What would be the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear energy sites?

At the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Australian medical scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott provided an authoritative analysis of the devastating impact on human life that would result from the radiation release from such an attack.

Dr. Caldicott described the catastrophic deaths that would result from a conventional attack on nuclear facilities and the long-term increase in cancer deaths from the radiation release.

Should the attack be made with nuclear weapons--as some of Bush's criminally insane neoconservative advisers advocate--the populations of many countries would suffer for generations from radioactive particles in air, water, and food chains. Deaths would number in the many millions.

Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and "American hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.

Dr. Caldicott detailed the horrible long-term consequences for the

The following news brief ran on the Associated Press yesterday:

Strickland Doesn't Want Overflow Iraqi Refugees

"Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has a message for President Bush: any plan to relocate to the US thousands of refugees uprooted by the Iraq war shouldn't include Ohio.

The administration plans to allow about 7,000 Iraqi refugees to settle in the United States over the next year, a huge expansion at a time of mounting international pressure to help millions who have fled their homes in the nearly four-year-old war.

Strickland -- a Democrat who opposed the war as a US House member -- says Ohioans can't be expected to have open arms for Iraqis displaced by the war.  More than 100 Ohioans have been killed since the war began.  The governor  says he has sympathy for the refugees' plight, but he won't ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden."

It is really all quite mad, isn't it?

From: Carol Steiner, Chris and Frank Targoss, J. Uprise and Zirca (Guerilla Radio), Lee Thompson, Marjorie Clark, Mary Jo Muser, Rebekka Willow, Cheryl Lessin

We are friends of Carol Fisher, the woman from Cleveland, Ohio , who spent the better part of 2006 battling felony charges stemming from putting up anti-Bush posters.  We urge you to take a minute to read an update on her situation and pledge your support.

Millions of people are deeply concerned about the direction and fate of the world. The Bush Regime has made torture legal, is conducting a “surge” of US troops into Iraq , and continues to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come.  Many more need to step up to stop this, and join with people who are showing tremendous courage in refusing to be silent and complicit in these crimes being done in our name.

As most of you are aware, in an outrageous trial Carol was convicted of two felony counts of “assault on police officers”.  She served 5 weeks in jail, completed a court ordered “anger management” class, and is on probation until June of 2008.

In a video interview with Tom Andrews posted at http://www.movecongress.org Congressman Jack Murtha makes clear that the limitations on additional war money that he intends to include in the forthcoming "emergency" supplemental bill are aimed only at undoing the recent escalation (a.k.a. "surge"), not at ending the war.

Murtha begins by claiming that this week's nonbinding vote opposing the escalation reinforces the message of the Nov. 7, 2006, election.  That would be quite a feat, given that Bush did not propose his escalation until after the election, an election that everyone understood as expressing opposition to Bush, Cheney, and their war.  Americans wanted then what they still want: to end the war.

Murtha explains that the next step after this week's nonbinding vote will be a House vote on a Supplemental bill adding more money to the war.  Murtha plans to include in that bill restrictions on how troops can be used in Iraq: 
1. They can't be kept there over a year.
  2. They can't be sent without proper training and equipment. 

When analyzing the consequences of and remedies for discrimination against African Americans, courts and scholars characterize African Americans as a minority.  This Article shows that the traditional approach is wrong: When it mattered, when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were enacted and for decades after, African Americans were a majority or controlling plurality in the states where most lived. African American-backed majoritarian governments controlled the South after the Civil War; while in power, they enacted strong civil rights laws and created a public education system. These policies were reversed, and segregation imposed, not because African Americans were a minority, destined to lose in the majoritarian political process, but rather through elimination of democratic politics and imposition of minority rule.  African Americans and their white allies were stripped of their electoral majority through fraud, violence and illegal disenfranchisement. This Article argues that the most important harm African Americans suffered was something that the law has until now overlooked: Loss of the right to control the governments of several