| Home Page
About Page
Favorite Links
Custom Page
Custom2 Page
Custom3 Page
Custom4 Page
Guest Book Page
Catalog Page
Contact Page
Whats New Page
|
|
|
This page will be dedicated to the issues I find most pressing at the moment. Don't be surprised if the same issue are discussed for some time to come. Unfortunately, the most pressing issues rarely get resolved quickly.
I will cover a wide range of issues ranging from human rights to religious freedom, from animal rights to GBLT rights. Please feel free to contact me and give me a scoop. I'll be glad to add your suggestions to this page.
|
|
|
Is War with Syria Next?
War with Syria planned if Bush re-election in doubt.
by BBC Wednesday April 16, 2003 at 11:33 PM
"If Bush's re-election in 18 months should be endangered by the poor economic situation, his advisers could consider a new confrontation useful to get the voters back behind the commander-in-chief in the White House,"...
World media ask: why Syria?
The world's press is querying US accusations that Syria harbours Iraqi fugitives and is developing weapons of mass destruction, with some seeing sinister motives behind Washington's stance.
"Now that the US is nearly through with 'regime change' in Iraq, Syria could be the next on queue for gunboat diplomacy," says Kenya's Standard .
Indonesia's Koran Tempo is convinced that Washington is not making idle threats against Syria and is intending to launch a military attack.
"Washington will isolate Syria, strangle it with embargoes and force it to disarm," it writes.
"When it is powerless, the United States can 'liberate' the Syrian people by dropping bomb after bomb on Damascus.
If Bush's re-election in 18 months should be endangered by the poor economic situation, his advisers could consider a new confrontation useful
Die Tageszeitung
"Prepare for a sequel to US-style slaughter."
Germany's Die Welt is not so sure:
"Political Washington is threatening but the military is silent. That shows that there are no operational plans in progress."
Another German paper, Die Tageszeitung , thinks US domestic politics will determine whether or not the US attacks Syria.
"If Bush's re-election in 18 months should be endangered by the poor economic situation, his advisers could consider a new confrontation useful to get the voters back behind the commander-in-chief in the White House," it says.
What weapons?
Several papers give little credence to the US reports that Damascus is giving sanctuary to fleeing Iraqi officials and has weapons of mass destruction.
Pakistan's Nawa-i-waqt describes the claims as "totally unjustified".
The US is targeting not destructive weapons but the Muslim world.
Pakistan
"Syria is neither a threat for the US nor does it have any weapons of mass destruction," it says.
For the Irish Times , "it is stretching credibility to believe the Syrian government would knowingly give sanction to leading figures from the vanquished regime".
The Kenya Times suggests the US is engaged in "sabre-rattling".
" As for the weapons of mass destruction Syria supposedly harbours, why would those pushing for war against yet another Arab regime not reveal to the world the bio-chemical weapons they may have unearthed in Iraq?" the paper asks.
Dangerous trend
There is widespread belief that the US will not stop at Syria but will move to confront other Arab countries and Muslim states.
"The talk of Syria after the attack on Iraq reveals the US is targeting not destructive weapons but the Muslim world," the Pakistan daily believes.
India's Hindustan Times appears to agree: "The US warning only exposes its expansionist policy and its intention to seize the entire Arab region." Some papers believe US plans to realise peace in the Middle East are behind its threats towards Syria.
The Irish Times describes Syria's role in the region as "deeply bound up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
China's Renmin Ribao warns the US of the dangers it may face if the threats against Syria continue.
"The condemnation that the US will suffer from the international community and domestic public opinion over this will be unprecedented," it says.
Beijing's official China Daily reiterates this point:
"The US intention to use the leverage it has gained from its military victory in Iraq to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on other nations to change their behaviour is dangerous."
BBC Monitoring , based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/2953289.stm
Published: 2003/04/16 14:37:14
© BBC MMIII
|
The Animal Welfare Act Factsheet (PETA)
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the federal law that governs the humane care, handling, treatment, and transportation of animals used in laboratories. Contrary to popular belief, it does not prohibit any experiment, no matter how painful or useless; it simply sets minimum housing and maintenance standards for confined animals. The act also covers dealers who sell animals to laboratories, animal exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers, dog and cat breeders, puppy mills, zoos, circuses, roadside menageries, and transporters of animals. However, it specifically excludes retail pet stores, state and county fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and "fairs and exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences."
Fines and/or terms of imprisonment are listed as penalties for violations of the act.
Species Covered by the Act
Technically, the act covers any "live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warm-blooded animal, which (sic) is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes." The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) interprets the act to exclude birds, rats, and mice bred for research, and horses and other farm animals, such as livestock and poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber. Horses and other farm animals are covered if they are used in experiments, but equines are now specifically denied coverage if they are used in entertainment events such as rodeo or mule-diving. Although a 1992 court decision stated that the secretary of agriculture's exclusion of birds, rats, and mice from coverage was "arbitrary and capricious," meaning the judge could not understand why the USDA would not protect these vulnerable animals who make up about 90% of the animals used in laboratories, this ruling is being appealed by the USDA.
The act also, by definition, excludes cold-blooded animals. This is not only arbitrary, since many cold-blooded species are used in research and exhibition, but appalling when one considers that it allows the cruelest of situations to be imposed on these sentient beings (such as forcing giant turtles--who are normally very shy--to give children rides).
Regulations
Standards have been written specifying the minimum requirements for handling, care, housing, treatment, transportation, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, lighting, shelter, veterinary care, and separation by species. In most cases though, the act does not clearly define "minimum requirements." For example, under "space requirements," it states: "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement." It is often the case that the "minimum" required becomes the maximum provided.
There are no regulations whatsoever that specifically govern the conduct of an experiment, or what the animals will be forced to endure during an experiment. As an example, the act actually allows the withholding of anesthetics whenever "scientifically necessary," which means that if an experimenter says that anesthesia will interfere with the results of the experiment, then the animal is not given any.
One of the provisions of the 1985 amendments requires periodic inspections of animal research laboratories by an institutional committee. Each committee must have at least three members, and "at least one shall not be affiliated in any way with the facility." This member is supposed to "provide representation for general community interests in the proper care and treatment of animals," but there is no guarantee that this person will be from a humane organization. In fact, most such committees simply "rubber-stamp" the experimenters' work without performing a critical evaluation, and the outside member is chosen from among people known to support animal experiments and whose views do not reflect even basic animal welfare concerns.
In 1993, a federal judge struck down USDA regulations allowing research facilities to make their own plans to meet AWA requirements, finding that the rules violated the law by giving regulated parties the final say in how the AWA should be interpreted. The judge also criticized the government for taking nine years to implement the rules and strongly suggested that they had been written with more concern for the profitability of research than for the proper care of animals.(1) After a nine-month delay, the Clinton administration indicated that it would appeal the ruling.(2)
All Bark, No Bite
The Animal Welfare Act has the potential to improve the living conditions for animals held captive in laboratories, exploited in exhibits, and warehoused in breeding facilities. The responsibility for enforcing the act lies with a division of the USDA known as APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. There are five APHIS sector offices with approximately 85 veterinary inspectors who are supposed to inspect, unannounced, the various types of facilities covered by the act.
However, budgetary constraints and strong opposition from animal breeders, pharmaceutical companies, exhibitors, and experimenters themselves, as well as an inadequate number of inspectors, have resulted in poor enforcement of the act. There are nearly 1,500 research facilities in the U.S., as well as more than 1,800 exhibitors and 4,400 dealers who are supposed to be inspected each year. This means that 85 inspectors have to cover nearly 8,000 facilities nationwide. In a March 1992 audit by the USDA's own Office of the Inspector General, it was determined that "APHIS cannot ensure the humane care and treatment of animals at all dealer facilities as required by the act. APHIS did not inspect facilities with reliable frequency, and it did not enforce timely corrections of violations found during inspections." Out of 284 facilities examined in the audit, 46 had received no annual inspection, and out of 156 that were in violation of the law, 126 of these had had no follow-up inspections.
What You Can Do
Write to your representatives in Congress and ask that they support any pending or future legislation that will increase funding and/or strengthen the USDA's ability to enforce the AWA.
If you believe you have witnessed violations of the Animal Welfare Act, please write to the Deputy Administrator, USDA, APHIS, REAC, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Rd., Rm. 208, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Send us a copy of your letter.
(All quotations taken from the Animal Welfare Act as published by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.)
References
Labaton, Stephanie, "Animal Advocates Win Court Ruling," New York Times, Feb. 26, 1993.
"Washington Update," Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 8, 1993.
(Copyright People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
