[NukeNet] FW: War Against Iran

Fri Sep 14 11:10:46 EDT 2007

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (Voice)
217-244-1478 (Fax)
(personal comments only)

________________________________

From: Boyle, Francis 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:18 AM
To: Killeacle
Subject: War Against Iran
Sensitivity: Private

talknationradio.com <http://talknationradio.com/> 

Francis A. Boyle on US Press re Iran and Potential US Attack on Iran
<http://talknationradio.com/?p=102> 

Posted on Thursday 13 September 2007 

Talk Nation Radio for September 12, 2007

Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois on the
Media, Iran, and Potential for US Attack on Iran. 

Scroll down for transcript

Go to Archive.org to listen or download as a podcast.
http://www.archive.org/details/FrancisA.BoyleAndFaridehFarhiMediaPotenti
alUsAttackOnIranIaea

Download at Pacifica's Audioport here
<http://www.audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=13563&nav
=type&session=7e478ba05b3d909786e8a7df099838c4&>  if you are a member
and try Pacifica.org <http://www.pacifica.org/> .

Click here
<http://www.radio4all.net/pub/files/theshockvote@yahoo.com/1508-1-200709
13-2007-09-12-64-ShockNAwe-Iran-Farideh-Farh-FrancisABoyle.mp3>  to
listen to this week's program.

Francis A. Boyle says Americans must show up in vast numbers in
Washington D.C. for Sept. 14-21 Rally <http://declarationofpeace.org/>
against the war and consider a general strike and other tactics to try
to block the Bush Adm. And stop any preemptive strike against Iran. He
also urges impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney to prevent
wider war. 

Talk Nation Radio for September 12, 2007

Produced by Dori Smith at WHUS at the University of Connecticut in
Storrs, CT.
Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois on the
Media, Iran, and Potential for US Attack on Iran

We asked Independent Researcher Farideh Farhi if the US Military Buildup
in the Persian Gulf and new US Military base in Iraq 4 miles from
Iranian border undermines the IAEA's work on Iran. Could it spark
violence or even war? Iran is being cautious but the Bush administration
seems less than careful in terms of rhetoric and so does the media. 

Intro: Welcome to Talk Nation Radio, a half hour discussion on politics,
human rights and the environment. I'm Dori Smith. We look at the role
being played by the US Press in what could be the run up to another
shock and awe like strike, this time against Iran. 

International and humanitarian law expert Francis A. Boyle of the
University of Illinois has indicated that such a nightmarish scenario is
possible while the Bush administration is still in office. He joins us
to discuss the way some media outlets have been helping the
Administration make a case for an attack on Iran. During our interview
in August he pointed to a recent US Military buildup in the Persian Gulf
where the US now has three US Navy Task Forces. That is the same force
level America brought to bear against Iraq in 2003.

CNN, FOX, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR, have all featured interviews with a
variety of guest who describe an attack on Iran as a quote 'bad idea'
but add that it may be the 'only choice America has.' Israeli leaders
have making the same kinds of comments in the Press. In fact, the
Governing Board of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is
meeting in Vienna
<http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/bog121007.html>  to discuss
the proposal of Director General ElBaradei. 

Independent researcher Farideh Farhi
<http://www.merip.org/press_room/mrl/mrl051006.html>  joins us first to
explain what is happening. She has been monitoring the IAEA's progress
on Iran during years of work on the nuclear issue. Her 2005 piece
published in Middle East Report was titled, 'Iran's Nuclear File, the
Uncertain End Game.' <http://www.merip.org/mero/mero102405.html> 

Farideh Farhi: Mr. ElBaradei is asking the Governing Board to give him
time to negotiate this process with Iran in the hope of resolving the
crisis. He is asking the United States and Western European countries to
effectively postpone the sanctions process in the United Nations until
this process is finished and the world can see whether Iran can respond
to those outstanding issues. This is something that the United States is
unhappy with. Historically during the past five years I have noticed
that whenever there are intense negotiations at the IAEA you have
various newspaper stories, leaks, plants, that essentially talk about or
hint at the possibility of military action against Iran.

Dori Smith: Reuters just published a piece September 10th announcing
that the Pentagon will go ahead with plans to construct a new military
base in Iraq just four miles from the Iranian border. Wouldn't this
increase the chance that a military exchange could occur even if the
policy makers don't necessarily want one? 

Farideh Farhi: The possibility of real attacks is there, both American
foreign policy and Israeli foreign policy has been based on this notion
of military muscularity and projection of military power. However, there
is also this reality that the Iranians have made very clear: They are
preparing for that possibility. They see that as a kind of asymmetrical
warfare. They are ready to defend the country and of course to create
tremendous amounts of problems in other areas for American Military
projection both inside Iran as well as in other parts of the region
where the Iranians obviously for defensive reasons of their own have
been preparing for that possibility. It is because of that that I would
think that the American policy makers and Israeli policy makers would be
a lot more cautious than their talks, or the way they talk about
military options. I would think that they would be a lot more cautious
about the actual implementation of the military option in relationship
to Iran because precisely as you suggest it would create tremendous
difficulties not only for the United States but also all the allies of
the United States in the region.

It has been argued that the Americans and Iranians are playing a game of
chicken. You know threatening each other in ways that would ultimately
lead the other side to back down. The problem in this dynamic is that a
mistake can lead to serious consequences. My understanding from Iranian
politics, however, is that the Iranians are very careful, or are trying
to be very careful, not to be drawn into a direct conflict with the
United States precisely because they are aware of the awesome military
power that the United States has. However, you know the Iranian
leadership, or elements within the Iranian leadership, have not been
known for their wisdom either. 

It is a very tense and dangerous situation. From what I can understand
the interlocutors in this situation, particularly the American ones, are
not doing anything to reduce the tensions. In fact, for the domestic
purposes, or for purposes of the policies they are pursuing in Iraq in
order to justify the American Military presence in Iraq, they have every
reason to accentuate the Iranian threat in the region. That creates the
potential for mistakes and danger.

Dori Smith: Independent research Farideh Farhi. You can find her report
online at Middle East Report.org <http://www.merip.org/index.html> . 

(Part Two)

Intro: Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois Law
School
<http://www.law.uiuc.edu/faculty/directoryresult.asp?name=Boyle,+Francis
>  is a practitioner and advocate of International Law and Human Rights
Law. His most recent book is 'Protesting Power, War, Resistance and
Law'. It is a tool for all who protest and need legal information and
political insights. His previous works include 'Destroying World Order
and Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law'. The world
renowned legal expert has been calling on members of Congress to bring
articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney
in part to prevent wider war in the Middle East. Professor Boyle welcome
again to Talk Nation Radio.

Francis A. Boyle: Dori, thank you again for having me on and my best to
your listening audience.

Dori Smith: IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei
<http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78508>  has
accused the White House of beating the drums for war against Iran.
Certainly the Press recently has been doing the same thing it seems,
just comment on the implications.

Francis A. Boyle: Well it doesn't look good. The strategy here is the
same they used twice before against Iraq starting in the summer of 1990
in the run up to the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Many of these Neocons
use to work for Bush Sr. including Dick Cheney, now the Vice President,
who was at that time Secretary of Defense. 

So they figured it worked then to sell that war they would try it again,
same strategy, same approach, using many of the same arguments as in
2002. So it does appear if you look at the current pattern that it's
almost identical to the last two times up to and including the speeches
to the American Legion, the Veteran's of Foreign Wars, President Bush is
now going to be speaking to the General Assembly like he did the last
time on Iraq. 

So the pattern is ominous. We have to tie into that the fact that there
are now three US Aircraft Carrier Task Forces in the Persian Gulf. You
always really have to look at not so much what they are saying as what
they are doing. And here you have massive formations of US Military
forces in the Gulf and in addition there is an enormous naval exercise
going on right now in the Bay of Bengal that will end up in a few days
and then those ships also would be in a position to strike Iran. 

It has now been reported there are B-1 Bombers in Iraq. And they have
moved some more F-16s in there. So the danger here is that we now have a
congruence between what they are doing and what they are saying and Iran
right now is just surrounded by enormous quantities of military
equipment that can be used against it.

Dori Smith: Just to go over recent news reports on Iran for your
comment: On August 30th William J. Broad published a story in the New
York Times under the headline: "Iran Expanding Its Nuclear Program,
Agency Reports," the agency in question of course, the IAEA, had said
the opposite, something that was actually included farther down in the
story. Iran has enriched far less uranium than previously planned. 

The President has been hostile to the IAEA and listeners may remember
that Bush was hostile toward the IAEA when the agency did not cooperate
with pre-Iraq rhetoric back in 2002 and 2003. 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has given various guests the opportunity to announce
their support for a US strike against Iran and on September 6th the
former US Military Colonel Sam Gardner told his viewers that a US air
assault against Iran would likely involve B2 bombers and cruise missiles
fired from airships and aircraft. And on Juan Cole's 'informed comment'
blog Barnett Ruben pointed out that rightwing lobby groups and the
Anti-Defamation League have been pressuring the administration for an
even tougher military policy on Iran -it all seems so familiar but how
significant is it and what does it imply?

Francis A. Boyle: Again the pattern is very much the same and in fact
last week there was a major breakthrough in relations between the IAEA
and Iran. You can read this on the web site of the IAEA itself-I doubt
too many of these people have bothered let alone the mainstream news
media-and you will see that Iran has gone along with all of the IAEA's
requests and agreed to a work program that would resolve all outstanding
issues about its nuclear program by the end of the year. So this is a
fantastic opportunity for the Bush administration if it were seriously
interested in dealing with this problem to sit down and negotiate in
good faith with Iran. But that's not what they want. What they want is a
pretext for a military attack and Mr. ElBaradei has, by striking a deal
with Iran that cannot be denied by anyone because the documentation is
right there on the IAEA website, has really pulled the rug out from
under them and also from under another round of sanctions at the
Security Council. 

Now as for Mr. Broad in the New York Times we know full well that he
wrote many of those pieces of disinformation with Judy Miller on
nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Times should have
pushed Broad out too because he's just propagandizing for war as is
almost the entirety of the New York Times.

So to get the truth here I think you are going to have to listen to
Pacifica Network, alternative news media sources and go to the Internet
because the mainstream news media today is for the most part mongering
for war against Iran just as it did back in 2002 against Iraq, just as
it did back in 1990 against Iraq and I should point out also as it did
against Yugoslavia in 1990.

Dori Smith: This militancy toward Iran could actually strengthen the
Republican's case for reelection in the upcoming State and Municipal
Elections and the Presidential Elections if I guess the case can be made
that a pull-out from Iraq would leave the door open to a nuclear Iran.
As we discussed last time the US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad
has a vision of wider or even world war in the Middle East he has been
sharing. Zalmay Khalilzad in Hartford last week where he told the World
Affairs Forum the US should remain in Iraq for an extended period of
time and warned of a nuclear Iran. If you could just respond to the
general idea that the media has been pushing Democrats into a box here,
if they argue for a military pull out from Iraq it might seem like they
are ignoring the potential for wider war, a nuclear armed Iran. While
it's a tortured argument to try and make a case for a preemptive strike
against Iran members of the press do appear to be working to make it.

Francis A. Boyle: While everyone is focusing on Iraq the Bush
administration is focusing on Iran. And I believe they know that if they
attacked Iran as they see it that's just going to wipe away their
problems in Iraq and everything else. We are really seeing a play here
in several acts: The first act was to attack Afghanistan using the
terrible tragedy of September 11th as a pretext for a war that was
already planned and indeed on or about September 11th once again there
were massive quantities of US Military forces in the Gulf in the Arabian
Sea in Egypt and in Turkey ready to strike. 

The second act in this play to control and dominate two thirds of the
world's oil resources was to attack Iraq in 2002. The third act in this
play is to attack Iran and the President has stated, and I will take him
at his word that he will do it before his term in office is over. That
gives us basically a year. I also think then that the Republican Party
will use an attack on Iran to try to win the 2008 election to regain
control of the House and the Senate and to hold on to control of the
Presidency. They will certainly put the Democrats on the defensive as
they have repeatedly done before. 

What is going on now in my opinion in Iraq is pretty much a holding
operation by the Bush administration until they attack Iran and then the
entire strategic situation will turn around. You will have massive
warfare in this region of the world and indeed it does appear that if
they attack Iran they are also going to attack Syria. Israel will
attack. You had the Israeli war plane bombing Syria, penetrating their
air force. They will also in combination with Israel attack Gaza and
today you have reports of Israeli military forces moving into Gaza. They
will also probably move into Southern Lebanon to take out Hezbollah and
indeed last summer as you know the Bush administration gave Israel the
green light to try to take out Gaza, to try to take out Hezbollah, and
they failed. 

The Neocons, this was Elliott Abrams
<http://talknationradio.com/rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/969>  also
apparently pressured Israel to attack Syria at that time but Israel was
not willing to do it then. So if you add all of this up it reads and
sounds as if we are in a pre war situation and again much like the Guns
of August by Barbara Tuchman
<http://talknationradio.com/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_August>
explaining the outbreak of the First World War. 

That brings us to the statement by Ambassador Khalilizad at the United
Nations. Indeed, he studied International Relations at the University of
Chicago at the same time I was there. He studied with [Albert]
Wohlstetter
<http://talknationradio.com/www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Albert_W
ohlstetter>  the mentor to [Paul] Wolfowitz, and many of these other
Neocons. Basically if you read between the lines of what Khalilizad
<http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/08/27/middle_
east_turmoil_could_cause_world_war_us_envoy/>  said at the UN he said if
the Arab and Muslim world does not do what we tell them to do we the
United States are prepared to initiate a third world war. It would be a
war for control of the oil and gas in the Persian Gulf and in Central
Asia where about two thirds of all the world's oil and gas is today. 

So again, when you have the US Ambassador talking about world war three,
where you have all of these statements, it's extremely dangerous. We
have President Putin sending strategic nuclear bombers on feints toward
Norway, toward Britain, towards Guam-I would think that this is a sign
that the Russians are telling us to stand down from attacking Iran. That
they know what our plans are and they are indicating that they will not
be pleased if we attack Iran. It is extremely dangerous. 

In addition you have this incident concerning the nuclear cruise
missiles from the Minot Air Base down to Barksdale
<http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070906/twl-us-military-nuclear-2802f3e_1
.html> . I don't think that was a mistake. Obviously someone gave the
command to do this, to transport nuclear Cruise Missiles down to
Barksdale that is being used as a staging point for bombing operations
in the Middle East. 

As we have said before given the mentality of these Neocons, as I've
pointed out before who really go back to Carl Schmitt, the most
notorious Nazi law professor of his day, they are fully prepared to use
nuclear weapons against Iran. They are now making preparations for that.
All of the US Aircraft Carriers there in the Persian Gulf now and in the
Bay of Bengal are nuclear capable and Israel is nuclear capable. It does
seem to me that we could be in a pre-war situation now as we speak.

Dori Smith: Professor Boyle Sarah Baxter
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece>
writing for the Times Online discussed what she said was a Pentagon plan
for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran-she said the aim
would be to annihilate Iran's military capability in three days. That
piece September 2nd. Baxter also writing that Israel has made its own
preparations for air strikes on Iran and would be ready to attack Iran
if the Americans back down. 

Francis A. Boyle: Israel is going to do exactly what we tell it to do.
It could be as Vice President Cheney suggested that we would give a
green light to Israel to do it and then stand back and see what happens.
But they are not going to move unless we give them permission to move.
It means they have to go over Iraqi airspace which we control, or coming
out of Turkey and I don't think the Turks would be very pleased with
that. But it's extremely dangerous, especially now that the United
States Government officially adheres to this Doctrine of Preventive
Warfare, the National Security Strategy of September 2002-written by my
former classmate at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz, the Neocon,
calling for preventive war and first applied against Iraq. 

Then later in December of 2002 an even more ominous policy document
which you can find at the web pages of the White House applying the
preventive warfare doctrine to weapons of mass destruction and
indicating that the United States is fully prepared to use weapons of
mass destruction as part of this warfare doctrine.

You can find citations for all of this in my book Destroying World Order
<http://www.atlasbooks.com/clarity/b0024.htm> . So the policy, the
rhetoric and most unfortunately the military presence over there in
placed and basically just waiting for the order by President Bush. I
think we do have some time to head this off because if my and your
analysis is correct that it is a lot like what they did in 2002 they are
still going to want more disinformation, more ratcheting up of the
public record, but again it is still extremely dangerous. Any spark
could set this off. A Tonkin Gulf incident or something like that could
be manufactured. The Iranians could make a mistake or they could easily
be provoked as the British last summer sent those sailors into waters
that they had claimed and at that time the United States Government
indicated that if they tried to do that to us we would use military
force. So it's very easy under these circumstances to provoke
hostilities. 

Dori Smith: In her piece Sarah Baxter also mentioned Alireza Jafarzadeh
of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. He criticized the IAEA's
latest report on Iran's enrichment program. But I couldn't help but
think of the role played by the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed
Chalabi when he was claiming that there was a lot of support for an
invasion. Is this a similar situation with this man on Iran? Just
comment finally on the difference between a US invasion of Iraq and what
we might see during an invasion of Iran.

Francis A. Boyle: Yes, just like what happened with Iraq in 2002 and in
1990 as well you have surrogates of the United States Government whether
with the Department of Defense or the CIA or think tanks affiliated with
them or the Israelis, generating out propaganda and trying to make it
appear as if there is some opposition here that is calling for the
United States Government to liberate Iran, falling back on this bogus
so-called doctrine of humanitarian intervention which I also analyze and
expose in my book, Destroying World Order. And that's another one of the
prongs of the argument they are trying to use here to build consent,
manufacture consent, as Noam Chomsky put it, for a war against Iran as
they did on Iraq as they did on Iraq and that's this argument about
humanitarian intervention in addition to claims about weapons of mass
destruction and again Iran does not have nuclear weapons at this time.

So it's all part and parcel of this same propaganda strategy they
pursued before. As you correctly point out, however, a war against Iran
is going to be a very different proposition from Iraq. Iraq had been
carved up, destroyed, bombed and sanctioned starting from 1990 up 2003
so there was very minimal resistance at the time against the US/UK
invasion.
That's not the case with Iran. You've got 60 million people there. They
do have substantial quantities of military force. We saw the Hizbollah
Chinese silkworm missile take out that Israeli destroyer off the coast
of Lebanon last summer. Well imagine Iran doing that to an aircraft
carrier in the Gulf? 

They have a culture there. This is Persia. It goes back over 5,000
years, a culture and a religion, and these are very proud people and if
you follow the course of the Iraq/Iran war they sustained enormous
casualties. The assumption was that when Saddam Hussein launched that
war with the support and encouragement of Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew
Brzezinski that Ayatollah Kumani's government would collapse. That's not
what happened. They fought ferociously and after several years pushed
back into Iraq and were about to storm Baghdad when the Reagan
Administration intervened by sending a flotilla over to the Persian Gulf
and making it clear we were not going to allow them to take over
Baghdad. That is why then the Bush administration and the Neocons know
full well that if they are going to go to war against Iran it will not
be Iraq and they will have to use nuclear weapons.

Dori Smith: Just go over once again the reasons the Neocons would want
to do this and then how anti war activists can prevail.

Francis A. Boyle: We have to understand what is at stake here is two
thirds of the world's supply of oil and gas in Central Asia and the
Persian Gulf and that is really what the power elite that run this
country are after. And then when you add in the Neocons, these are
fanatical Zionists affiliated with the Likud Party and they simply are
completely irrational when it comes to Arabs and Muslims. So you have
both the strategic and the bigotry and racism as well.

I regret to like to say it's sort of like what happened in World War II
where the government deliberately whipped up anti-Japanese hysteria and
racism as they sought to better prosecute the war to Japan up to and
including accepting the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And
that's the danger also of the racism and anti-Muslim bigotry here in the
current climate. That it can be used to get to a point where the
American people would be prepared to accept the use of nuclear weapons
against Iran. I suspect we are going to be seeing more of this as time
goes on.

We still have some time to head this off. Ramsey Clark has his peace
march in Washington D.C. on September 15th and as many people have to go
to that as possible. We need people in the streets demonstrating
opposition. 

Second, we have to get Congressman John Conyers to put in those bills of
impeachment right away against Bush and Cheney. Back in March 2003 when
we were debating putting in bills of impeachment at that time against
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, before Congressman Conyers and 40
to 50 of his top advisors most of whom were lawyers, Marcus Raskin made
the perspicuous point that if we do not stop Bush on Iraq what is to
stop him from going after Iran? That is the position that we are in now.
So those bills of impeachment must be filed immediately and everyone
must get Congressman Conyers to put them in. They are there. They are
just sitting there. I think you need to also work with people in his
district and nationwide. If anyone could do that job for us it is
Congressman Conyers.

Third, a massive campaign of civil resistance. That's what we need.
Peaceful nonviolent protests all over the country and especially in
Washington D.C. to try to stop this war.
Finally, in the run up to the war against Iraq my client and friend the
late great Phil Berrigan issued a call for a general strike.
Unfortunately he was stricken with cancer before he could really do too
much about that. But I think we need to get that organized as well. That
is to select a day for a general strike and shut the entire country down
and explain to the power elite that really runs this country: We are not
going to tolerate what could potentially evolve into WWIII. We all have
to do what our conscience tells us to do.

Dori Smith: Professor Francis A. Boyle thank you so much for talking
with us.

Francis A. Boyle: Thanks once again and let's all go out there and do
our part. I think we can stop it and turn it around but it is going to
take all of us to do something.
Professor Francis A. Boyle teaches international and humanitarian law at
the University of Illinois. His most recent book is Protesting Power,
War, Resistance, and Law, he has a lengthy CV but at least one of his
notable cases is his work as counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina in
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.

For Talk Nation Radio I'm Dori Smith. Talk Nation Radio is produced in
the studios of WHUS at the University of Connecticut in Storrs,
Connecticut. WHUS.org <http://www.whus.org/>  to listen live Wed. at 5
PM. Talk Nation.org and Talknationradio.org for transcripts and
discussions.

Protests in Washington D.C. September 15, 2007
<http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=S15_homepage>  Mass
March, Gathering at Noon at the White House. see also unitedforpeace.org
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> 

Philip Berrigan, 1923-2002
<http://www.notinourname.net/archive/other_statements/berrigan_dec02.htm
l> 

December 2002 quote of Philip Berrigan: 'When I first started to
envision a general strike after doing quite a bit of reading on it, the
Russian model in 1905, the Solidarity in Poland and Gandhi's work in
India. I'd read about all of them in a very remarkable book on
nonviolent resistance called A Force More Powerful. When I first read
about that, I thought that we could, over a span of years - of course it
would take a tremendous amount of work and a great deal of money - that
we could go for the economy, which was the soft underbelly of the system
and the empire, go for the economy and bring things to a point where we
could begin to dictate to the plutocrats in Washington.' 

Bio: Francis A. Boyle continues to advise and defend civil resisters
like Camilio Mejia and other war resisters such as Ehren Watada, a First
Lieutenant 1st LT of the US Army who in June 2006 publicly refused to
deploy to Iraq. His most recent book Protesting Power: War, Resistance,
and Law was written as a tool for all who protest and need legal
information and political insights. The book has been described as a
clarion call to citizen action against Bush administration policies in
the US and other countries.

For more information about this book, See:
http://www.RowmanLittlefield.com/ISBN/0742538923

http://www.whus.org <http://www.whus.org/>  to listen live Wed. at 5 PM
Music by Fritz Heede <http://www.fritzheede.com/>  

<http://talknationradio.com/?p=102#>  

talknationradio.com <http://talknationradio.com/>  is 2005 Dori. Rin
<http://www.brokenkode.com/manji>  by Khaled Abou Alfa and Joshua. You
can syndicate 
both the entries using RSS <http://talknationradio.com/?feed=rss2>  and
the Comments (RSS) <http://talknationradio.com/?feed=comments-rss2> .
xhtml 1.0 trans <http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> / CSS
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer> . Proudly powered by
WordPress <http://wordpress.org/> . 

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (Voice)
217-244-1478 (Fax)
(personal comments only)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20070914/40217d4c/attachment-0001.html 