From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #127 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, May 6 1998 Volume 02 : Number 127 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 16:34:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IP: [Fwd: Abort the United Nations] (fwd) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. - --1915762710-1214266244-894404054=:10672 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 18:18:34 -0500 From: jlbtexas To: Ignition Point Subject: IP: [Fwd: Abort the United Nations] - --1915762710-1214266244-894404054=:10672 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: Return-Path: Received: from mail-gw1adm.rcsntx.swbell.net (mail-gw1adm.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.60.101]) by mail1.rcsntx.swbell.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA21808; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:13:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kewlaid.highfiber.com (highfiber.com [208.131.137.4]) by mail-gw1adm.rcsntx.swbell.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA13564; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:13:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from highfiber.highfiber.com (ip141.dial-up.highfiber.com [208.131.137.141]) by kewlaid.highfiber.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA08818; Mon, 4 May 1998 08:13:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980504081320.0081d1b0@mail.highfiber.com> X-Sender: cabhop@mail.highfiber.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 08:13:20 -0600 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Robert Huddleston Subject: Abort the United Nations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/btlines/980504.btl.abort.united.nations.html Monday, May 4, 1998 between the lines By Joseph Farah Abort the United Nations WASHINGTON -- I don't know. Maybe it's me. But I'm a little confused. I get that way when I visit Washington. Apparently, so do some of the folks who live here. Let me try to sort it out. The Republican leadership in Congress decided to teach Bill Clinton a lesson last week by approving his request to pay nearly a billion dollars in "debt" to the United Nations -- but only with a rider supposedly prohibiting the use of the money to support abortion. The thinking in the Capitol is that Clinton will now veto the bill because of the restriction. Huh? What's the point? What exactly is the message that Congress is trying to send the president and the American people with this action? Here are a few possibilities: The only bad thing about the United Nations is that it propagates abortion. It's time to test whether Bill Clinton is more excited about killing unborn babies or supporting world government. The Congress doesn't have the courage to say "no" to the United Nations. The Congress doesn't have the courage simply to say "no" to subsidizing abortion on a worldwide scale. While here in Washington I had the oppportunity to hear House Majority Leader Dick Armey explain how happy he was that President Clinton was planning to veto the U.N. payment because of the abortion rider. It seems to me, however, that the Congress is mixing apples and oranges -- confusing the real issues at stake. Sure it's bad that the U.N. spends some of its money subsidizing International Planned Parenthood and other population control organizations and programs throughout the world. But is that the only evil Congress sees as far as the U.N. is concerned? Worse yet, the Congress appears to be conceding that the United States actually owes the United Nations money. That is simply not true. It is provably and demonstrably false. As a new report by the CATO Institute clearly shows, it is in fact the U.N. which owes the United States lots and lots of money. Over the past five years, the United States, through the executive branch, has illegally and unconstitutionally provided between $11 billion and $15 billion in military and other assistance to the U.N. for which it has not been reimbursed. How does the administration justify expenditures without the approval of Congress? In 1994, the White House issued Presidential Decision Directive 25. What we know about PDD25, we know from leaks in the press. But PDD25 remains a secret document never released to the public or even the Congress. Apparently, this dictatorial directive is all the justification Bill Clinton thinks he needs to continue to spend your money and mine on supporting the U.N.'s worldwide police operations. Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers of this country would have thought about such an outrage? Yet, the ultimate watchdog of the government -- the press -- accepts such imperial decisions by the administration. The Congress not only continues to abdicate its own responsibility in representing the interests of the people on matters of spending money and war-making, it helps cover up the illegal activities of the administration. Is it any wonder we can't get answers with regard to other scandals enveloping this White House? So, there you have it, my friends. The so-called U.S. debt to the United Nations is as phony as the so-called "budget surplus" we keep hearing about from the president, Congress and the establishment press. This is your money being sent abroad for mischievous reasons. They are your sons and daughters risking their lives for the ignoble cause of world government. Now you now the real story. Are you going to stand by and allow it to happen? Or are you going to do something about it? The answer is not attaching weak-kneed anti-abortion riders to U.N. funding bills. The answer is aborting our relationship with the U.N. Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html [Real Audio] [ We have story's to learn here ] PSALMS:37 Deuteronomy 28:1-68 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church,but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." - --Thomas Jefferson, 1 Jan 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- "But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) _______________________________________________ "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny." "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." +++++++++++++++++++ ><> +++++++++++++++++++++ "... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all,and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - -- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see Jefferson On Democracy, 20 (S. Padover ed. 1939). <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< - --1915762710-1214266244-894404054=:10672-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 08:52:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: RE: US Secretly Backs Standby UN Army! (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 10:38:09 GMT From: BlackTech Mailing List - Reply-To: act@efn.org To: The.BlackTech.Mailing.List@wakko.efn.org Cc: act@efn.org Subject: RE: US Secretly Backs Standby UN Army! Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.politics,alt.discrimination,misc.activism.militia,misc.survivalism - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:46:49 -0600, amp@pobox.com wrote: Stolen from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/btlindex.htm An excellent site. Thursday, April 30, 1998 U.S. secretly backs standby U.N. army No wonder Secretary of State Madeline Albright was out attacking U.N. critics recently. No wonder U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was in Hollywood recently courting celebrities like Magic Johnson to carry water for him. No wonder the U.N. and Clinton administration have been putting on a full-court press in Congress for the U.S. to pay up dues for which it is supposedly in arrears. You just knew something big was going on. The U.N. was up to something. The groundwork was being laid for a major development toward world governance. Another nail was being hammered into the coffin of U.S. national sovereignty. And here it is. Last fall the United States government voluntarily and secretly contributed $200,000 toward the establishment of a U.N. trust fund to finance and mobilize a worldwide standby army for "peacekeeping" operations. The State Department claims to have notified Congress of this investment of your tax dollars, but Capitol Hill sources questioned by the Washington Times said they did not recall any such request from the Clinton administration. When the paper asked the State Department to produce documents proving such notification, it refused - - -- saying such official communications are "privileged." In other words, the administration doesn't believe U.S. taxpayers have a right to know where their money is being spent. If you think that assertion is strong, consider the statement of a U.N. secretariat official who told the Washington Times the administration gave "backdoor support" for the plan because of political sensitivity over creating an army under U.N. command and political authority. And don't let the relatively small amount of money fool you into thinking this is not a significant development. It represents a foot in the door -- an opening the administration and U.N. officials hope will force Congress to allocate more and more to a chillingly unconstitutional and ill-advised goal. "This is a president who somehow thinks he's a king or a dictator or a one-person government, and he's not," said Sen. Rod Grams, a Minnesota Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on international operations. What the U.N. is establishing is a system of military reserves -- forces that could be called up on short notice with the approval of the Security Council. Some 72 nations have already signed agreements to provide the U.N. troops or capabilities -- infantry battalions, engineers, artillery, medical, logistical support and air transport, according to officials at the world body. "Each country maintains the troops and equipment within their own armed forces," explained U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki. "It's not considered a standing army for the U.N." Can you imagine the United States training and maintaining a U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters to be deployed at the whim, not of the president and the Congress, but of the U.N. secretary-general? Worse yet, can you imagine this force being comprised and led by a bunch of foreign mercenaries? You can see just by how this development was handled that Congress is not going to safeguard the interests of the American people. This first step was taken by the administration last September. Only now, thanks to some intrepid investigative reporting by George Archibald of the Washington Times do any of us even know about it. Congress pleads ignorance. Some members speak boldly about opposing it, even while the majority in the Congress is at this very moment preparing to make a deal on paying $817 million in "back dues" to the U.N. -- money that is not really owed. So, tell me, do you still think the "black helicopter crowd" is out of its collective mind? Do you think there might be at least a grain of truth in all the sightings of U.N. military equipment spotted in various locations around the United States? Do you still believe those U.N. Heritage Areas being declared in national parks throughout the country are simply innocent markings that have no meaning to the sovereign American people? Are you still unconcerned about the U.N. posturing over global gun control? The World Trade Organization ... the World Criminal Court ... what's behind the next curtain? See, the problem never has been the U.N. alone. The real problem is the plotting by U.S. politicians in Washington with U.N. officials to extend control and authority over our lives. It's happening, folks. Wake up. There can be no compromise with the criminal conspiracy of the world-government crowd. There's only one solution -- the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. I know it sounds like too much to ask in the current political climate. But accept no alternative. Anything less will signal the slow, torturous, eventual and inevitable strangulation of freedom in the United States and around the world. Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. - - ------------------------ Name: amp E-mail: amp@pobox.com Date: 04/30/98 Time: 08:46:49 Visit me at http://www.pobox.com/~amp == -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL #!/bin/perl -sp0777i This list is maintained by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr. To post a message to this group send mail to: The Black Tech Mailing List - Channel BlackTech opens *most* evenings around Midnight CST. When you log on to an "Efnet" IRC server, type: /join #BlackTech. If you wish to be removed from this list, send a reply with "REMOVE BLACKTECH" in the Subject line. Enjoy! Hope to see you there! - Jian on BlackTech IRC Chat - Efnet - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3 iQA/AwUBNVBLhXDnKKP6IdMiEQIiPACgzWTX63L3EQqjELMPiAJsP0rE4HYAmwWt RuwooAXS65IpVtOSzvaDhr/l =LDJR - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 08:51:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IP: CIA says many unprepared for millennium glitch (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 05:19:18 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: CIA says many unprepared for millennium glitch Forwarded - Reuters: - ----------------------- >CIA says many unprepared for millennium glitch > >Source: Reuters / Tue, 5 May 1998 11:45:52 PDT > >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Many countries appear ill prepared for the >disruption to basic services that the Year 2000 computer glitch may cause, >the head of the Central Intelligence Agency office studying the issue said >Tuesday. > >"We're concerned about the potential disruption of power grids, >telecommunications and banking services" among other possible fallout, >especially in countries already torn by political tensions, Sherry Burns >said. > >In an interview with Reuters, she said CIA systems engineers and >intelligence analysts were focusing beyond the technical problem of >reprogramming computers to recognize dates when the Millennium dawns on >Jan. 1, 2000. > >Instead, the spy agency has begun to collect and analyze information on >preparations for the "social, political and economic tumult" that could >flow from interruptions of essential services in some fragile societies. > >Millions of computers and embedded chips -- some central to financial >markets, air traffic control systems and even running elevators and heating >systems in office buildings -- cannot distinguish between 1900 and 2000 >because years have been expressed in two-digit shorthand in old >programming. > >The glitch, known as the Y2K problem, may trigger widespread disruptions >because not all computers will be fixed by Dec. 31, 1999. > >With the world's computer networks largely linked, the use of data that has >been converted to the new millennium standard improperly -- or not >converted at all -- could infect newly reprogrammed systems, Burns said. > >According to the CIA assessment, the threat of turmoil is greatest among >those unaware of the key role that bits and bytes play in providing >essential services and bringing goods to markets, even in less developed >countries. > >"There is very little realization that there will be disruption" of basic >services as some computers shut down or go haywire, even among business >leaders, Burns said. > >"As you start getting out into the population, I think most people are >again assuming that things are going to operate the way they always have," >she said. "That is not going to be the case." > >Many governments are "unprepared for what could potentially be some fairly >tough circumstances," she added. > >In an initial effort to gauge preparations, the CIA received a wide range >of feedback last year, not all of it very encouraging, Burns said. > >One overseas contact said his country would be safe because it used a >"different calendar." Others acknowledged the issue was not on their >radar scope. Someone from a Middle Eastern country told the CIA not to >worry about the millennium "bug." > >"When we see it, we'll spray for it," Burns paraphrased that source as >saying. > >She said Canada, Britain and Australia were about six months behind the >United States in preparing their systems for the switch, and this was the >group in the best shape. > >The rest of Western Europe, led by the Scandinavians, came next, six to >nine months behind the United States. > >Europe's job is compounded by the need to reprogram millions of computers >for next January's introduction in 11 countries of the euro, the new >unified currency. > >The CIA felt Europe probably would be unable to complete both reprogramming >jobs "effectively" in time, Burns said. > >Japan, China, Hong Kong and most other Pacific Rim countries were "maybe >nine months to a year behind in terms of where the work should be," Burns >said. She put Russia in the same category. > >Latin America was "way behind the power curve," added Burns, who reports >to CIA Chief Information Officer John Dahms, the person responsible for >maintenance of information systems. > >As part of the agency's increased interest in the Y2K program, some CIA >employees have been briefed on preparing themselves individually for >potential fallout. > >They were being advised to pay their bills early in December 1999 to avoid >possible processing problems, keep cash on hand in case automatic teller >machines failed and lay in extra blankets in case of a blackout on a cold >New Year's Eve night, Burns said. - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. - ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:06:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IP: Clinton Mystery "Payoff" (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 11:52:04 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: Clinton Mystery "Payoff" Source: London Telegraph International News=20 Electronic Telegraph=20 Wednesday 6 May 1998 Issue 1076 =20 Mystery of 'payoff' to President By Hugo Gurdon in Washington=20 A CHEQUE marked "Payoff Clinton" has been found by prosecutors investigating the President's alleged corruption while governor of Arkansas in the Eighties. The $5,081 cheque was written by Susan McDougal, who was convicted of fraud in May 1996, and former Clinton business partner charged with criminal contempt and obstruction of justice on Monday for refusing to explain what the words meant. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel leading the inquiry, has indicated that he will wind up the Arkansas grand jury this week. But the cheque and Hillary Clinton's suspect financial records could be raised again with the grand jury in Washington in the scandal over Monica Lewinsky, Mr Clinton's alleged former lover. Mrs McDougal refused to answer questions from Mr Starr's staff or grand jury members, accusing Mr Starr of being politically motivated. According to transcripts of the interrogation, at one point, a prosecutor said: "Mrs McDougal, what did you mean by the notation 'Payoff Clinton'?" In reply she said: "I don't believe your office has the right to ask me any questions." =A9 Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998. - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.=20 - ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:26:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Clinton and China ICBMs pointed at America - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 08:06:16 -0500 From: jqp@inxpress.net Subject: CAS: Farah: The nuclear threat and Clinton lies=20 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980505.btl.nuclear.threat.clinton.lies= =2E html not to be used for commercial purposes The nuclear threat and Clinton lies=20 WorldNetDaily.com =20 Tuesday, May 5, 1998=20 Joseph Farah=20 Feb. 11, 1996: "If you look at the role America has played=20 in the world, we should be rejoicing. ... There are no more=20 nuclear missiles >pointed at any children in the United States.=20 I'm proud of that. ..." =20 Feb. 15, 1996: "I asked you to give me a=20 chance to try to give America a more secure future and a more=20 peaceful, more democratic world. And the fact that there are no=20 nuclear missiles pointed at any American children for the first=20 time since the dawn of the nuclear age is evidence of that=20 commitment kept." =20 =20 October 1996: "There is not a single, solitary=20 nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one.=20 Not one. Not a single one."=20 Over and over during his re-election campaign in 1996,=20 President Clinton bragged about having ended the threat of=20 nuclear arms to American soil -- and, of course, to America's=20 children. Those who bothered to inform themselves on such=20 security issues understood that his boasts rang hollow -- that=20 Russian nuclear weapons could be retargeted on American cities in=20 a matter of minutes. Nevertheless, few challenged the "technical"=20 accuracy of Clinton's unambiguous claims.=20 It is impossible to know how critical to Clinton's re- election effort such phony claims were. But they were phony. They=20 were bogus. There was nothing accurate about them at all. Not one=20 thing. Not one. Not a single one.=20 A new CIA report says that 13 of China's 18 long-range=20 strategic missiles are aimed at U.S. cities. U.S. intelligence=20 operatives conclude only one thing from this: China views America=20 as its No. 1 strategic adversary.=20 Yet, the Clinton administration's major foreign policy=20 initiative has been to work toward closer partnership with this=20 regime in Beijing. So much for "constructive engagement."=20 The White House has gone so far as to draw up a space=20 cooperation agreement with China that would permit the transfer=20 of technology that could enhance the accuracy and effectiveness=20 of its nuclear missiles. But, as we have seen in the case of=20 Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and Communications, long=20 before the formal agreement was advanced, the Clinton=20 administration was winking at improper efforts by U.S. businesses=20 to share missile data with China. The abuses are so flagrant, so=20 egregious, so treacherous, that Clinton's own Justice Department=20 is now investigating those companies and the apparent conflicts=20 of interest the incidents raise.=20 Remember, President Clinton also initiated the plan to=20 base the Chinese Overseas Shipping Co. in the strategic naval=20 port in Long Beach, Calif. COSCO is a direct subsidiary of the=20 People's Liberation Army.=20 Clinton also pushed hard for "Most Favored Nation"=20 status for China. He refused to sign a United Nations report=20 condemning China's flagrant human rights abuses. Then there was=20 the decision by the Department of Commerce to reclassify formerly=20 restricted military technology for supercomputers, radiation- resistant computer chips, satellite geo-positioners, submarine=20 and stealth technology, high-tech missile engine tools and more.=20 U.S. companies have been selling all of these items to the=20 Chinese ever since.=20 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, is also investigating=20 reports that several U.S. companies, including Motorola, helped=20 improve Chinese missiles by supplying "stage-separation"=20 technology.=20 "I am very sad to say (the Chinese) now have the=20 capability of landing nuclear weapons in the United States and we=20 are the ones who perfected their rockets," said Rohrabacher.=20 Not quite accurate, congressman. "We" didn't perfect=20 the rockets. The blame lies squarely with President Clinton, who=20 took campaign money from Chinese sources, accepted cash from=20 multinational corporations more interested in their big contracts=20 with China than in American security, and sold out America's=20 vital national interests to Beijing at every turn.=20 Clinton did it all while lying audaciously and=20 straightfaced to the American people about having ended the=20 nuclear threat to our country's "children." Some day those=20 children, God willing, will grow up and write the history that=20 will judge this man and his administration.=20 If that history is written in English, rather than=20 Chinese, it will not be kind to President Clinton.=20 =A91998, Western Journalism Center =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:12:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IP: Here Comes the World Court Again (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 12:25:53 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: Here Comes the World Court Again Source: Washington Times Clinton on path to world tribunal By Betsy Pisik THE WASHINGTON TIMES NEW YORK The Clinton administration hopes a new war-crimes tribunal for Cambodia will not only bring Khmer Rouge leaders to a long-delayed justice, but underscore its argument for a permanent court to try crimes against humanity. "It reinforces the view that we need to establish a more permanent court," America's ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, said in an interview last week. "Human rights violators and perpetrators of ... the most profound genocide in history need to be tried." But congressional leaders in Washington complained they were not consulted about a tribunal for Cambodia and said the United States would bear a disproportionate share of the costs. "This is typical of the administration to go ahead and commit the United States to spending money on a U.N. program and then coming to Congress and presenting a bill with a fait accompli," said Marc Thiessen, spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other analysts -- including those who favor a permanent international criminal court -- say the bid to establish a Cambodia tribunal faces obstacles that show how difficult it will be to build a standing court. They also say differences in the U.N. Security Council over the proposed tribunal illustrate the shortcomings in the American demand that the council have sole authority to refer cases to a standing international criminal court. In six weeks, thousands of international experts will meet in Rome to determine the final shape of the permanent court. These negotiations are expected to be arduous, with major questions -- including the role of the council -- still to be decided. The United States on Thursday submitted to the Security Council a proposal to set up an ad hoc court to hear cases against Khmer Rouge leaders accused of killing more than 1 million people over a four-year period ending in 1979. The plan -- which could come to a vote within the next two weeks --would set up a court in existing space at The Hague. The idea has reportedly been endorsed by ousted Cambodian First Prime Minister Prince Norodom Ranariddh as well as the present leader of Cambodia, one-time Khmer Rouge member Hun Sen. The Chinese, who for years supported the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam, have declared their opposition to the tribunal, saying the Cambodian genocide was an internal matter and should be handled internally. It is not clear whether China will veto the matter if it comes to a vote in the Security Council or merely abstain, as the administration is hoping. There are also questions about how the Russians will respond. The idea also faces criticism in Congress. "If you're going to add tens of millions of dollars [for a Cambodia tribunal], the money's got to come from somewhere," a Senate Foreign Relations Committee source said. "Where's it going to come from? What's the priority?" The existing tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda are costing a total of $99.1 million this year and are projected to go higher next year, according to U.N. figures. The United States has been assessed $29.7 million as its share this year, according to a formula where it is charged 25 percent on half the costs and 31 percent -- the same as for peacekeeping missions -- on the other half. However Congress has forbidden the United States to pay at a rate of more than 25 percent, so Washington will actually pay slightly less than $25 million. U.N. accountants will charge up the difference to U.S. arrears to the world body. State Department officials said it was not yet clear whether funding for a Cambodian court would be added to the same budget. There have been suggestions that U.N. members might be asked to make voluntary contributions, but the idea is untested and may not be feasible. The Cambodia tribunal is opposed on more philosophical grounds by former Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton, who suggested the Clinton administration was using the proposal as a way to make a standing court more palatable. "The Cambodia tribunal is a mistake. I think [administration officials] see it as a no-brainer. It is an additional argument for their own court," said Mr. Bolton, who is now a senior vice president with the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "What's wrong with the concept of an international criminal court is, it fundamentally takes away from a country its ability to reconcile its past." Mr. Bolton said a nation may choose to prosecute genocide itself, build a non-punishing "truth and reconciliation" commission such as South Africa has done, or simply adopt a blanket amnesty and move on. He emphasized that it should be up to the nation concerned to feel its own way through the process, rather than seeking closure through the international community. But human rights lawyer Jelena Pejic said a Cambodia tribunal is important on its own merits, even as it underscores the need for a permanent war crimes court. "How many times can you establish an ad hoc tribunal without it being seen as selective justice?" she asked. "When Cambodia and not Liberia? You always have that question." Miss Pejic, who works with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and favors a highly independent permanent court, said the expected debate over the Cambodia tribunal highlights the problems inherent in the American approach. "The prosecutor will in future situations likely be paralyzed by a single [permanent] member," she said. "China's reluctance to agree to this shows exactly why an [international criminal court] needs to be independent to be effective." George Archibald in Washington contributed to this report. Copyright =A9 1998 News World Communications, Inc. - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.=20 - ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:09:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IP: GOP Says U.S. Gave China Nuclear Edge (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 12:06:25 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: GOP Says U.S. Gave China Nuclear Edge Source: Washington Post GOP Says U.S. Gave China Nuclear Edge Donations, Satellite Transfer Policy Linked By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A04=20 Congressional Republicans plan a series of hearings to investigate whether President Clinton's policy on the export of commercial satellites to China has allowed the Chinese to acquire technology to improve the accuracy of their nuclear missiles, according to GOP lawmakers and aides. The hearings will focus on Clinton's decisions to allow two U.S. aerospace companies, Loral Space and Communications Ltd. and Hughes Electronic Corp., to export satellites to be launched atop Chinese rockets. The Justice Department has been investigating a report that Loral improperly gave China advice to upgrade the guidance systems on its rockets after a failed launch in 1996 destroyed a Loral satellite. Both House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Senate Majority Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have taken an active interest in the congressional probes, i= n part because the aerospace firms have been major contributors to the Democratic Party. Loral's chief executive officer, Bernard L. Schwartz, was the single largest donor to the Democratic Party in 1996. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find a link between the financial contributions and a decision by Clinton earlier this year that they say effectively undercut the criminal investigation of Loral. The decision allowed Loral to launch another satellite and to provide China with the same type of information that was the subject of the Justice Department inquiry. White House officials have denied any political influence on satellite poli= cy, which they say has limited weapons proliferation by encouraging commercial cooperation with China dating back to the 1980s. "Our policy specifically excludes the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology= ," said National Security Council spokesman P.J. Crowley. "We believe there are adequate safeguards in place that preclude U.S. companies from providing assistance to China with respect to the design, development, operation, maintenance, modification, or repair of launch vehicles." Though House Republicans and Democrats have sparred on campaign finance issues in recent days, senior GOP members regard the allegations surrounding the satellite policy and China as the most potentially explosiv= e issue this year. After months of investigating contributions to the Democratic Party, Republicans said, the incident may illustrate how corporate donations shaped the administration's policy in a way that threatens U.S. security. The issue stems from the desire of U.S. space firms to save time and money by launching their satellites on Chinese rockets. Under sanctions imposed after the 1989 anti-democracy crackdown in Tiananmen Square, Presidents Clinton and George Bush have issued waivers for firms to export satellites under strict guidelines designed to safeguard U.S. technology. After Hughes and Loral received an export waiver in 1996, China launched a $200 million Loral satellite on a rocket that crashed. Subsequently, scientists from the two companies advised China on how to improve its guidance systems for future launches. According to a secret May 1997 Pentagon report, first disclosed by the New York Times last month, this advice also strengthened China's nuclear capability. The Pentagon report concluded that "United States national security has been harmed" by the exchange, the article said. A Justice Department investigation sparked by the Pentagon report is still ongoing. But Clinton's decision in February to approve the export of another Loral satellite to China, and permitting the kind of advice that is reportedly at the heart of the Justice Department's investigation, effectiv= ely deflated the probe, according to critics. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics, said that he has been authorized by Gingrich to take the lead in the congressional investigation. He charged in a speech on the floor Thursday night that "President Clinton and his administration have been doing everything they can to quash the investigation of this possible violation of law, this betrayal of our country." Gingrich "is very focused on this issue," Rohrabacher added in an interview. "He believes it's going to emerge as an issue far more important than any White House sex scandals. It's embarrassing to talk about a sex scandal. There's nothing embarrassing about calling the president to task about the giveaway of American technology to the Red Chinese." Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said at his weekly press briefing, "We now have revelations that we had special dispensation given to a defense contractor to sell to the Chinese the technology that would enable them to effectively target their nuclear weapons to the United States." Armey added, "This is a matter of consequence when that contractor is a substantial contributor to the Democratic Party. These things need to be investigated and people need to come through." According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Schwartz gave $632,000 in "soft money" donations in the 1995-96 cycle and another $421,000 in the current electoral cycle, nearly all of which went to Democrats. Loral has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the case. "Our employees acted in good faith. The company initiated an independent examination of the incident and concluded that there was no violation of th= e export control laws," said Thomas B. Ross, vice president of government relations at Loral. "We shared the results with the State Department and have fully cooperated with the government." Both the Senate and House investigations would span a swath of committees. In late April, Gingrich met with chairmen of the House International Relations, National Security, and intelligence committees, while Lott met with members of Senate panels, including Governmental Affairs and Foreign Relations. "This is a national security issue, and it has to be cleared up in the next couple weeks," Gingrich said yesterday, adding that it would be "absolutely intolerable" if Clinton's satellite policy were changed to reward a donor. House and Senate investigators have asked the administration to hand over information concerning the waivers. On May 20, the Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on international security, proliferation and federatio= n services will hold a hearing on how commercial satellite transfers can benefit long-range missile programs. The distinction between commercial and military satellites is important, because different rules govern the exports of the two technologies. Clinton eased the way for the export of satellite technology when he delegated most of the administration's licensing duties from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which promotes the sale of U.S. products abroad, a move now criticized by Republicans. =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.=20 - ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #127 *************************