We as spiritual beings or souls come to earth in order to experience the human condition. This includes the good and the bad scenarios of this world. Our world is a duality planet and no amount of love or grace will eliminate evil or nastiness. We will return again and again until we have pierced the illusions of this density. The purpose of human life is to awaken to universal truth. This also means that we must awaken to the lies and deceit mankind is subjected to. To pierce the third density illusion is a must in order to remove ourselves from the wheel of human existences. Love is the Aswer by means of Knowledge and Awareness!

Documenting the Massacre in Mazar
Genevieve Roja, AlterNet
July 8, 2002
A documentary film by Scottish filmmaker Jamie Doran titled "Massacre at 
Mazar" offers eyewitness testimony and film footage of human remains and 
mass graves of what may be damning evidence of mass killings at Sherberghan 
and Mazar-I-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan. 

The massacre allegedly took place in November 2001, when Gen. Abdul Rashid 
Dostum of the Northern Alliance took control of Kunduz, and accepted the 
surrender of about 8,000 Taliban fighters that included al-Qaeda, Chechens, 
Uzbeks and Pakistanis. Almost 500 suspected al- Qaeda members were taken to 
the Qala Jangi prison fortress (where a revolt would eventually leave one 
CIA agent dead and make John Walker Lindh a household name), while the 
remainder of the prisoners -- about 7,500 -- were loaded in containers and 
transported to the Qala- I-Zeini fortress, almost halfway between 
Mazar-i-Sharif and Sherberghan Prison. Human rights advocates say that close 
to 5,000 of the original 8,000 are missing. 

Eyewitnesses in Doran's film claim that many of the prisoners may have 
suffocated in the nearly airless shipping containers en route to their 
destinations. Others were shot when Northern Alliance soldiers fired into 
the containers to create air holes. And their bodies may have been buried in 
mass graves. 

Doran -- who has not released his film to the public in order to protect the 
identities of eyewitnesses -- recently showed 20 minutes of his film to 
members of the German parliament June 12 and to the members of the European 
parliament and press on June 13. The screening drew a prompt response from 
human rights activists, including Andrew McEntee, former Amnesty 
International UK chair, who demanded an independent investigation. French 
Euro MP Francis Wurtz said he would address the massacre at a parliament 
meeting this month, while his other colleagues said they would enlist the 
help of the International Committee of the Red Cross to conduct an 
investigation. 

Doran, a veteran BBC filmmaker, says "Massacre at Mazar" includes key 
testimony from various eyewitnesses who offer compelling evidence of a human 
rights tragedy, including: 

-- an Afghan general who explains how he helped unload and load "around 200, 
maybe up to 300 [prisoners] in each" container. 

-- an anonymous Afghan soldier who says he "hit the containers with bullets 
to make holes for ventilation. Some of them were killed inside the 
containers and then we sent them on to Sherberghan." When asked who gave the 
order, he said "the commanders ordered me to hit the containers to make 
holes for ventilation and because of that some of the prisoners were killed." 

-- a local taxi driver who says he "smelled something strange" when he 
stopped for gas. "I asked the petrol attendant where the smell was coming 
from. He said 'Look behind you,' and there were trucks with containers fixed 
on them ... Blood was leaking from the containers -- they were full of dead 
bodies." 

-- two civilian drivers who say they drove trucks of men to Dasht Leili, 
"where [the prisoners] were shot." A driver tells Doran that there were 
American soldiers present at Dasht Leili. "How many Americans were with 
you?" Doran asks. The driver replies, "30 or 40." 

-- an Afghan soldier who claims to have been present "when an American 
soldier broke one prisoner's neck and poured acid on others.  The Americans 
did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." 

Doran's film -- and the allegations of mass killings -- has received 
extensive media coverage in Europe, but is getting little attention in the 
U.S. The lack of reaction, says Doran, puts the safety of the graves in 
jeopardy with each passing day. 

The U.S. military is denying any knowledge of or involvement in a massacre. 

A Pentagon official was quoted by the Guardian (U.K.) as saying that "the 
U.S. Central Command looked into it a few months ago, when allegations first 
surfaced when there were graves discovered in the area of Sherberghan 
prison. They looked into it and did not substantiate any knowledge, presence 
or participation of U.S. service members." Pentagon spokesman Marin Corps 
Lt. Col. Dave Lapan told reporters that he considered the allegations of 
torture to be "highly suspect." 

"Our service members don't participate in torture of any type," said Lapan. 

Doran is skeptical about the Pentagon's position. 

"Military is about chain of command," he says, "and the question is who was 
running the show? Was it the Afghans or the Americans? If you've ever seen 
Western forces alongside foreign forces, there's never a question about 
who's in charge." Doran says even if there is no conclusive evidence of 
direct American participation, the U.S. troops are still responsible for 
tragedies that occur under their watch. "[I]f they're going to be involved, 
they need to answer for this. By law," he says. 

While the extent of U.S. participation is still debatable, the evidence 
pointing to mass-scale executions is piling up. 

Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights sent an investigative team in 
January and a forensics team to Afghanistan the following month. "We spoke 
to an NGO staff person who was an eyewitness to three large container trucks 
being backed into Sherberghan, which was being bulldozed," PHR consultant 
John Heffernan says. "There he saw a number of Northern Alliance soldiers, 
holding their arms up to their noses, indicating a bad smell." 

"There was certainly evidence of skeletal remains and clothing and bulldozer 
tracks," he says. PHR's forensics experts were later "able to conduct a 
thorough assessment -- without exhuming the bodies -- that these were fresh 
remains." The organization compiled a report on their findings from two 
alleged mass graves and submitted it to the U.S. State Department, the 
Department of Defense and British government officials. They also sent a 
letter to President Karzai. "Our main focus was the protection of the sites 
so that the evidence yielded was not destroyed," says Heffernan. "We didn't 
get any response from the people in the States or in England." 

In May, the U.N. exhumed 15 bodies and performed autopsies on three from a 
test trench. They concluded that the three had died from suffocation and 
that the victims were ethnically Pashtun, indicating that they were more 
than likely Taliban. But the U.N. has not released any statement or 
announced a course of action. 

However, the human rights groups who are committed to taking action may be 
getting in the way of justice, as well. 

"I've noticed in the last week, a rivalry kicking in," says Doran, who has 
been contacted by several government officials, human rights groups and 
NGOs. They're each claiming,"'We want to do the grave,' 'No, we want to do 
the grave.' Yet none of them are ensuring the safety (of the graves)," says 
an angry and frustrated Doran. 

Heffernan agrees there is an urgent need for immediate action, be it 
exhuming the graves or ensuring their protection. 

"PHR thinks it's essential that an accountability mechanism be a truth 
commission or a tribunal," he says. "Whatever will facilitate reconciliation 
and recovery so that this stuff doesn't happen again." 

Genevieve Roja is an associate editor at AlterNet. 

*****

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com

BUSH ON WALL STREET:
A MAN WITHOUT A PLAN

Bush Talks Big, Tries To Derail Reform
Dubya's Big Solution: Give More Money, Power to Harvey Pitt Silence On 
Sarbanes Plan, Harken, Halliburton Zippo On Stock Options

George W. Bush's much anticipated speech on corporate responsibility has 
proved a string of transparent evasions and empty rhetoric.

Even normally pro-Bush Wall Street observers such as Lou Dobbs have been 
left scratching their heads over Bush's weak-kneed proposals -- proposals 
that do not amount to a plan as much as they amount to an effort to dilute 
the strong Democratic plans proposed by Senators Paul Sarbanes and Tom Daschle.

Bush's chief proposals?  Appoint a Corporate Crimes Task Force to oversee 
what the government is already supposed to be doing.  
Appropriate more money and power to Harvey Pitt's Securities and Exchange 
Commission.  Pass the empty G.O.P. House bill on accounting and financial 
revelations.  Get CEOs to publish their salaries in company reports.  Jail 
those convicted of mail fraud and wire fraud for ten years instead of just 
five. No loans to company officials. 
One or two other things.

Which, as Dobbs and others have pointed out, amounts to a hill of beans.

Bush pointedly said nothing about public disclosure of CEO stock options 
deals -- a REAL inequity driving corporate corruption.

Bush pointedly said nothing about Paul Sarbanes's proposed reform 
legislation, in an effort to undermine reform as it comes hurtling at him.

Bush spoke about corporate ethics without once even alluding to his own past 
at Harken, or his ties (and those of Dick Cheney, Thomas "Enron" White,  and 
others in his administration, and in the GOP) to Enron, Halliburton, 
WorldCom, and other companies now under investigation.

Preparatory to the speech, the White House released an official statement on 
what Bush's remarks would stress:

The President also calls for all members of a company's audit committee, 
nominating committee, and compensation committee to be truly independent.

Prevent CEOs or other officers from profiting from erroneous financial 
statements.

Empower the SEC to freeze improper payments to corporate executives while a 
company is under investigation.

CEOs should personally vouch for the veracity, timeliness, and fairness of 
their companies' public disclosures, including their financial statements.

Firms' accounting systems should be compared with best practices, not simply 
against minimum standards.

But Bush said nothing about whether his own actions at Harken, or Cheney's 
at Halliburton, are in keeping with these injunctions.

Do Bush and Cheney qualify as evildoers even under Bush's weak proposals?

Silence on that one from Dubya.

Bush pointedly said nothing about pursuing and punishing the evildoers Kenny 
Boy Lay, Bernard Eggers, and others. Not even by allusion.

Nor about why his administration has yet to bring a single indictment 
against any Enron executive, his single biggest campaign contributor over 
the course of his entire political career.

Not one.

Bush's Justice Department doesn't need new proposals to bring indictments 
against Enron officials.  What's the hold up?  Could it be that there are 
some political officials in and around the Bush Administration who fear 
disclosure of the names of those who were granted Enron's secret offshore 
partnerships? 

We're waiting.

Instead, Bush implied that it was "the 1990's" -- read the Clinton 
Administration -- that was responsible for the current round of corporate 
scandals.

This is an obvious lie -- the latest in White House hooey.  

As has been proven ad nauseam, Clinton, while extremely good for business, 
tried to reign in and ban the kinds of corporate fraud that have now been 
exposed. But Bush does have a point: Someone was responsible for corporate 
wrongdoing in the 1990's and for blocking Clinton Administration reforms. 
The GOP Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, along with 
and lawyers like uber- lobbyist Harvey Pitt fought the Clinton 
Administration at every turn, and defeated its best efforts. And big GOP 
contributors like Enron took advantage of every loophole they could find.  
Now they get caught  and want to dodge responsibility. Want an authentic  
new responsibility era? Bush forgot this proposal:  Vote out the Republican 
Congress.)

The speech was full of high-flown rhetoric about ethics and responsibility, 
but through all of Dubya's smirking, there was also a great deal of shirking 
-- shirking responsibility for anything, either in his own business past and 
the pasts of his top colleagues, or for the "kinder, gentler" deregulatory 
policies pursued aggressively by the Bush Administration from the moment it 
took office.

Bush came to Wall Street as, supposedly, a man with a plan.

But by the time he finished speaking, he had announced that there is no real 
plan, just as there is no plan for the Middle East or the environment, or 
homeland security, or anything else in this rudderless, leaderless White House.

There are only some minor proposals that evade the real problems at stake -- 
plus a lot of hot air.

*****

Halliburton Calls Suit Unfounded 
Wed Jul 10, 1:19 PM ET 

DALLAS (Reuters) - Oil field services provider Halliburton Co. on Wednesday 
said claims made in a lawsuit filed by a public interest group against the 
company and Vice President Dick Cheney, its former chief executive, were 
without merit. 
  
"The claims in this lawsuit are untrue, unsupported and unfounded," 
Halliburton Chief Financial Officer Doug Foshee said in a statement. 

Earlier on Wednesday, the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch filed suit in 
federal court in Dallas against Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995 
until 2000, and against the company, its directors and its accounting firm, 
Andersen, alleging they defrauded shareholders by overstating revenue. 

In May the company said the SEC was investigating how it accounted for cost 
overruns on construction jobs. 

"We are working diligently with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) 
to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures," 
Foshee said. "Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow 
guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting 
Principles." 

*****

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Monday, 9 July, 2002
Q&A: African Union
  
After 38 years, Africa is replacing the Organisation of African Unity with 
the African Union. The idea is to unify the continent and improve living 
standards. 

What's the difference between the OAU and the African Union? 

The African Union will eventually have a common parliament, central bank and 
court of justice. 

In theory, these will give ordinary Africans a greater say in their 
continental leadership, create and run an Africa-wide economy and make 
abusers of human rights accountable for their actions. 

OAU Secretary General Dr Salim Ahmed Salim says it will take "at least a 
year" to set these up. 

Cynics aren't holding their breath. 

Why bother with the change? 

During the Cold War individual African countries were important global 
diplomatic players, courted by both east and west eager to expand their 
spheres of influence. 

Since 1989, their international influence has been greatly reduced and they 
have decided that Africa must be united if it is to make its voice heard in 
the global economy. 

As Africa emerged from colonialism in the 1960s, some leaders such as 
Ghana's Dr Kwame Nkrumah argued that Africa could only survive as a single 
entity. 

Others such as Felix Houphouet-Boigny of the Ivory Coast believed that the 
newly independent countries must first build strong nation states. 

The OAU was created as a compromise between these points of view. 

When Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi first suggested creating a "United 
States of Africa" two years ago, leaders of the continent's powerhouses 
South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt reacted with scepticism. 

Now it seems that African leaders have decided that unity is an idea whose 
time has come. 

One reason is that most region's of the world are forging bigger economic 
blocs and Africa does not want to be left behind. 

Is economic union possible? 

The biggest obstacle is that many African countries still conduct more trade 
with their former colonial masters than with each other. 

The African Union is an attempt to end this situation by making trade within 
Africa easier, reducing bureaucratic obstacles. 

The idea is to first build regional blocs in west, central, east, north and 
southern Africa and then ultimately merge these into one big economy - on 
the basis that bringing four or five groups together is easier than 
negotiating with 53 countries at the same time. 

In the long run, a common African currency is envisaged - most francophone 
countries already have one, the CFA franc, guaranteed by the French treasury. 

It will be difficult expanding this to the rest of the continent - and the 
French link would have to go. 

Another problem is the wide divergence in living standards - South Africa's 
economic output per person is more than 10 times that of Nigeria. 

Can the African Union stop wars? 

This is a key consideration. 

United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan says that unless conflicts end, 
"no amount of aid or trade will make the difference". 

A political union - also a long term objective - would ideally prevent one 
country from destabilising its neighbours. 

At present, Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone all accuse each other of 
backing rebel movements which have turned their common border into what has 
been described as the world's most dangerous place. 

The European Union was established after World War II and has achieved its 
primary goal of preventing another continent-wide war. 

Now Africa's leader hope to follow the EU's path to peace, unity and 
prosperity.

*****

FBI Probes Calif. Teen's Beating, Mayor Outraged Tue Jul 9, 5:21 PM ET 
By Dan Whitcomb 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The FBI ( news - web sites) on Tuesday began 
investigating the videotaped beating of a black teenager by a policeman in 
the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood, but the city's mayor called for the 
officer to face assault, battery and child abuse charges without further 
delay. 
  
Kweisi Mfume, president of the National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People ( news - web sites), said the tape showed that officers "took 
the law into their own hands" and used excessive force against 16-year-old 
Donovan Jackson during the incident. 

The videotape, made by 27-year-old Mitchell Crooks from a motel room across 
the street, shows Officer Jeremy Morse slamming Jackson, who was handcuffed, 
head-first into a squad car and slugging him in the face as other officers 
converge. 

The incident sparked cries of racism and comparisons to the incendiary 1991 
beating of Rodney King and triggered swift investigations by three local law 
enforcement agencies. 

"We've asked the FBI to open an investigation to look into possible civil 
rights violations and my understanding is that the case has been opened," 
said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. 

King's beating by Los Angeles police officers after a high-speed chase was 
caught on videotape and its broadcast shocked the city and much of the 
nation. When four officers were acquitted in criminal court the city erupted 
into some of the worst riots in modern U.S. 
history, leaving 54 people dead and over $1 billion in property damage from 
looting and arson. 

When officers were tried again in federal court two of them were convicted 
and sentenced to prison terms. 

MAYOR: OFFICER COMMITTED FOUR CRIMES 

Mrozek said the FBI had not drawn any conclusions but would try to determine 
if officers had committed federal offenses because they were acting under 
"color of authority." 

Inglewood police officials have called the Crooks videotape "disturbing," 
but cautioned that the tape caught only part of an altercation that 
allegedly started with the teen lunging at officers as they questioned his 
father about a suspended driver's license and expired vehicle plates. Morse 
can be seen on the tape with a bloody gash above his ear. 

Meanwhile a second man has come forward to say that he filed a complaint 
against Morse and other officers two weeks ago after they beat him so badly 
that he lapsed into a coma. 

A representative for the Inglewood Police Association could not be reached 
for comment on the allegations. 

Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dorn, a former prosecutor and judge, called on 
prosecutors to charge Morse with at least four felonies and said he had no 
patience for investigations and did not care what happened before the tape 
started rolling. 

"I'm not concerned at this point what happened before the video was turned 
on," Dorn said. "In my mind, I can't think of anything that this teenager 
could have done that would justify the conduct that I observed on the video." 

"When this officer picked this young man up and slammed him face-down into 
the hood of that car, in my opinion, (that was) number one, felony assault," 
Dorn said. "Number two, assault with a deadly weapon ... Number three, 
battery. Four, child abuse. And I'm sure if I looked there are other crimes." 

The mayor said he was not criticizing the Inglewood Police Department, but 
instead condemning one officer, Morse. 

"This is an indictment of one officer," Dorn said "I hope that ... 
the country will see that Inglewood is a city that will not tolerate any 
individual's civil rights being violated. This man's civil rights without a 
question were violated." 

MFUME WANTS TO HEAR FROM COPS 

Mfume, who was attending the NAACP convention in Houston, said he was 
willing to wait for an investigation. 

"It appears that officers took the law into their own hands when they 
thought no one was watching and we think exhibited excessive force," Mfume 
said. "We need action here. We need a clear investigation." 

He added: "If the police officers have a position we want to hear what it 
is. If they can refute what so many people are now seeing in this tape and 
tell us why that level of brute, excessive force was needed to subdue that 
situation I think all of us in America are waiting to hear those answers." 

Legal experts, meanwhile, cautioned that Mayor Dorn and community activists 
were treading a dangerous line when they pronounced Morse and other officers 
guilty before any charges were even filed. 

"The reality is you don't want the mayor or anybody else coming out and 
saying someone is guilty," said Stan Goldman, a professor of legal ethics 
and criminal law at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles. "I think 
what you end up doing is causing the courts a lot of trouble." 

Goldman said Morse, like any other citizen, had due process rights under the 
U.S. Constitution and could have grounds for an appeal if he were ever 
convicted of a crime. 

"I think any good, ethical prosecutor says 'oops' when he hears comments 
like (Dorn's) because he just created a potential issue on appeal," Goldman 
said. "You may have a great case against this cop and if you've got a great 
case why jeopardize it? You're better off keeping your mouth shut."