In this issue:

U.S. Supreme Court Rules: Executing Mentally Retarded Is Unconstitutional

LaRouche on Sept. 11: An E-Mail Exchange

Maggie Thatcher Tells U.S., 'Don't Go Wobbly' on Iraq

Maria Milton: Repudiate the 'Real Axis of Evil'—McCain and Lieberman

FBI Accused of 'Cover-Up' in Anthrax Investigation

Terrorism Insurance Bill Passes; Terrorist Scares Hit Washington

AFL-CIO Announces Campaign To Defeat 'Fast Track'

From the Vol.1 No.16 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly

UNITED STATES NEWS DIGEST

U.S. Supreme Court Rules: Executing Mentally Retarded Is Unconstitutional

The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 20 that executing the mentally retarded violates the U.S. Constitution by violating the bar to "cruel and unusual punishment" (see U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights—first Ten Amendments to the Constitution; Eighth Amendment).

The ruling, in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, reverses a 1989 Supreme Court decision.

This major breakthrough in the fight against the death penalty, will immediately save the life of Virginia inmate Daryl R. Atkins, at least for the time being, and potentially dozens, if not hundreds, of Death Row inmates in the 20 states that continue to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded (broadly defined as those with IQs of less than 70).

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, warned that execution is neither appropriate nor a deterrent in the case of mentally retarded defendants, and that the retarded "in the aggregate face a special risk of wrongful execution," especially due to the likelihood of unfair court proceedings. In the opinion, he declared that much had changed in the U.S. in the 13 years since the Court had refused to recognize a Constitutional bar to putting mentally retarded people to death. At that time, the Court decided that "there is insufficent evidence of a national consensus" that such executions would violate the country's "evolving standards of decency." But, Stevens wrote, "the American public, legislators, scholars, and judges have deliberated over the question whether the death penalty should ever be imposed on a mentally retarded criminal." In fact, the number of states that impose the death penalty, but prohibit its use against the mentally retarded, has grown from two in 1989, to 18 today.

The three barbarians who continued to defend executing the retarded were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In his dissent, Rehnquist wrote that the majority relied too much on "public opinion polls" in reaching its decision; Rehnquist disdained any reference to international opposition to the death penalty: "The viewpoints of other countries simply are not relevant."

Scalia, in a separate dissenting opinion, relied on just such "community standards" by citing jury decisions: "The fact that juries continue to sentence mentally retarded offenders to death for extreme crimes shows that society's moral outrage sometimes demands execution of retarded offenders." Scalia, taking the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud—and angrily—from the bench, also heaped scorn on the views of his fellow justices: "Seldom has an opinion of this Court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members."

Also June 20, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling upheld an Illinois law that guarantees many patients a second opinion when their HMOs deny them medical benefits. The core of the ruling was that the Court found that HMOs are a form of insurance, not just an employee benefit plan, and as such, can be regulated by states, despite the 1974 Federal ERISA statute which, among numerous other provisions, permits only Congressional, not state, regulation of employee benefit plans. That ERISA loophole has been exploited to deadly effect by the HMOs, and the June 20 ruling is being hailed by doctors' and patients' groups nationally.

(Needless to say, the dissenting minority included Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, as well as Anthony Kennedy.)

LaRouche on Sept. 11: An E-Mail Exchange

Dear Mr. LaRouche,

Re: "Truth and 9/11" story found on your web site.

In your story entitled above you state that ....

"In the case of Sept. 11, the pattern of crucial known facts about the attacks themselves, shows that no one outside of a handful of very high-level inside plotters had any actual knowledge of that operation beforehand. "

This is so far from the truth! I suggest you log on to —- and purchase a copy of the video presentation on the truth and lies on 9/11 as delved by the site's editor Mike Ruppert. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that almost every intelligence agency in the world knew of the hijacking plot, including a national televised warning on the subject from no less than President Putin prior to the event.

In fact, the range of overt evidence itself supports the fact that only the deaf and blind within competent intelligence circles would not have known of this plot, let alone what the covert world knew of them.

Ruppert clearly outlines why Sept 11 was "allowed" to happen by the powers that be within the U.S. Your otherwise interesting insights are flawed without the basic facts.

Kind Regards,

Name Withheld to protect privacy

LaRouche Replies:

Your message reached me during my week in Brazil.

Do not be misled. There was no advance intelligence warning of what actually happened on Sept. 11, 2001; although there were warnings of other important risks for the August-September interval. One was of a critical development, related to economic trends, for as early as August, by a leading Russian analyst, announced, in my presence, during a special session of the Duma economic committee, June 2001. There was a planned "Genoa-style" riot which I was investigating, being prepared for late September 2001. None of the numerous investigations reported pointed to the kind of event which occurred on Sept. 11. All of the contrary stories of "advance warning" depend upon a description of the Sept. 11 attacks which is contrary to the details of the attack fully documented in the public domain soon after the attacks themselves. To put the point metaphorically, the rabbit did not kill and eat the lion.

—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Maggie Thatcher Tells U.S., 'Don't Go Wobbly' on Iraq

In a June 17 op ed in the Wall Street Journal, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher basically aimed to stiffen the resolve of the Bush Administration to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, in a "don't go wobbly" lecture similar to the one she used to get the first Bush Administration to fight the 1990-91 Gulf War.

She motivated a near-future attack on Iraq as being part of an effort to eliminate the threat of "rogue states" possessing and using weapons of mass destruction. Stopping the proliferation of these weapons to the "West's sworn enemies," she raved, is "the greatest challenge of our times," as some "rogue states" must be expected "to try to go beyond mere threat"—and, "We must rise to it," said the Iron Lady.

Iran poses a threat to Israel's security by its missile program and support for terrorism, according to Thatcher, but can be neutralized by "diplomatic sticks and carrots."

North Korea, however, "is in the grip of a psychotic Stalinist regime whose rule is sustained by terror and bankrolled by those who buy its missiles," and "is beyond reform." "The regime must go," wrote Thatcher.

Now for the crux: Regarding Iraq, Thatcher wrote that she has "detected a certain amount of wobbling about the need to remove Saddam Hussein—though not from President Bush." Those who have second thoughts about attacking Iraq should tell Bush, not the press, said Thatcher, as "this is no time to go wobbly."

"Saddam must go," she continued, because "his continued survival ... has done untold damage to the West's standing." Among the measures to overthrow Saddam, she says, are "a major deployment of ground forces as well as sustained air strikes," and mobilizing and assisting internal groups opposed to Saddam."

Thatcher's use of the word "wobbly" was an unattributed reference to Bernard Lewis, one of the authors of the Carter-era Brzezinski-ite "Arc of Crisis" comment and an "expert" on the Arab world, who was brought in last fall as part of the utopians efforts to convince President Bush that Iraq posed an imminent danger to the U.S. and had to be dealt with.

A front-page Wall Street Journal story of June 14 recounted (as its headline read) "How Bush Decided that Iraq's Hussein Must Be Ousted," and included a report on a meeting of the Defense Policy Board hosted shortly after Sept. 11 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hosted—a meeting which helped convince Vice President Cheney "of the need to act on Iraq," whereupon Cheney invited Bernard Lewis to a private dinner. "I am afraid we are just wobbling dangerously all over the Middle East," Lewis told the Journal.

After these and a spate of other meetings last fall, President Bush's initial decision for restraint on Iraq was revised, and then came his State of the Union address in January, labelling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "axis of evil."

"I made up my mind that Saddam meeds to go. That's about all I'm willing to share with you," Bush told British journalists in April.

Maria Milton: Repudiate the 'Real Axis of Evil'—McCain and Lieberman

LaRouche Democrat Maria Elena Milton, the 1996 Democratic Party Congressional candidate in Arizona's 4th C.D., appeared on Arizona radio talk shows last week urging listeners to repudiate what she called the "real Axis of Evil," Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain—McCain, a Republican Senator from Arizona; Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat, his (equally) evil twin.

On Tucson's KTKT, Milton told host Bert Lee about confronting Lieberman, at a Memorial Day appearance at a school in Phoenix. She told Lieberman that his and McCain's drive for an "Independent Commission on 9/11" was "a sham and a fraud, as shown by the fact that you have not asked the top expert on counter-terrorism, and author of the definitive report on who was behind Sept. 11, Lyndon LaRouche, to head the investigation."

The instant Lieberman heard the name "LaRouche," Milton said, he wheeled around and rushed out of the room, while six football-player-sized bodyguards jumped in front of Milton, to protect the Senator from the housewife and mother of four—who is 5 feet 4 inches tall.

Lieberman's cravenness certainly hasn't hurt him with the press, however. Just ask the Washington Post, which ran a fulsome June 18 puff piece on him and his vaulting Presidential ambitions.

"Lieberman Positions Himself Out Front; Presidential Ambitions Not Hidden," was the headline on the front-page story, which recounted how, "In what often looks and feels like a Presidential primary among Democratic Senators, Joseph I. Lieberman has been the unabashed aggressor of late."

He has tried to grab the spotlight as the Man-in-the-Senate on the Homeland Security Department, and plans a grandstanding set of hearings calling the CIA Director, the FBI Director, etc., etc. He's leading the Enron probe (although he is compromised by Enron connections himself). He's trying to hammer President Bush on domestic issues, teaming up with Bush's 2000 primary rival McCain to do it. The Washington Post seems to love it—they certainly gave Lieberman enough column inches.

There are numerous flies in Lieberman's ointment, though. A Harvard School for Public Health study printed in the August 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated devastatingly how Lieberman's vaunted videogame rating system was such a grotesque fraud, that of 672 video games rated "E" for "Everyone," nearly two-thirds "involved intentional violence, [wherein] injuring or killing characters is rewarded or required for advancement."

The ratings were developed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), which Lieberman helped to create. An "E"-rated game is supposed to be suitable for children 6 years old and up.

Thirty-five of the games depicted intentional violence over 90% of the playing time. One game called "Rat Attack" had up to 8.4 deaths per minute. Lieberman's supposedly anti-violence, anti-Hollywood stance evaporated, strangely enough, when he discovered during his and Al Gore's 2000 race just how much money there was to be had from Hollywood, for electoral campaigns.

FBI Accused of 'Cover-Up' in Anthrax Investigation

Journals as diverse as The Scotsman of Edinburgh, and Salon, the online "inside Washington" magazine, have focussed on the findings of Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, director of the biological warfare division at the Federation of American Scientists, who has been accusing the FBI since February of foot-dragging in the investigation of last fall's anthrax-laden bio-warfare letters.

According to Salon, on June 21 Dr. Rosenberg went to Congress, where she briefed the offices of top Senators—Tom Daschle (D-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)—on her widely publicized theory of who is behind the anthrax attacks, and how the FBI has botched the investigation. Salon reports that the staff members were briefed for about 90 minutes, and then FBI representatives continued to meet the staff members after Dr. Rosenberg left.

Rosenberg told The Scotsman that the profile "suggests the suspect is a middle-aged scientist with a doctoral degree who works for a CIA contractor in Washington." She said that she knows who the person is, and so do a "top-level clique of U.S. government scientists, the CIA, the FBI, and the White House."

EIW has reported that the official lack of interest in Rosenberg's profile is related to the fact that top officials in the "war on terrorism" want to steer all attention to "Islamist" and "foreign" terrorists, and have wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. networks are responsible for major terrorism. This would get too close to the fact that Sept. 11 was a domestic operation of irregular warfare, an attempted coup against the Administration.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported June 18 that eight workers from the Brentwood Postal Plant in Washington, D.C.—a focus of illness and death from last fall's anthrax attacks—have died since the fall. Besides the two highly publicized deaths from exposure to anthrax-laced letters at Brentwood last October, eight other workers have since died, four from heart disease, two from cancer, and two from undetermined causes. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said none of the eight died of inhalation anthrax, but more tests are needed.

While the number of deaths is not statistically unusal for the Brentwood population of 1,700, the average age of those who died might be, given that it was only 56. One worker was 36 years old, had regular check-ups and exercised daily; another, who died at 58 of a heart attack, was fit and healthy before the anthrax attack and ran marathons. His health rapidly deteriorated after the anthrax attack.

Terrorism Insurance Bill Passes; Terrorist Scares Hit Washington

The U.S. Senate on June 18 passed a bill to provide a government backup to insurance companies in case of terrorist attack. The "Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002" (S. 2006), passed by a vote of 84-14, would require the government to pay 80% of claims from future terrorist attacks that exceed $5 billion, and 90% of claims more than $10 billion, with a cap of $100 billion. The government guarantee would be in effect for the rest of the year, and could be extended one year by the Treasury Secretary.

The bill must clear final negotiations with the House of Representatives, which last year approved its own version of the legislation, which President Bush also supports.

As it now stands, lacking guarantees on terrorism insurance, many contractors and developers had refused to go ahead on building projects, particularly in places like Washington which were considered prime targets.

In addition, business around, for example, the White House, are reporting that their insurance premiums are soaring, and some buildings close to the White House have been unable to get any insurance at all.

Meantime, the day after the Senate passed S. 2006, two terrorism scares hit Washington. The first occurred when a suspicious package was found at the Federal Reserve, which was evacuated; surrounding streets were closed during the afternoon rush hour, causing enormous traffic jams.

The second incident occurred around 8:00 p.m. that evening, when a light Cessna plane entered prohibited air space near the White House, causing a partial evacuation of staff there (President and Mrs. Bush were in the White House, but were not evacuated and did not learn of the incident till the next day).

NORAD scrambled fighter jets; then the Cessna pilot made contact with Leesburg, Va. Air Traffic Control facility, which put him in touch with NORAD, whose fighter jets escorted him to the Richmond airport. The F-16s that were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base did not actually intercept the plane before it made its closest pass to the White House, highlighting the vulnerabilities of the executive mansion and raising concerns that it may be necessary to return to 24-hour-a-day air patrol coverage over Washington.

AFL-CIO Announces Campaign To Defeat 'Fast Track'

The AFL-CIO has announced a major media campaign to defeat "fast track"—Presidential trade negotiation authority—in the House of Representatives. The giant union federation will begin advertising in a dozen Congressional districts by the beginning of July as part of this effort, and promises a fierce campaign to defeat the legislation.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS