ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

SPD and LEIU Spy on You

I wanted to make some remarks on the piece Geov wrote on the LEIU. The article was a good starting point for a discussion, and some facts need to be thrown in the mix, in order for it to be a fully informed one. Specifically, there are some recent developments about the LEIU and the relationship with the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the City Council.

According to documents I retrieved from the City Clerk's office, the SPD has been obtaining data from the LEIU since at least 1984. This information is contained in the yearly intelligence audits, which are done yearly by the police chief; no conflict of interest there. These audits are then submitted to the City Council through a subcommittee, and brought to the full city council for approval, which they always have approved unanimously. This is not conspiracy, but a matter of public record.

Recently, the City Council reviewed and approved the 2002 audit, which had an interesting addendum: an audit of the SPD's authorizations to collect "restricted data" on individuals and groups. This audit was performed by criminal defense attorney Jeffery P Robinson. These authorizations were summarized in this document, and the references to political activity are pretty obvious: the N30 anniversary in 2001, "groups of individuals suspected of...failure to obtain proper permits..." and "...individuals suspected of property damage, assault, riot, and other criminal acts..." The audit also mentions authorizations of infiltrators and informants, and stated that the authorization for use of an infiltrator is still "open"--meaning in full effect. Though some of these authorizations likely deal with activists that have been denounced publicly by Geov, they are not less relevant because of his opinions.

What's more, the LEIU files obtained by the SPD never exceeded one hundred per year until 2002, when 10,997 documents were obtained in that year alone--a significant rise, which seems to correlate with the heightened awareness of "domestic terrorism," billed on the LEIU 2003 website as "criminal protest groups." The climate of the Bush/Ashcroft power grab has a lot to do with this.

The city council has been silent on this for years, with the recent exception of Nick Licata, as reported by The Stranger. The other eight council members don't seem to want to respond to letters of concern. It seems as though this would have continued to go on, with the complete complicity of the City Council, if no one had noticed. Geov downplays the threat of the LEIU a bit, but the facts speak for themselves. Is the LEIU peeking through our bedroom windows? With about the same directness, the WTO busts unions, destroys the environment, and atomizes communities. The point is that this is an institutional problem, and there are more then enough smoking guns to worry about people getting shot, so to speak. And as the title of this paper suggests, there are some institutions not worth keeping around.

John Persak, Seattle

Befuddled over Fallujah

This communication is in response to Maria Tomchick's expounded opinion of the Fallujah incident. When looking at a matter such as this one must reflect on other incidents involving the US Military during campaigns in other (hostile) countries. These "civilians" are not the perfect people that you picture them. Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Dominican Republic (1968), Vietnam, France, Germany, Poland, Japan, the list is endless. I guess my thought is the rules of engagement of the US Forces manages the troops along with the officers and NCO's appointed above them. I have a friend that was charged with an illegal killing in Haiti when his area was attacked by civilians, his "area of responsibility" was fired upon, he located the shooter and killed him with his assigned weapon, a 5.56mm SAW. I had two friends that are Legionaries that were shot by civilians in the first desert war. Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to allow our troops to be shot by the very people that we are liberating and then order them to stand firm and not return fire? I think not. Reporters have ran this war from the beginning and I think that it is about time to drop the burden of politics on these soldiers and take them to DC. Soldiers follow orders, politicians make the rules. God bless our troops and our POWs and MIAs.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Derek, via e-mail

M.T. replies: Derek, I'd like to say I disagree with you, but my opinion isn't at issue here. I'm obliged to point out that my article was a survey of media sources by reporters in Fallujah. They reported evidence gathered from interviews of both soldiers and Iraqi civilians and what they saw with their own eyes. If you're uncomfortable with the evidence, which strongly suggests that no bullets were fired at US soldiers, but that US soldiers heavily sprayed the Iraqi crowd with automatic weapons fire anyway, I'd like to hear about it. Instead, you make the inane claim that reporters have been running the war. My answer to the one question you pose is: "yes, it's always wrong for US soldiers to shoot and kill civilians"--especially when those civilians think US troops are there to occupy them, take their resources, and not "liberate them."

Domestic Terrorism

By all reasonable profiling parameters, former Tacoma Police Chief David Brame was a full-blown domestic terrorist. He targeted and murdered an innocent victim in public, with total disregard for his own life, and he died in the process.

The target of his zealous rage was the mother of his own young children, who watched from just a few feet away as he killed his victim and himself. Fully consistent with the profile of a terrorist, David Brame committed his suicide/murder attack, with the probable foreknowledge of others, who also may have provided him with his murder weapon. President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and others in our government have given us a mandate to root out those who would harbor and arm suicidal terrorists, anywhere in the world.

What are we waiting for? Who knew he was likely to attack, and when did they know it? Let the Federal investigations and criminal trials begin right here, in Tacoma, Washington.

Virgil Howard, Seattle

Assault Gun Ads

I've often wondered why gun manufactures don't do ads with Cher singing:

Bang bang, you shot me down Bang bang, I hit the ground Bang bang, that awful sound Bang bang, my baby shot me down

Navegar could point out how the silencer eliminates that awful sound when lovers shoot each other. So much more romantic that way.

Anonymous, via e-mail

Alice's Nightmare

Congressman Schiff is sponsoring a bill to get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction "around the world." We should not forget that the United States is part of that world and certainly at this point has made it absolutely clear to the rest of the world that it will not hesitate to use WMDs to advance its own interests. We have a president who discusses "viable nuclear war" with his very powerful like-minded cronies. We have invasions for no reason that leave thousands dead, injured, hungry, and impoverished. Bush says he will "find" the perpetrators of the recent Saudi bombings, although he cannot "find" Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein OR his sons, the Iraqi "arsenal," etc., etc. WMDs are indeed terrible, hellish things, but at this point the greatest concentration of them is here at home, and we need to disarm NOW before the madmen in charge of this Alice's nightmare reduce the world to rubble.

Charles Prendergast, Texarkana, TX

Wonderland?

Being a high school dropout and not very bright to begin with. I wonder if perhaps I am the only person on earth that is seeing the current wave of fascism as just the latest attack on democracy world-wide. Has anyone thought about using the United Nations as a tool for advancing democracy globally (Wasn't this the idea?).

What if all members decided to put 1/3 of their militaries under direct control of the UN? What if all it took to overturn a veto was a simple majority of all member states? What if all international treaties had to be debated before the UN and could be voided by a simple majority? What if the WTO were to be put under UN auspices?

I know these ifs seem unrealistic and would never be allowed to pass. But, I bet most people would have said that about democracy a few hundred years ago.

I believe no one will be free as long as we live with nationalism as the strongest argument for solving our problems and as long as governments are free to use this against us the way the present administration has.

Mark Klein, Seattle, WA

A View from the Wacky Right

How did Islamic terrorists react to the US announcement that it would withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia--a central demand of Bin Laden? With bombings that killed at least 7 Americans.

The terrorists interpreted the US withdrawal as a concession to Bin Laden's demands and as proof of US weakness. From their perspective, the US withdrawal shows that terrorism pays, and that the more they terrorize Americans the more they stand to gain.

The lesson to be learned is that concessions--apparent or real--will not change the minds of Islamic terrorists committed to destroying the United States and its influence in Muslim countries. Concessions only embolden them. If the United States wants to end Islamic terrorism it must not appease terrorists--but ruthlessly and methodically destroy them.

David Holcberg, Ayn Rand Institute, Irvine, CA

M.T. replies: Mr. Holcberg's argument leaves out the great likelihood that the Saudi bombings were planned long before the US government's announcement that it would withdraw many (but not all) of our troops from Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, thousands of American businessmen will still live and work in Saudi Arabia. They were, after all, the direct targets of the bombings, which took place at foreign workers' housing complexes, not US military bases. Nor does Mr. Holcberg mention the reasons for the Chechnya bombing that occurred on the same day, or the Chechnya suicide bombing that happened on the following day, or the coordinated suicide bombings of foreign businesses and consulates in the city of Casablanca, Morocco, which are all being attributed to Al Qaeda. It's really hard to swallow right-wing bullshit when you're forced to consider the bigger picture; however, Mr. Holcberg does get one thing right: Al Qaeda is, indeed, committed to destroying US influence in Muslim countries.