrorism.'" New York Times (October 1).

Freedberg, Louis

2001

"Silicon Valley's Cyberwarriors; Tech Firms Rush to Cash In on the Fight Against Terrorism." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, December 16).

Freedberg, Louis and Anastasia Hendrix

2001

"Attacks Redefine Border Strategy, Focus Widens to Entire Continent." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, September 30).

Gamboa, Suzanne

2001a

Attacks Put Guest Worker Legislation on Back Bumer, Make Visa Tracking, Borders the Priority." Associated Press (Wednesday, September 19).

2001b

"Names of Deportees to Enter Database." Associated Press (December 6).

Garvey, Megan

2001

"Anthrax Threats Mass Mailed to Abortion Clinics." Los Angeles Times (November 9).

Geitner, Paul

2001

"Europe Officials Fear Cheap Afghan Opium Flooding the Markets." Associated Press (Wednesday, October 3).

Gitell, Seth

2000

"Bushies Are Isolating Jewish Voters -- But There Still Is Time to Do Repairs." Jewish World Review (May 17).

Gordon, Michael R. and Judith Miller

2001

"U.S. Germ Warfare Review Faults Plan on Enforcement." New York Times (May 20).

Gordon, Michael R. and David E. Sanger

2001

"Bush Approves Covert Aid for Taliban Foes." New York Times (October 1).

2001

Gordon, Michael R. and Eric Schmitt

2001

"Afghanistan Remains a Major Drug Trader Despite Taliban Ban." New York Times (September 26).

Granick, Jennifer S.

2001

"Computer Hacker -- Vandal or Terrorist?" San Francisco Chronicle (Wednesday, October 3).

Guillemin, Jeanne

2001

"Biological Weapons: Avoiding the Next, Worst Terrorism." The Boston Globe (September 23).

Gullo, Karen

2001

'Ashcroft Says One of FBI's Most-Wanted Fugitives Is Suspect in Anthrax Hoax Letters." Associated Press (November 29).

Haddock, Vicki

2001

"To Get at the Truth, Is Torture or Coercion Ever Justified?" San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, November 18).

Hamill, Pete

2001

"Heroin's Ugly Role in Afghanistan." The New York Daily News (December 10).

Harris, John F.

2001

"God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says." Washington Post (Friday, September 14): C03.

Hentoff, Nat

2001

"Coming: A National Wiretap Warrant. The War on the Bill of Rights." The Village Voice (September 26 to October 2).

Herel, Suzanne

2001

"Police Leery of U.S. Probe. Bay Area Nonimmigrant Visa Holders Face Questioning." San Francisco Chronicle (Tuesday, December 4).

Hoffman, Lisa

2001

"War in Afghanistan Could Cost U.S. $1 Billion a Month." Scripps Howard News Service (November 5).

Johnston, David and Don Van Natta, Jr.

2001

"Ashcroft Seeking to Free F.B.I. to Spy on Groups." New York Times (December 1).

Kahn, Joseph

2001

"Gain for Trade Bill That Some See as Aid in Terrorism Fight." New York Times (October 4).

Kaplan, Robert D.

2000

"The Lawless Frontier." The Atlantic. At: www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/kaplan.htm.

Khatchadourian, Raffi

2001

"Neighbors Fear Afghan Drug Industry May Spread." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, December 16): F-1.

Kirby, Carrie

2001

"Proposed Security Bill Eyes Hackers. Labeling Computer Break-Ins as Terrorism Worries Rights Groups." San Francisco Chronicle (Friday, September 28).

Klare, Michael T.

2001a

"How to Defeat bin Laden." At: www.salon.com/news/feature/200l/09/13/justice/.

2001b

"America's Military Revolution." Le Monde diplomatique (July).

Kombluh, Peter

2001

"Bush's Contra Buddies." The Nation (May 7).

Lazarus, David

2001a

"Silicon Valley Goes to War. High-tech Tools for a Digital Battlefield." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, September 23).

2001b

"CalPERS, Carlyle Profit from Afghan War." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, December 2): G-I.

Lerner, Sharon

2001

"Slowing the Ashcroft Act: Haste Could Lay Waste to Liberty." Village Voice (September 26 to October 2).

Levendosky, Charles

2001

"Tool of the Barbarians': Tortured Logic." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, November 18).

Lewis, Anthony

2001

"Wake Up, America." New York Times (November 30).

Lubet, Steven

2001

"Why Trials Are Not an Alternative to War." San Francisco Chronicle (Thursday, September 27).

Marinucci, Carla and Stacy Finz

2001

"Feds Seek New Spying Rights. Attorney General Wants Congress to Expand Counterterrorism Laws, Loosen Restrictions on Wiretaps." San Francisco Chronicle (Monday, September 17).

Marquis, Christopher

2001

"Bush's Latin America Nominations Reopen Wounds." New York Times (August 1).

McCullagh, Declan

2001a

"Patriot Bill Moves Along." Wired Magazine. At: www.wired.com/news/ conflict/0,2100,47312,00.html.

2001b

"Anti-Attack Feds Push Carnivore." Wired Magazine (September 12).

2001c

"Lantern' Backdoor Flap Rages." Wired Magazine (November 27).

Millar, Stuart, Richard Norton-Taylor, and Ian Black

2001

"Worldwide Spying Network Is Revealed. MEPs Confirm Eavesdropping by Echelon Electronic Network." The Guardian of London (May 26).

Miller, Greg

2001

"Lawmakers Tone Down Terror Bill." Los Angeles Times (October 2).

Miller, Judith

2001

"U.S. Set to Retain Smallpox Stocks." New York Times (November 16).

Mitchell, Alison

2001

"House Panel Calls for 'Cultural Revolution' in F.B.I. and C.I.A." New York Times (October 3).

Mitchell, Alison and Todd S. Purdum

2001

"Ashcroft, Seeking Broad Powers, Says Congress Must Act Quickly." New York Times (October 1).

Moore, Molly and Kamran Khan

2001

"Pakistan Warns U.S. About Allying with Afghan Rebels." Washington Post (September 26), in San Francisco Chronicle.

Mufson, Steven and Thomas E. Ricks

2001

"Debate over Targets Highlights Difficulty of War on Terrorism. Call for Broad Action by Some Officials Runs into Concerns About Diplomatic Fallout." Washington Post (Friday, September 21): A25.

Nakao, Annie

2001

"Arab Americans Caught in Profile Snare. Detained, Denied Boarding or Kicked off Planes for Looking Middle Eastern." San Francisco Chronicle (Friday, September 28).

Neuffer, Elizabeth

2001

"U.S. Forces Urged to Halt Abuses by Northern Alliance." Boston Globe (November 30), in the San Francisco Chronicle.

New York Times

2001

"Homeland Security in a Pentagon Post." October 3.

Patterson, Wendy

2001

"Attack's Anonymous Victims. Many Illegal Workers' Families Fear Coming Forward." San Francisco Chronicle (Thursday, October 4).

Pear, Robert and Neil A. Lewis

2001

"House Panel Approves Bill Expanding Surveillance." New York Times (October 4).

Pincus, Walter

2001

"Silence of 4 Terror Probe Suspects Poses Dilemma." Washington Post (Sunday, October 21): A06.

Plotkin, Hal

2001

"Energy Independence Now. We Need A New Energy Revolution." Thursday, October 4 at www.sfgate.com.

Project for the New American Century

2001

Open Letter to the Honorable George W. Bush. At: www.newamencancentury.org/Bushletter.htm.

Rashid, Ahmed

2001

"Osama bin Laden: How the U.S. Helped Midwife a Terrorist." At: www.indymedia.org.

Ricks, Thomas E. and Alan Sipress

2001

"Air War's Political Endgame: Attacks Tailored to Shape Postwar Afghanistan." Washington Post (Tuesday, October 23).

Riordan, Dennis

2001

"We're Only Courting Trouble: The Trial of bin Laden." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, October 7).

Rothschild, Matthew

2001

"Iraq, Anthrax, and the Hawks." The Progressive (October 22). Web Exclusive.

Russell, Sabin and Zachary Coile

2001

"Anthrax Suspect Likely Domestic; List of People with the Know-How Narrowed to 50 or Fewer." San Francisco Chronicle (Tuesday, December 18).

Rutenberg, Jim

2001

"Torture Seeps into Discussion by News Media." New York Times (November 5).

Salladay, Robert

2001

"New Kind of Enemy, New Kind of Response. Civilization Confronts Warriors Who Have No Limits." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, September 30).

Salladay, Robert and John Wildermuth

2001

"Californians Worry About Civil Liberties. Field Poll Finds Some Fears About Economy." San Francisco Chronicle (Friday, September 21).

Scheer, Robert

2001

"Bush's Faustian Deal with the Taliban." Los Angeles Times (Tuesday, May 22).

Scheeres, Julia

2001

"ID Cards Are de Rigueur Worldwide." Wired On-Line (September 25). At: www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47073,00.html.

Schmitt, Eric

2001

"The Military: 4 Commanders Seek Staff Role for the F.B.I." New York Times (November 20).

Schurmann, Franz

2001

"China: The Big Winner in Afghan War." Pacific News Service (November 26). At: www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=l1962.

Schwartz, John

2001

"Securing the Lines of a Wired Nation." New York Times (October 4).

Sciolino, Elaine and Alison Mitchell

2001

"Calls for New Posh into Iraq Gain Power in Washington." New York Times (December 3).

Shuman, Michael H.

2001

"For a Peace Movement Worthy of the Name." San Francisco Chronicle (Monday, November 5).

Tansey, Bernadette

2001

"Health Bill Endangers Civil Rights: Bush Pushes Plan to Expand Control in Bioweapon Attack." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, November 25).

Trifkovic, Srdja

2000

"President Bush and Foreign Affairs." Friday, December 15. At: www.rockfordinstitute.org/NewsST121500.htm.

Urbina, Ian

2000

"Rogues' Gallery: Who Advises Bush and Gore on the Middle East?" Middle East Report 216 (Fall).

Vest, Jason

2001

"Beyond Osama: The Pentagon's Battle with Powell Heats Up." Village Voice (November 20).

Viviano, Frank

2001a

"Young Arabs Say the U.S. Is Bringing Tragedy upon Itself." San Francisco Chronicle (Friday, October 5).

2001b

"Energy Future Rides on U.S. War. Conflict Centered in World's Oil Patch." San Francisco Chronicle (Wednesday. September 26).

2001c

"Organized Crime Said to Launder Billions for Terrorists. Money for Groups Has Risen Sharply in Past Decade." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, September 23).

Wallace, Bill

2001

"Drugs Fuel Terror Campaign. Opium Trade Keeps Taliban in Business, Experts Charge." San Francisco Chronicle (Thursday, October 4).

Washington Post

2001

"Bush Push for Even Greater Federal Surveillance Powers." San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, December 2).

Weiss, Rick and Dan Eggen

2001

"Additive Made Spores Deadlier: 3 Nations Known to Be Able to Make Sophisticated Coating." Washington Post (Thursday, October 25): A0l.

Weiss, Rick and Susan Schmidt

2001

"Anthrax Search Leads to Army Lab; Capitol Hill Spores Match Cache Held by Military." Washington Post (December 16), in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Wemple, Erik

2001

"Feds Seek Cable Records." Cable World (September 24): 7.

Wilgoren, Jodi

2001

"Campuses Split over Afghanistan." New York Times (October 15).

Woodward, Bob and Dan Eggen

2001

"FBI and CIA Suspect Domestic Extremists; Officials Doubt Any Links to bin Laden." Washington Post (Saturday, October 27): A01.

Wright, Robin and Doyle McManus

2001

"Bush Camp Split on Anti-Terror Policy." Los Angeles Times (September 21).

Zacharia, Janine

2000

"Taking up the Reins." The Jerusalem Post (December 7).

Zunes, Stephen

2001

"U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam." Foreign Policy in Focus (September 12).

GREGORY SHANK (e-mail: GregoryS9@aol.com) is the Managing Editor of Social Justice and the president of Global Options (P.O. Box 40601, San Francisco, CA 94140). He has written on issues related to militarism, terrorism, and international relations.