 |
| Wheres
the proof: Scott Ritter.
Photo by John Whipple. |
Show
Me the Weapons Violations
Former
U.N. inspector Scott Ritter says the Bush administration’s
rush to war with Iraq is not supported by the facts
At
12:15 PM on a rainy Sunday afternoon, Scott Ritter arrives
an hour late for an interview. The 6-foot-4 ex-marine, Gulf
War veteran and former United Nations weapons inspector immediately
apologizes, explaining that he just drove up to Albany from
New York City, where he had an early-morning interview with
CNBC.
Tracking down Ritter a year ago to discuss the situation in
Iraq would have been a much easier task than it is today.
Just in the past month, Ritter has appeared on The Today
Show, CNN’s Talkback Live, Crossfire, and
The O’Reilly Factor. His interviews have been popping
up in newspapers around the world, including The Guardian,
The New York Times and The Washington Post.
He also has been doing a bit of globetrotting—to London, South
Africa, Baghdad—speaking out against the rush to war and encouraging
Iraqi officials to allow weapons inspectors back into their
country. For quite some time he has been known as one of the
loudest voices opposing a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq,
claiming that the rhetoric is not about weapons inspections
at all, but rather the Bush administration’s obsession with
ousting Saddam Hussein and its desire to dominate the world
economically and militarily.
On a visit to London last weekend, Ritter spoke to more than
10,000 antiwar protestors and voiced his dissent about the
United States’ and Great Britain’s plans to attack Iraq. But
Ritter is no peacenik, or so he says. He is the first to point
out that he is not a liberal, let alone a Democrat. In fact,
the 41-year-old Delmar resident, who moved here two years
ago with his wife and twin daughters from Gainesville, Fla.,
speaks proudly of his years of service in the United States
Marine Corps and openly admits that he is a registered Republican
who voted for George W. Bush in the last election.
“I
am not a pacifist,” Ritter says, as he slams his hand down
on the table. “But I have been to war and it is the most disgusting
thing in the world. Sometimes you have to do it to defend
your country, but you better make damn sure that you have
done everything possible to avoid that situation before you
ask people to do this and we start seeing hundreds of body
bags being flown home from the Middle East.”
Ritter insists that the United States has not exhausted all
possible means before heading into Iraq, and he further charges
that the Bush administration has not provided substantive
proof that Iraq has reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction.
“President
George W. Bush has no proof of any new weapons-of-mass-destruction
threat emanating from Iraq, and he is lying to the American
people to get them to go to war,” he charges. “He is using
weapons inspection as a mask to further his own agenda, which
is to drive out Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a case study for the
neoconservatism new unilateral global domination.”
Ritter is a former Marine Corps Intelligence officer who served
as chief weapons inspector with the United Nations Special
Commission in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, tracking down weapons
of mass destruction. He defines these as chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons as well as ballistic missiles with a range
greater than 150 kilometers. By 1996, the teams ascertained
that Iraq had achieved a 90- to 95-percent level of disarmament.
This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling
of every major factory that Iraq used to create such weapons
and all significant items of production equipment. However,
Ritter says that according to international law, anything
less than 100-percent disarmament represents noncompliance
and therefore a risk to national security.
“There
were things that we could not account for,” says Ritter. “But
I think it is imperative to underscore the fact that just
because we couldn’t account for it doesn’t automatically translate
into Iraq’s retention of it. It is not like you can build
these types of weapons in a basement or in a cave. We were
looking for a massive effort by the Iraqis to build weapons,
and they could not have been doing that without us detecting
it.”
Ritter says it became clear that it didn’t seem to matter
if inspectors obtained 100-percent compliance, because the
United States had an alterative motive for being in Iraq,
which focused on the removal of Hussein. And the whole weapons-inspection
process was becoming corrupt as a result of this mission,
he says, which is why he resigned in 1998.
“My
job was to implement international law,” says Ritter. “I was
ordered to go into Iraq and disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction. Notice I never said once that there was a Security
Council resolution that spoke of the removal of Saddam Hussein.
The U.S. was unilaterally manipulating the weapons- inspection
process, trying to deliberately provoke confrontation.”
For example, he explains, when United Nations inspectors were
finally granted access into the Iraqi presidential palaces
to check for weapons, the biologists did not take any samples
to test for weapons. When they did not find any weapons, they
simply concluded that the Iraqis had moved them out of the
palace. He said that the Iraqis questioned why no samples
were taken.
“‘You
said that we have weapons,’” Ritter said, paraphrasing the
Iraqi reaction to the inspectors not taking any samples. “‘We
finally let you in, and even if we moved the stuff out, given
the technology that you have available, if you took samples
you would have found something.’”
Ritter adds that the inspectors did not take samples because
they didn’t want to get negative results. “This is the same
as the prosecutor refusing to put forth evidence in a trial,”
he exclaims. “You make an accusation but then you deny the
evidence. This is what was happening and this is why it was
a dirty prosecution. The Americans’ process of regime removal
was a cancer in the process of inspections because if we ever
found Iraq to be in compliance, that cancer would have been
destroyed.”
But the reality that Iraq has had time to rebuild its program
is something that concerns Ritter. It is for this reason that
he is insistent on getting weapons inspectors back into the
country. He says it would take the Iraqis only about six months
to rebuild the program, because the infrastructure is in place
for them to produce chemical and biological weapons. But he
doubts that they would have the capacity to build ballistic
missiles, and definitely not nuclear weapons, as the Bush
administration has implied.
“This
is not a magic show,” he explains. “It is real science and
technology, and it is detectable. The intelligence community
that has been at the forefront of this should have sustainable
facts to back up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted.
But where is it? If they have the evidence that constitutes
war, why don’t they bring it out? I am not letting Saddam
off the hook. I think he is a very dangerous man, but the
current inspection regime is not about disarmament. It is
all rhetoric.”
Many critics of Ritter point out that his message today is
180 degrees from what he was saying in 1998, when he first
resigned as weapons inspector. In fact, Ritter was once praised
by the right for his anti-Iraqi stance when he appeared to
be spreading a message that is a lot closer to what the Bush
administration claims today.
“I
think the danger right now is that without effective inspections,
without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period
of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological
weapons, long range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons
and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program,”
he said in a 1998 interview on PBS.
In the interview, Ritter went on to argue that the only effective
way to ensure Iraqi compliance with inspections was to threaten
military action.
“Either
he lied then or he is lying now,” said David Kay, who was
the U.N. inspection chief in Iraq before Ritter, when asked
by the U.S. House Armed Services Committee about Ritter.
Kay, an expert in biological warfare, testified on Sept. 10
that he believed Iraq was still a serious threat that would
not be controlled through inspections. Kay said that he found
a great deal of evidence that Saddam had attempted to create
biological and nuclear weapons in the past few years.
Others, like Stephen Hayes in William Kristol’s ultraconservative
Weekly Standard, have speculated that Ritter’s change
in message could be because he has been bought off by the
Iraqis. By his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in
funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American businessman named
Shakir al-Khafaji to visit Baghdad and film a documentary
about the “true” story of the weapons inspections. The film,
titled In Shifting Sands, also depicts the damage caused
by U.S. sanctions in Iraq.
But Ritter says that his message has not “flip-flopped,” and
that these assertions are outrageous.
“I
am not letting Saddam off the hook,” he forcefully explains.
“I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health. I think that
Saddam is a very dangerous man and I think that it is imperative
that we get back into Iraq and check for weapons. But I think
that any responsible individual rejects outright absolute
findings based upon unsubstantiated speculation.”
He
adds that government officials have been stating as fact that
Iraq has reconstituted its program, that Iraq is in possession
of biological weapons, and that Iraq is working hard on a
nuclear program. But he wants to see the proof.
“There
is no substantive information that remotely suggests this
is taking place,” he insists. “The government says they have
evidence. Well, show us the evidence.”
By moving this argument into fact and truth, he adds, and
away from rhetoric, it could mean that Iraq doesn’t have these
weapons. And by sending the inspectors back into Iraq, the
Bush administration would have to engage “the machinery of
international diplomacy” that could possibly lead to a finding
of compliance on the part of Iraq.
“Then
you have to discuss the lifting of economic sanctions,” he
says, “the breaking of containment, and bringing Iraq back
in the fold of the international community with Saddam Hussein
at the helm, which is the last thing that the Bush administration
wants.”
Ritter admits that he has paid a high price for speaking out
against the United States government. He says that when he
first resigned in 1998, he told U.S. officials that he would
speak out against U.S. policies, but would hold back on more
sensitive matters regarding intelligence—so long as the government
did not question his patriotism, call him a liar, or go after
his family. But he adds that the day he resigned, the government
released information that it was investigating him as a spy
for the state of Israel, and has since opened a case against
his wife as being a spy for the KGB.
“They
lied and violated this agreement,” says Ritter. “So I waited
an appropriate amount of time. Now I am allowing the truth
to be my weapon. And as soon as I started to speak, they started
coming after me. Because the problem with a message is that
when it hurts and you don’t want to deal with the message,
you go after the messenger.”
“This
is not about disarmament. The United States never made disarmament
its main objective. We are being lied to by the Bush administration,
and it is the most flagrant kind of lie because it is a lie
that is being used to justify war.”
—Nancy
Guerin
Mr.
Quandt Goes to Baghdad
As
war rhetoric heats up, a local performer plans to become a
human shield in Iraq
As
an actor with the New York State Theater Institute, a singer
and harmonica player with various local R&B bands, and
an Albany taxi driver, Joe Quandt has long been a familiar
figure here in the Capital Region. But Quandt, 51, is now
a man politicized by what he sees as an inhumane policy of
United Nations economic sanctions against Iraq, and he’s willing
to take drastic steps to protest it. On Oct. 6, he will leave
his more comfortable roles to go to Baghdad as a member of
a Chicago-based group called Voices in the Wilderness (VitW)
to try to raise awareness among U.S. citizens of the harsh
effects of sanctions on civilians there. Moreover, he is undertaking
his monthlong trip at what could be enormous personal risk—in
addition to its primary goals of providing humanitarian assistance
to Iraqis and speaking out against the sanctions, the group
intends to act as a human shield to non-military Iraqi infrastructure
such as bridges and power plants in the event of U.S.-led
air strikes. And even if Quandt, who has made out his will,
were to survive a bombing, he could face criminal charges
for his actions upon his return.
The sanctions that lie at the heart of the controversy have
been in place since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Critics
charge that they have deprived the Iraqi population of essential
foods and medicines, and according to UNICEF estimates, 1.5
million of the most vulnerable Iraqis—the elderly, the ill,
and the young—had perished as a result by 1998, the last year
for which figures are available. Of these, a third were children
under 5, and 5,000 children are still dying per month. France
and Russia, who are among the five permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council, have been sharply critical of the sanctions,
as have been many of the 15 nonpermanent members. The United
States, however, has vetoed all attempts to lift them.
Quandt acknowledged that Saddam Hussein is “a brutal dictator,”
but feels that the sanctions will never dislodge him. Innocent
civilians, he asserts, are therefore being punished for Hussein’s
sins.
Voices in the Wilderness (www.nonviolence.org/vitw) was founded
in 1996 for the purpose of using nonviolent civil disobedience
to spur a confrontation with the U.S. government over the
sanctions, which they see as illegal and immoral. That year,
they notified Attorney General Janet Reno of their intention
to violate the sanctions by bringing medical supplies into
Iraq. In response, the Office of Foreign Assets Control sent
them a letter warning them to refrain from any such activities.
VitW has since defied the government by sending several delegations
to Iraq, and has also mounted several high-profile U.S. protests
against the sanctions, for which several demonstrators have
been arrested. Quandt, the only member from the Capital Region,
will travel to Baghdad with about three dozen others from
various parts of the country. He hopes to enlist the aid of
local activists to help him report on the situation in Iraq
through news outlets in the Capital Region, and he also plans
on teaching English during his stay.
Asked if he thinks the United States would knowingly bomb
its own citizens if members of the group were to act as human
shields in Iraq, Quandt said he doesn’t believe so, explaining
that similar tactics have been used successfully in Bosnia
(Serbs tied U.N. peacekeepers to posts to prevent threatened
Western air strikes). Asked if he was sure the U.S. and its
allies would afford the volunteers the same consideration
in the event of an attack on Iraq, he said, “No. There’s no
guarantee. There’s never any guarantee.” Attempts to reach
group cofounder Kathy Kelly for comment were not successful,
but according to news reports, she has warned the activists
that they could be facing death.
Questions of possible death and injury aside, members of the
group may find themselves in legal jeopardy for their relief
efforts and their attempts to act as human shields.
For example, according to Quandt, it is illegal to bring pencils
into Iraq (graphite can be used to make airplanes undetectable
by radar), or vitamins, or toys. Reflecting on the risks,
Quandt said, “When you decide to do something like this, you
have to make the decision that you are going to potentially
place yourself in any number of dangerous situations, including
fines and imprisonment by your own government. But if the
United States is going to try to dictate to me where I can
do humanitarian work, then there’s something vastly wrong
with my government.”
—Glenn
Weiser
 |
|
Teri
Currie
|
Taking
It to the Streets
Fed up with the state of public transportation in the city
of Albany, about a dozen demonstrators marched from Westgate
Shopping Center to the Capitol on Saturday (Sept. 28). Organized
by Citizens for Transportation and the Albany County Green
Party, the march was a call to CDTA officials for more and
better bus routes throughout Albany during evenings and over
the weekend. The two groups are currently working on gathering
signatures to petition local politicians for better public
transportation services.
 |
|
Building
blocks: Union members on the picket line. Photo
By John Whipple.
|
United
We Stand by Ourselves
Union
pickets local contractor without any clear support from company
employees
A
local carpenters’ union recently began employing new tactics
in an extended campaign to convince one of the area’s largest
general contractors to form a teamster-friendly company—and
the union is doing so all by itself. So far, employees of
the firm have given no indication that they want to join the
union.
Throughout the summer, members of the Empire State Regional
Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America spent Friday afternoons picketing two work sites
of the non-union general contractor Bast Hatfield, Inc. The
pickets have been taking place at the future Lowe’s site on
Balltown Road in Niskayuna and on British American Boulevard
in Latham. The union has dubbed them informational, and the
message is clear: “To the public: Bast Hatfield does not employ
members of or have a contract with Empire State Regional Council
of Carpenters,” read the signs around the demonstrators’ necks.
In the past few weeks, the union’s campaign has shifted from
weekly informational demonstrations to daily organizational
pickets, the difference being that the carpenter’s guild is
now asking that other organized trades not cross its picket
line.
“There
has been dialogue with Bast Hatfield employees for well over
a year,” said Michael Donvito, council representative and
picket captain. “They have issues and concerns, and we feel
that we could address them.”
Donvito said Bast Hatfield employees cite differences in pay
scale between two workers doing the same job, a weak benefit
package, and a shady pension program as reasons for wanting
to unionize.
While the union has a laundry list of complaints against the
company, no Bast Hatfield employees have come forward to back
up the union’s accusations. On several visits to the picketed
Bast Hatfield sites, no company employees were seen walking
the picket line. Bast Hatfield employees interviewed on these
job sites did not want to be identified as saying so, but
said that none of the company’s workers were involved in the
pickets. Donvito said the reason the employees wanted to protect
their identities was the same reason why they feigned alliance
to their employer: fear.
“The
workers are scared,” said Donvito. “They have a fear of being
fired. We’re trying to have them get over their fear. We have
allowed them to voice their issues and concerns, and that
is the reason why we have gone forward with this organizational
campaign.”
Chris Bast, owner and president of Bast Hatfield, said the
union is being “completely irresponsible” by advancing these
claims, ones that he said are “absolutely false.”
“They
are putting out a bunch of propaganda,” said Bast. “You can
go to every one of the pickets and ask if they work for Bast
Hatfield. None of our own are picketing. Really, what they
are trying to do is stifle people back into a system that
worked in the ’20s and ’30s.”
Bast pointed out that his workers get all of the money from
their wages and pension without any going to pay union dues.
Bast feels his company is being, and has been, targeted by
unions for his unwillingness to fold under union pressure.
“We
are a merit-shop company,” said Bast. “We feel that [unionized
labor] is a very archaic system. When a man starts out a trade
in a union, that’s what he can look forward to all of his
days. There is no upward mobility.”
The merit-shop system is one where workers get their raises
and bonus “based on merit rather than entitlement,” Bast said.
In the merit system, he added, workers are encouraged to learn
as many skills as possible on the job to increase their wages.
But Donvito countered that leaving a worker’s wage up to his
or her employer leaves the door open for the worker to be
cheated.
“What
we have as a union is a standard of wages and a standard of
benefits,” said Donvito. “It doesn’t matter what job you go
on, any union has a standard of living and a benefit package.”
These standards, Donvito said, are set by the National Labor
Relations Board and based on an area’s standard of living.
Working out of a union or for a unionized company, employees
would be paid the union’s set wage or the area standard, whichever
happens to be higher. Bast claimed his company’s policy is
the same.
According to Donvito, a carpenter who signs on with the ESRCC
would receive a $21.35 hourly wage plus benefits. While Bast
would not release specifically how much his employees make,
claiming proprietary information, he said that his workers
can earn more then $28 an hour plus benefits.
The pickets have been gaining support recently from other
area unions. But Bast said he has yet to hear from his workers
that they want to unionize.
“A
group did come to talk to me the other day and told me not
to go union,” said Bast. “Here you can learn a skill, start
out entry level and aspire, if you’re ambitious, we provide
that. Our guys work for a company, not a union. It’s a different
philosophy.”
—Travis
Durfee
From
the Heart
A
weekend benefit concert raises money and awareness for Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk
school district’s purchase of technology that may save a child’s
life
Families,
businesses and bands came together Saturday in a communitywide
effort to help the Ravena- Coeymans-Selkirk School District
purchase state-mandated lifesaving devices.
The nine-band benefit concert held in the RCS high school
gym raised enough money to reimburse the school district’s
purchase of nine automatic external defibrillators, devices
that can help restore the rhythms in a heart that is not beating
properly. Though the purchase of the defibrillators was mandated
by the New York State Legislature in June 2001, school districts
were not provided with any additional funding. All schools
must be equipped with the devices by December 2002.
“I
guess that wasn’t their initial intention, an unfunded mandate,”
said Anne Marie Bonafide, an organizer of the benefit. “As
soon as we learned they needed to be placed, it was a responsibility
we had to help the community get these [defibrillators] and
to educate the public.”
Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-Long Beach), who sponsored
the legislation, said he worried about the ability of smaller
school districts to come up with the money to purchase the
defibrillators, which cost $2,500 a piece.
“It
was a mandate without funding, and everybody is against doing
that,” said Weisenberg. “But you can’t put a dollar value
on a child’s life. I really applaud the community for consciously
being aware of bringing their school environment into a safer
environment.”
The all-day event featured local performers Ernie Williams,
Mark Emanation and Folding Sky, Dusk Till Dawn, Honey Creeper,
the Brian Kaplan Band, Third 2 None, Yellow Stone Driver,
Stood Up, and Public Access. Bonafide’s son, Jason, a member
of Public Access, organized the music portion of the benefit.
The family’s service to the public comes from intimate knowledge
of a defibrillator’s importance: the death of their son and
brother, Justin, in 1997 from sudden cardiac arrest when he
was 9 years old.
“Justin
had a very normal day, with his bro, did normal 9- and 11-year-old-things,”
said Anne Marie Bonafide. “He complained 30 minutes before
that his heart was racing. He was outside running with the
dog and didn’t feel right. He came inside and was going to
lay down and within seconds after saying that he had this
attack.”
As with many cases of sudden cardiac arrest, Justin’s attack
struck without any prior medical signs and no warning other
than his offhand remarks about not feeling well. According
to the American Heart Association’s Web site, sudden cardiac
death, or cardiac arrest, is “the sudden, abrupt loss of heart
function in a person who may or may not have diagnosed heart
disease. The time and mode of death are unexpected, and it
occurs instantly or shortly after symptoms appear.”
“First
responders arrived in three minutes and CPR was administered
right away,” said Bonafide. “But CPR doesn’t do anything.
It was every parent’s nightmare. We went from having two healthy,
vibrant young boys [to having] a child who lost his best friend.”
As the Bonafides and the school district were recovering from
the loss of Justin, another young man in the same district,
17-year-old Gavin Raymond, collapsed while walking into English
class and later died, also from sudden cardiac arrest.
“We
told all the little kids that this is so rare, it will never
happen again,” said Bonafide. “And then all these kids who
had been told this, to see it happen again, and to see the
fear in the eyes of so many young people. We were absolutely
terrified that this same thing had happened again.”
Had a defibrillator been available, both young men might have
been saved. The AHA states that early access to a defibrillator
is key to saving someone stricken with sudden cardiac arrest:
Chances of survival decreases by 7 to 10 percent with each
minute that passes without defibrillation.
“Although
sudden cardiac deaths occur more commonly in adults (225,000
adult deaths annually),” states the AHA Web site, “an estimated
5,000 to 7,000 children (without symptoms) die suddenly in
the United States annually.”
RCS purchased enough defibrillators to cover the entire community
encompassed by the school district, said school superintendent
Robert E. Drake. “They’ll be in each school building, in the
bus garage, business office and for sporting events they can
be available on the field,” Drake said. “We want no more than
a five-minute response time.”
Drake said the event was a huge success, raising money both
through the benefit concert and donations from local businesses
and politicians. Anne Marie Bonafide also was pleased by the
community turnout Saturday, which coincidentally would have
been Raymond’s 22nd birthday.
“It
is important to let school districts know of this,” she said.
“People were pretty upset by not having the funding to pay
for this, but the education is important. It happens within
a matter of minutes, and CPR is not enough. You need to have
the heart electro-shocked to get it in sync. We think of this
afflicting the elderly, but it can happen to anyone, young
or old.”
—T.D.
|