December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

IP: Anthrax Scare
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Anthrax Scare Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:39:22 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Indianapolis Star News http://starnews.com/news/citystate/98/oct/1030SN_anthrax.html Letter claims it was contaminated with Anthrax 29 people are contained, decontaminated at Planned Parenthood clinic By Stephen Beaven Indianapolis Star/News INDIANAPOLIS (Oct. 30, 1998) -- At least 29 people were treated Friday afternoon for possible exposure to the deadly biological toxin Anthrax at a Planned Parenthood clinic at East 21st Street and Ritter Avenue. The FBI confirmed late Friday afternoon that clinics in New Albany and Bloomington received similar threats. The Planned Parenthood eastside clinic received a letter shortly after 1 p.m. with a simple message -- you have been exposed to Anthrax, according to the Indianapolis Fire Department. Police and health and safety workers swooped in soon after to quarantine the people in the building. At least a dozen professionals from the fire department's hazardous materials team entered the building in white decontamination suits with surgical masks and safety glasses to treat those inside. After being scrubbed down, the people in the clinic were being taken to area hospitals late Friday afternoon. "The last thing we want to do is contaminate a hospital," said one police official on the scene. "No one is showing symptoms at this time, but they are scared and upset." A worker at the clinic opened a plain beige envelope with a Cincinnati postmark Friday afternoon. Inside there was a simple letter with the threat. It was unclear if the letter actually contained Anthrax, which is generally used in biological warfare and terrorism. But even if it was a hoax, it looked real, according to IFD Lt. Jack Cassaday. "It looked like Anthrax so whoever sent it knew enough to package it the right way," he said. It has not been confirmed that the letter indeed was contaminated with Anthrax. The substance was being tested at a local lab, Cassaday added. The bacteria Anthrax has flu-like symptoms which do not surface until one to six days. The symptoms are high fever, chest pains and hemmoraging. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Farah: The cops are out of control
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: E Pluribus Unum <eplurib(a)infinet.com> Subject: IP: Farah: The cops are out of control Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:39:20 -0500 To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <eplurib(a)infinet.com> The cops are out of control Until very recently, as a law-abiding person, the presence of police generally gave me a feeling of security, well-being, order. Not any more. I confess that, lately, when I see a cop in my rear-view mirror, I get a very uneasy feeling. Maybe it's the horror stories we're hearing. Maybe it's the way local and state police have become little more than appendages of the federal law-enforcement apparatus. Maybe it's the fact that so many cops have taken sides against the Constitution and the rights of the people in the name of more efficient crime-prevention. But the recent incidents in Oklahoma, where police shot an unarmed mother holding her child in her home, in Virginia, where a SWAT team killed a watchman guarding a dice game at an after-hours club and in California, where a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms raid on a gun shop resulted in the death of the shopkeeper, provide some hard evidence that police in America may be getting out of control I think also about columnist Geoff Metcalf's anecdote about the law-abiding man arrested and jailed for having in his possession a tire iron, which was classified as a deadly weapon. Had he brandished it? No. Had he threatened anyone? No. Had the California Highway Patrol officer awakened on the wrong side of her bed that morning? Maybe. But when you start putting all these incidents together, with the backdrop of the massacre in Waco, Texas, and the unnecessary shootout at Ruby Ridge, it's no wonder Americans like me are beginning to worry about the possibilities of an emerging police state. "Oh, it couldn't happen here," some retort. "America is different. The cops are our friends." That may have been true through most of our history. But there's one big difference today. The government no longer trusts the people. There is a move to disarm the populace and to entrust our safety solely to professional law enforcement. This is a pattern we've seen in other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. It's a prerequisite to the formation of a police state. It's what our Founding Fathers warned us about. It's why we have a Second Amendment. One of the other problems we face in America today is the increasing number of laws on the books designed to turn virtually everyone into a law-breaker. It's easier for cops today to fill their quota of arrests and citations by targeting non-threatening, non-violent citizens than it is actually chasing down violent criminals. Too often, today's cops make no distinction between hardened, professional criminals, and people who may or may not be in technical violation of the law -- perhaps even an unjust, unconstitutional law. But the biggest danger we face is the federalization and militarization of all law enforcement. Inter-agency task forces, bringing together local and state police with federal agents are now the rule of the day. Federal agencies bribe local cops with funding, equipment and training programs. America is rapidly becoming an "us vs. them" society -- with the cops and government on one side and the people on the other. Many of us don't feel the heat yet. But it's just a matter of time before we're all confronted with the harsh realities of the new emerging police state. One of these days -- and it may be sooner rather than later -- America is going to be confronted with a real domestic emergency. It's not a matter of if, but when. We've had precious few real domestic crises throughout our history, and Americans have become spoiled. Thus, we take our freedoms for granted. There are so many possibilities and excuses on the horizon -- Y2K, terrorism, the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction from rogue states as well as China and Russia. Will America respond to the next crisis in a way that preserves our civil rights and liberties? Or will we lose our tentative grasp on freedom -- giving up an illustrious tradition for the sake of security, safety, order? If we're to maintain any semblance of freedom in the worst of times, we must hold the government and police accountable in the best of times. A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.co -- ****************************************************************** E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 Grove City, OH 43123 Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib(a)infinet.com ****************************************************************** **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: 18-year-old rebels against being numbered
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: E Pluribus Unum <eplurib(a)infinet.com> Subject: IP: 18-year-old rebels against being numbered Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:43:27 -0500 To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <eplurib(a)infinet.com> YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE ... 18-year-old rebels against being numbered Wins right to vote without Social Security registration By David M. Bresnahan Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com LAS VEGAS, NV -- Even though government agencies tried their best to stop him, an 18-year-old will vote for the first time in the Nov. 3 election. Last July, Joshua Hansen, 18, went to register to vote. A few days later he received a letter in the mail from Kathryn Ferguson, registrar of voters of Clark County, Nevada, rejecting his application. Hansen had refused to supply a Social Security number on his application and Ferguson rejected him as a voter. Hansen says he does not have a Social Security number, driver's license, or government issued ID card. He says that he never will. He also refuses to pay income tax. He defends his stands on these issues based on his study of the U.S. Constitution and his religious beliefs. He says he is willing to pay any price and will not give in to government pressure. Hansen takes his right to vote seriously. So seriously that he took Ferguson to court to prove his point. With the help of his uncle, attorney Joel F. Hansen, he got the court to order Ferguson to permit him to vote. He belongs to the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, which he says is a political religion based on Christianity and the Constitution which people of all denominations may join. "It's a fellowship of anybody who's Christian who really exercises their Christian beliefs within politics," explained Hansen in a phone interview with WorldNetDaily. "The Social Security number was much like the mark of the beast talked about in the "Book of Revelations." One of the main reasons is that it, I mean you can't buy or sell without it, it's hard to do a lot of business without it. Have you ever tried to get a job without one, or voting or anything? A lot of the stuff talked about in the prophecy had come to life and I said, 'I don't want one of those.' "Everything around Social Security is a lie. I don't want any of the benefits from it and I don't want to pay for it. The system's going bankrupt. Anything I pay for I'll never see anyway. It's blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional," explained Hansen. Living without a Social Security number is a challenge, but not a major problem for Hansen. He has no bank account, works only for family members who will pay him "under the table," refuses to get a driver's license, and won't pay taxes. Recently he started his own Internet consulting business. He just finished high school this year and says he has very few friends who believe as he does. He belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "Because of my political beliefs," says Hansen, "I have a lot of trouble getting along at church with a lot of my fellow members." The members of his church believe in "The Articles of Faith," a portion of it reads "We believe in . . . obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." "They told me that the law said I had to have a number," explains Hansen. "I said, 'This is kind of stupid because all these numbers are obtained through the identification I already have.' When you get a driver's license or an ID card here, basically you show them your birth certificate, and to prove residency you write down on a little paper what your address is and sign something that says you're not lying, which is all you do on a voter registration thing." Ferguson didn't like Hansen's logic. She rejected his application to vote. Hansen contacted many elected officials for help. Some responded and some didn't, but none were of much help so he decided to take it to court. "The Constitution of Nevada establishes who can vote," explained Hansen. "If you're an idiot, you're insane, and if you don't have residency you can't vote. That's it." Hansen filed a Writ of Mandamus in the Clark County District Court. The purpose was to have the court order Ferguson to register Hansen so he can vote. Nevada law states that the "County Clerk shall require a person to submit official identification as proof of residence and identity, such as a driver's license or other official document before registering him." Hansen presented a diploma from high school and a birth certificate, but Ferguson demanded a Social Security card, driver's license, or a state ID card. Hansen does not have those items and in his petition to the court his attorney stated, "therefore, he presented alternative identification to the Registrar of Voters, but his right to register to vote was refused and denied by the county registrar of voters." Hansen was more surprised than anyone when his petition was granted by the court. "I didn't think I'd win," he said. On Oct. 19, the court ordered Ferguson to register Hansen to vote, and he now plans to cast his first ballot on Nov. 3. This may be just the first of many battles ahead for Hansen. He does drive a car, and does not plan to get a license. "The government has no right to regulate who can and cannot drive unless they have proven themselves to be a danger to the community and have been convicted by 12 informed jurors," wrote Hansen in an e-mail message to WorldNetDaily. "Assuming that everyone is already a danger and by telling us we must have a license to drive is known better as 'prior restraint' and according to the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutional." Hansen also objects to the current law which will implement a national ID card on Oct. 1, 2000. He says that Congress passed the law using illegal immigration control as the excuse. "The even more ironic twist is that most of the illegal immigrants coming here are filtering from Mexico trying to reap the socialist benefits offered by the federal government. Welfare, government schools, health care, social security, etc. If you want to stop illegal immigration bring back the American way of work hard and succeed as opposed to show up and leech off the tax payers," wrote Hansen. He concluded his e-mail by saying, "There is nothing they can ever do to make me surrender my personal freedom, nothing. I don't know a lot of people who exercise freedom to the point of fanaticism I do. I will not pay federal income tax, I will not be marked my their unconstitutional anti-Christ numbers. I will not take any of their socialist benefits. I will not bow before any bureaucracy. I will not surrender my God-given freedom to those bastards for any reason." David Bresnahan is a contributing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, and is the author of "Cover Up: The Art and Science of Political Deception." You may e-mail him at David(a)talkusa.com -- ****************************************************************** E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 Grove City, OH 43123 Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib(a)infinet.com ****************************************************************** **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 6.03: Privacy Here and Abroad
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 6.03: Privacy Here and Abroad Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 00:06:37 -0800 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 6.03: Privacy Here and Abroad News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) November 1, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: The Washington Post, Saturday, October 31, 1998; Page A16 http://www.washingtonpost.com Privacy Here and Abroad http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-10/31/083l-103198-idx.h tml CONCERN OVER the privacy of personal data is sharpening as the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected contexts -- everything from employer testing of people's genetic predispositions to resale of their online reading habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready to agree that people should have some measure of control over how and by whom their data will be used. But how, other than piecemeal, can such control be established, and what would a more general right to data privacy look like? One approach very different from that of the United States, as it happens, is about to be thrust upon the consciousness of many American businesses as a European law called the European Union Data Privacy Directive goes into effect. The European directive has drawn attention not only because the European approach to and history on data privacy are sharply different from our own but also because the new directive comes with prohibitions on export that would crimp the options of any company that does business both here and in Europe. The directive imposes sweeping prohibitions on the use of any personal data without the explicit consent of the person involved, for that purpose only (repeated uses or resale require repeated permission) and also bars companies from exporting any such data to any country not ruled by the EU to have "adequate" privacy protection measures already in place. The Europeans have not ruled the United States "adequate" in this regard -- no surprise there -- though individual industries may pass muster or fall under special exemptions. That means, for instance, that multinational companies cannot allow U.S. offices access to personnel data on European employees, and airlines can't swap reservations data without restrictions. More to the point, they can't share or sell the kinds of data on customers that in this country are now routinely treated as another possible income stream. Would such restraints be a boon to customers on these shores too? Or will Americans, as the data companies frequently argue, find instead that they want the convenience and "one-on-one marketing" that this constant dossier-compiling makes possible? In one early case, a U.S. airline is being sued in Sweden to prevent its compiling and selling a database of, for instance, passengers who requested kosher meals or wheelchair assistance on arrival from transatlantic flights. Do customers want the "convenience" of this kind of tracking, and if not, how might they -- we -- avoid having it offered? The contrast between systems is a chance to consider which of the many business-as-usual uses of data in this country rise to the level of a privacy violation from which citizens should be shielded by law. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Typical statist media skewing by entangling allegations, accusation, speculation and acquitted charges with real convicted charges. --- [revised] Two men convicted of sending threatening email BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- Johnie Wise, 72, and Jack Abbott Grebe, 43, were convicted Thursday of two counts of sending threatening e-mails -- one message to the Internal Revenue Service and one to the Drug Enforcement Agency. They could get life in prison at their Jan. 29 sentencing. --- United States Constitution Amendment VIII - Excessive bail or fines and cruel punishment prohibited. Ratified 12/15/1791. Excessive bail shall not lie required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. --- Life imprisonment for sending threatening email? If IRS or DEA agents threaten someone by email, do they face life imprisonment, or just the other way around? Matt -----Original Article----- CNN http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/30/weapons.case.ap/ Two men convicted in biological weapons case October 30, 1998 Web posted at: 3:10 a.m. EST (0810 GMT) BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- Two men accused of scheming to attack President Clinton and others with cigarette lighters equipped with poison-coated cactus needles were convicted of sending threatening e-mail. Johnie Wise, 72, and Jack Abbott Grebe, 43, were convicted Thursday of two counts of sending threatening e-mails -- one message to the Internal Revenue Service and one to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Grebe and Wise were acquitted on one count each of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction count and five counts each of sending threatening messages -- to President Clinton, U.S. Customs, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and the Secret Service. They could get life in prison at their Jan. 29 sentencing. Prosecutors said Wise schemed to modify a cigarette lighter so it would shoot cactus needles coated with toxins such as rabies, botulism, anthrax or HIV. Defense attorneys called idea 'silly' Among the men's alleged targets: Clinton, the U.S. and Texas attorneys general, and FBI Director Louis Freeh. Defense attorneys called the idea "silly" and "cockamamie." There was never any evidence that the accused possessed biological weapons or tried to develop a deadly lighter. The e-mailed threats were vaguely worded and did not discuss the lighter or cactus thorns. Under federal law, however, the threats were enough for a conviction and no biological weapons were needed, prosecutors said. The men would have carried out their plan to hurt government employees and their families if they hadn't been arrested, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mervyn Mosbacker said. Wise and Grebe were accused of concocting the plan to threaten government officials with e-mails. One e-mail, sent June 12, was titled "Declaration of War" and a second one, sent June 26, said government workers had been "targeted for destruction by revenge." A third defendant, Oliver Dean Emigh, 63, was acquitted on all counts. He was accused of writing the June 12 message, but the charges against the men stemmed from the June 26 e-mail.

1 0

IP: [FP] The DoD DNA Registry and Specimen Repository
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ScanThisNews" <mcdonalds(a)airnet.net> Subject: IP: [FP] The DoD DNA Registry and Specimen Repository Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 11:49:05 -0600 To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com SCAN THIS NEWS 11/1/98 "The blood is placed on special cards with the service member's Social Security number, date of birth, and branch of service designated on the front side of the card. On the reverse side of the bloodstain card are a fingerprint, a bar code, and signature attesting to the validity of the sample." ************************************************** The DoD DNA Registry and DoD Specimen Repository for Remains Identification http://www.afip.org/homes/oafme/dna/afdil.html Historical Overview: The U.S. military recognized the value of DNA testing as a necessary adjunct to traditional identification efforts. In a memorandum dated December 16, 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense authorized the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to establish policies and requirements for the use of DNA analysis in the identification of remains. To carry out these policies, the establishment of a DNA Registry, to include a Specimen Repository for Remains Identification and a DNA Identification Laboratory were authorized under the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (OAFME). On January 5, 1993, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) issued a policy guidance for the establishment of a repository of specimen samples to aid in the remains identification using genetic analysis. On May 17, 1993, the Surgeon General, U.S. Army, was delegated as Executive Agent for the DNA Registry. On March 9, 1994, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) issued a Memorandum of Instruction to the Service Secretaries establishing policies and procedures for the collection of DNA specimens. On April 2, 1996 policy refinements were issued to the DoD DNA Registry. In October 1994 the DNA Registry received approval from the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors for the production of DNA proficiency tests used by forensic DNA laboratories. AFDIL is one of four DNA laboratories to receive this approval in the United States. In January 1995 the Defense Science Board concurred with the use of mitochondrial DNA testing for associated and unassociated remains. Although AFDIL is capable of conducting more common nuclear DNA testing, nuclear DNA testing is not possible on ancient remains. DoD Specimen Repository for Remains Identification The DoD DNA Specimen Repository provides reference material for DNA analysis to assist in the remains identification process. A dried bloodstain and buccal swab are being collected from all Active Component (AC) personnel. A total of three DNA specimens are collected. One bloodstain card is stored in a pouch in the service member's medical record; another bloodstain card and a buccal swab are stored at the Armed Forces Repository for Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains. The blood is placed on special cards with the service member's Social Security number, date of birth, and branch of service designated on the front side of the card. On the reverse side of the bloodstain card are a fingerprint, a bar code, and signature attesting to the validity of the sample. Ultimately, the bloodstain card is stored in a vacuum-sealed barrier bag and frozen at -20 degrees Celsius, in the Specimen Repository. The oral swab (buccal scrapping) is fixed in isopropanol and stored at room temperature. Great care is taken to prevent the possibility of error from sample switching or mislabeling. Additionally, the specimens are considered confidential medical information, and military regulations and federal law exist to cover any issues on privacy concerns. As of December 1994, DNA collections were being made from all newly accessioned personnel, the residual AC members, and select high risk Reserve Component (RC) members. Large scale RC collection are scheduled to begin collection in FY 96. Collections are being made from any service member deployed to a hostile fire or imminent danger area. During CY 94, collections were made from personnel deploying to Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, and Latin America. All services are at least 90% complete with collections of special operations, aviation, and high risk duty personnel. The remaining AC individuals will be collected through FY 98, at the time of their annual physical. As of 31 December 1995, the Repository has received 1.15 million DNA specimens. Specimens come into the Repository at the rate of 3,000 - 4,000 per day. The updated Specimen Management System (SMS), using the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS) database, verifies service member information. In CY 95, the Repository established an on-line datalink with DEERS. All DNA specimens will be maintained for fifty years, before being destroyed. Individual specimen samples will be destroyed upon request of the donor following the conclusion of the donor's complete military service obligation (including individually ready reserve status or subject to active duty recall) or other applicable relationship to DoD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (M&RA) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (MRAI&E) SUBJECT: Casualty Identification Policy http://ippsrs.ha.osd.mil/main/caid9651.html July 18, 1996 References: (a) Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum 47003, "Establishment of a Repository of Specimen Samples to Aid in Remains Identification Using Genetic Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Analysis," 16 December 1991. (b) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) Memorandum and Policy Statement, "Establishment of a Repository of Specimen Samples to Aid in Remains Identification Using Genetic Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Analysis," 5 January 1993. (c) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) Memorandum, "Memorandum of Instruction of Procedures for the Collection and Shipment of Specimens for Submission to the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Specimen Repository," 9 March 1994. (d) Privacy Act System of Records Notice for System A0040-57aDASG, "DoD DNA Registry," 60 Fed. Reg. 31, 287-8, 14 June 1995. (e) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) Memorandum, "Policy Refinements for the Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains," 2 April 1996. Reference (a) delegated authority to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD(HA)) to issue policies and requirements for the establishment of a registry and appropriate specimen repository that will aid in the remains identification process by the use of DNA profile analysis. References (b) and (c) established policies and procedures for operation of the repository. Reference (d) formalized the system of records for the repository. Reference (e) refined the policies for the operation of the repository. Primary casualty identification is fundamental to the elements of medicolegal death investigations and involves the use of one or more complementary methods including fingerprints, footprints, dental comparisons, DNA identifications and superimposable radiographic techniques. The duplicate dental panograph repository or Central Panograph Storage Facility (CPSF) in Monterey, California was established in 1986 and has been used more than 1000 times over the last ten years largely by DoD agencies with close to 100 percent success. In 1991, DoD embarked on the creation and implementation of a DNA Registry including the Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for Identification of Remains and Armed Forces Casualty Identification Laboratory both of which are components of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). The Repository accessions approximately 5,000 files/day with original plans of having all servicemembers (active, reserve and guard) on file by FY 2002. Comparative DNA casualty identification is now the DoD preferred standard of positive casualty identification, making the duplicate panograph obsolete. The CPSF will be discontinued on 31 December 1999. Therefore, I request that you take all necessary measures to ensure an accelerated acquisitions program of servicemember DNA specimens to include active, reserve and guard components for purposes of casualty DNA profile identification. A DNA sample should be obtained from all new accessions; duplicate panographs will not be taken on new accessions and no servicemember is to deploy without having a DNA specimen on file. The DEERS Data Bank shall be used to ensure that servicemembers do in fact have a DNA specimen on file. While updated radiographs will continue to be part of a servicemember's medical/dental record, no new radiographs will be received by the Repository, effective this date. Please provide me with a copy of your plan to implement this accelerated request by 23 August 1996. The point of contact for this action is Captain Glenn Wagner, Deputy Director, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, (202) 782-2103. Colonel Salvatore M. Cirone is the OASD(HA) point of contact, (703) 695-7116. Stephen C. Joseph, M.D., M.P.H. cc: ASD(RA) HA POLICY 96-051 ************************************************** [Related info regarding DNA samples from children] ************************************************** New Guardian DNA Helps You Keep Your Baby Safe DNA Identification System Places State-of-the-Art Technology into Parents Hands Worried about hospital mix-ups or infant/child abductions? Guardian DNA Identification System consists of an easy-to-use DNA collection kit, an instructional safety video, a DNA sample storage facility, a recording system that provides for complete anonymity, and PIN/barcode security feature so that only parent authorized access is possible. Guardian DNA uses the same technology and methodology used by the U.S. Armed Forces. Collection can be performed at-home at any age, but for added newborn security parents will want to have one immediately after the birth. Retails for $49.95. Available through select hospitals and physicians, or by calling InVitro International at 1-800-246-8487 Ext. 230, or visit their web site at http://www.invitrointl.com/guardian.htm/ -------------------------------------------------- http://www.yellodyno.com/html/dnahome.html "Parents will feel more secure knowing they have their child's DNA 'fingerprints' safely stored away." - Dr. Martin H. Smith, Pediatrician and former President of the American Academy of Pediatrics DNA I.D. is, without question, the future of identification. For one thing, DNA I.D. (also known as "genetic fingerprinting") is the only virtually positive and permanent identification method. For example, photographs fade and must be updated, and fingerprints can smear or be difficult to acquire (getting a proper child's fingerprint can be very difficult), but each person's DNA does not change for his entire life. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules are that part of the human physiology which carries the genetic "blueprint" that makes each person unique. Each person's "genetic" makeup is exclusive and never changes for their entire life. As such, "DNA fingerprinting" can provide reliable identification even when it may be impossible to recover a fingerprint. Further, DNA I.D. is generally admissible in court, and can be invaluable in reuniting parents with their children in the case of parental abductions, kidnappings, accidents, and natural disasters. DNA identification is now available to families in an easy-to-use, at-home kit. With the "do-it-yourself" DNA I.D.Kit, it takes parents only minutes to capture, preserve, and store-at-home their child's genetic "fingerprints." Tens of thousands of parents are already keeping their children's "genes" at home. The DNA I.D. Kit provides a way of properly taking, recording, and storing genetic samples in a patented, tamper-proof system. Yello Dyno says "O.K., this is where you might get a little 'squeemish,' but read on, because this is really cool and easy ... and something every parent needs to consider for their child (or any member of their family, for that matter!). This is how it works." The genetic material is derived from very small samples hair and blood. The kit includes a virtually painless, spring-loaded, medical quality puncture tool to help draw a few drops of blood from the finger, which is then placed on a special absorptive paper card. After air drying for a little while, the card is then placed in one of the special foil tamper-proof envelopes for preserving and storing, on which personal information is recorded. If you are too uncomfortable to use the puncture tool, the hair sample by itself should suffice, which is stored and recorded the same way. Many parents just take the kit to their pediatrician and have them draw the drops of blood. Then, a personal information card on your child is filled out, including attaching a picture. A fingerprint card is also included along with special fingerprinting material and instructions. After you are done, everything is then put in another, larger foil tamper-proof envelope and sealed. Personal information is then recorded on the envelope and it is ready to be put in a safe place. Unrefrigerated the samples should last for many years (they are dry). Refrigeration will extend viability of samples much longer. Unrefrigerated renewal is recommended once every five years. Again, this patented system is a way of properly taking, storing, and preserving genetic samples, not the actual test. If the DNA sample is ever needed to make a genetic match the process is usually initiated by law enforcement or some other agency. (Beware of suggestions to "make your own DNA I.D." While storing DNA samples at home can be simple with a specially made medical product like this, it can be completely ineffective without the right procedures.) The DNA I.D. Kit can also be a part of your at-home fact file. By combining an up-to-date child I.D. card and the DNA I.D. Kit, parents can have a valuable child identification system. DNA is so important to the future of identification that it is already being used by the FBI and the U.S. Armed Forces. In fact, DNA I.D. is the preferred method of identification for law enforcement, as seen in more and more court cases recently. "DNA Analysis . . . is considered the most important advance in forensics since fingerprinting. Its use in U.S. courts has skyrocketed from 14 cases by the end of 1987 to 12,000 by mid-1993," according to an article in the Austin-American Statesman in June 1994. The FBI is implementing a national DNA database, called CODIS, to track people by their DNA. The U.S. Army started a genetic depository in 1992 that will eventually include the DNA of every American in uniform. The U.S. Army's goal is to have no more "unknown soldiers." DNA is also already being used to identify missing children. For example, in December, 1993, a two-year old was returned to his parents two years after being kidnapped - only after police established scientifically who the child was by using "genetic fingerprinting." If you are ever separated from your child and time passes, DNA analysis is probably the only way of making a virtually fool-proof identification. This remarkable kit provides you with the tools you need. ======================================================================= Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. ======================================================================= Reply to: <fingerprint(a)networkusa.org> ======================================================================= To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo(a)efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ======================================================================= **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Fatal Flaws: How military misled about Agent Orange
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Fatal Flaws: How military misled about Agent Orange Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 11:41:36 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: San Diego Union-Tribune http://www.union-tribune.com/news/981101-0010_mz1n1agent.html FATAL FLAWS How the military misled Vietnam veterans and their families about the health risks of Agent Orange UNION-TRIBUNE Staff Writer November 1, 1998 The U.S. military's $200 million study of the health effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam War veterans is so flawed that it might be useless, a six-month investigation by The San Diego Union-Tribune has found. The study has been a key factor in denying compensation to Vietnam veterans suffering from illnesses they blame on Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide used to destroy enemy crops and jungle hiding places. Interviews with military scientists, transcripts of meetings, and government reports and internal memos reveal that these are among the flaws in the Air Force study, which began in 1979 and concludes in 2006: Two study reports that revealed serious birth defects among children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange were withheld for years, leaving a generation of men and women who served in Vietnam to start families without knowing the potential risks. A report expressing concerns about cancer and birth defects was altered, with the result that the risks appeared less serious. The government ignored a National Academy of Sciences recommendation that the study be done by scientists outside the military. High-ranking Air Force officers interfered with the study' s data analysis, undermining its scientific integrity. The Air Force stonewalled a U.S. senator who wanted full disclosure of the data. Dr. Richard Albanese, one of four scientists who designed the study but later was taken off the project, says it was manipulated to downplay the health problems of Vietnam veterans. "This is a medical crime, basically," Albanese said. "Certainly, this is against all medical ethics." Albanese, a civilian doctor, still works at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, where the study' s scientists are headquartered. When the Union-Tribune contacted him, Albanese weighed the consequences for several days and then agreed to a series of interviews in the hope that veterans will be treated better in the future. He said the study is tainted because a government agency, in this case the Air Force, was allowed to investigate itself. Joel Michalek, the study' s head scientist, acknowledged that the Air Force and the government tried to interfere, but he said this had no impact on the study. He said he received two memos through the chain of command that tried to influence the study, but threw them away. The study is named for Operation Ranch Hand, a series of Air Force missions that sprayed 18 million gallons of defoliants over 3.6 million acres of South Vietnam. The Ranch Hand study tracks the health of about 1,000 veterans who participated in the spraying missions, in comparison with an Air Force group that was not involved in the spraying. Both groups come to San Diego every few years for medical exams. Agent Orange contained dioxin, now known to cause some cancers. The defoliant destroyed forests and darkened the waters of the Mekong Delta, where Patti Robinson' s husband, Geoff, was a gunner' s mate on a Navy patrol boat in 1968-69. Robinson, who lives in Clairemont, said her husband described how the herbicide congealed and licked at river banks. But he told her the men bathed and swam in the water anyway; their superiors said it was safe. When her husband died of cancer in 1981, Robinson turned to the Veterans Administration for help. Her claim citing Agent Orange as a factor in her husband' s death also listed her son, Matthew, who was born in 1976 with a developmental disability. But the government told Robinson that Agent Orange did not cause her husband' s malignant melanoma, nor her son' s communication disorder. Or any other health problem for that matter. All claims were being denied. Agent Orange was innocent until proved guilty. The government had made that clear in 1978, after the first 500 claims came in. Garth Dettinger, an Air Force deputy surgeon general, told Congress there was no evidence that Agent Orange had harmed anyone. But concerns about the herbicide' s health effects had been raised since the early ' 70s, and the public wanted proof. So Congress funded the Ranch Hand study. Dettinger helped make sure it was done by Air Force scientists. Conflict of interest Although Dettinger wanted the Air Force to evaluate its use of Agent Orange, some of its scientists thought that might present a conflict of interest. Col. George Lathrop, head scientist for the Ranch Hand study in its early years, told a military science board in 1979 that an Air Force study wouldn' t be credible to people outside the government. "We advised a certain general that, ' No, we should not do this.' And we were told to shut up and do it anyway," Lathrop said, according to a transcript of the meeting. "So we are saluting the flag pole and mushing on. We are doing the damn thing." That general, Lathrop said in a recent interview, was Dettinger. "Dettinger had the notion that if we didn' t do this study that he would devise his own questionnaire and his own study and go out and get it done himself," Lathrop said. "It would have been scientifically disastrous." Dettinger denied ordering Lathrop to do the Ranch Hand study and said he never threatened to conduct his own version. "He' s not being honest about that," Dettinger said. "I promised Congress we would do the study. My word is my bond, and so we went ahead and did it." Albanese also worried that conflict of interest might affect the findings. But, at the time, he believed the danger could be offset by a rule written into the study design: Air Force management was not to interfere with the scientific analysis. The scientists weren' t the only ones with conflict-of-interest concerns. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed the study design in 1980 and recommended it be done by independent researchers. But a White House panel made up of representatives from the Pentagon and VA, among other federal agencies, said the Air Force would do it. The panel, called the Agent Orange Working Group, appointed an advisory committee to review Ranch Hand reports. But the committee did more directing than advising during the first decade of the study, Albanese said. Ranch Hand reports went from the Air Force to the advisory committee, then to the Agent Orange Working Group and back to the Air Force. Sources and documents indicate the reports were changed during that process, sometimes dramatically. Altered report The Air Force scientists drafted two major Ranch Hand reports in 1984. One of them was withheld. The other was published, but its findings were altered. The report that was withheld dealt specifically with reproductive health issues, and stressed birth defects and infant deaths. It showed high rates of both among children of Ranch Hand veterans. The report that was published examined the general health of Ranch Hand veterans. It presented data on birth defects, cancer and many other medical conditions. The Air Force announced that it showed little difference between the health of Ranch Hand and comparison veterans. But that wasn' t what the Ranch Hand scientists wrote. Their original version of the report contained a table showing that the Ranch Hand veterans were, by a ratio of 5-1, "less well" than the comparison group. That version also noted that Ranch Hand veterans reported significantly more birth defects among their children than did the other veterans. After the White House panel' s advisory committee reviewed the report, those details were downplayed or eliminated. Lathrop complied with the committee' s recommendations to omit the table, soften the birth defects language and drop a sentence that said Ranch Hand veterans might have been harmed by Agent Orange. Lathrop also deleted a sentence that said some of the findings were "of concern." He added a line that said the overall findings were "reassuring." Lathrop didn' t object to the changes, which he said were minor. "Fundamentally, the advisory group felt that we were too liberal on the interpretation," he said. Albanese, on the other hand, thought the changes distorted the report. He wrote a letter requesting that his views be published as a minority opinion, and kept a copy in his files. Lathrop, who didn' t respond to Albanese' s letter, said he doesn' t recall receiving it. Albanese and Lathrop also disagreed about how the cancer data were prepared and presented in the 1984 health report. Because the Ranch Hand group is too small for the scientists to draw conclusions about rare cancers, Albanese said, they decided to study the incidence of cancer as a whole. They found that the Ranch Hand veterans had twice as many cancers as the comparison group. But that didn' t make it into the report. Instead, skin and internal cancers were separated. Presented that way, the Ranch Hand group had 135 percent more skin cancers than the comparison group, but only 20 percent more internal cancers. The scientists reported the high skin cancer rate, but suggested it was caused by overexposure to the sun. They found "no significant group differences" in internal cancers. Within the small Ranch Hand group, Albanese said, the increase in internal cancers became a meaningless statistic. Albanese was outraged. "It happened that most cancers were in the skin, and the report said they were just in the skin," he said. "That' s not a correct inference." At the press conference that unveiled the 1984 health findings, Murphy Chesney, a deputy Air Force surgeon general at the time, announced that the health of the Ranch Hand and comparison veterans was about the same. In response to a question during that press conference, Albanese voiced a mild disagreement. Noting the higher incidence of some diseases, he said, "I cannot account for such differences by chance; on the other hand, I cannot explain their cause." He repeated to reporters a phrase that had been deleted from the report: "A degree of concern is warranted." Albanese was removed from the Ranch Hand study eight months later. The Air Force said he was needed on a different project. Sensitive information Albanese considered going public with his misgivings about the Ranch Hand study years ago, but decided against it. He didn' t want to jeopardize his career as a government scientist. Because of the study' s flaws, Albanese said, Vietnam veterans have not received the compensation they deserve. Lathrop said it was better not to release sensitive data from the Ranch Hand study prematurely, and nothing was more sensitive than information about birth defects. "There was a great deal riding on the issue of birth defects," he said. "The VA had not decided on the issue of compensation and so forth." After her husband died, Patti Robinson struggled to meet her son' s special needs. She needed the government compensation, but more than that, she needed the truth. "The uncertainty has left big question marks," she said. "If it wasn' t for that, you could put it behind you." Robinson never remarried. She devoted her life to her son, Matthew, who is 21 now, the age his father was in Vietnam. Matthew has the reading skills of a second-grader, and he has a hard time getting words out. But he can look at a photograph, identify a place he has been and offer directions to get there. He calls his mother by her first name and often refers to himself in the third person. He will say, "Patti, Matthew is stupid," and his mother will fire back, "No, you' re not." Matthew keeps a picture of his father in his bedroom. Sometimes he shows it to visitors. But pain registered on his face when he was asked what he remembers about the man who died so long ago. He turned away. "Matthew doesn' t want to talk about that," he said. In the private sector To reduce the workload of its scientists, the Air Force hired a private company to conduct Ranch Hand general health studies published since 1984. But the government has remained in charge. And the firm that won the first contract featured a familiar face. George Lathrop had retired from the Air Force and was working at the San Antonio office of Science Applications International Corp., a San Diego-based company that was founded on defense contracts. Lathrop said he wanted to continue working on the Ranch Hand study. He figured that with him on its team, SAIC would get the contract. It did. Lathrop left SAIC in 1987. The company went on to win the contracts for 1987, 1992, 1997 and 2002. It uses Scripps Clinic in La Jolla to perform the medical tests. Results are analyzed by SAIC, then sent to scientists at Brooks Air Force Base for approval. The SAIC contracts do not include compiling birth defects reports. The Air Force does that itself. By 1987, Ranch Hand had emerged as the government' s definitive Agent Orange study. "It was the pivotal study," said Michalek, Ranch Hand' s head scientist since 1991. "It still is." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta tried to do its own study by matching records of troop movements with Agent Orange spraying. But after five years and nearly $50 million, the CDC decided its review method wasn' t reliable. After the CDC gave up in 1987, the government dismissed other studies that used similar exposure estimates. They were deemed unscientific. That left the Ranch Hand study as the government' s principal yardstick for Agent Orange damage. Pattern of manipulation South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, a Democrat, has kept an eye on the Ranch Hand study since the early 1980s. He was confident it would support his belief that Agent Orange harmed Vietnam veterans. When that hadn' t happened by 1984, when Daschle was a member of the House of Representatives, he decided to investigate. He assigned an aide, Laura Petrou, to help. They collected Air Force and other government correspondence and saw what they believed was a pattern of manipulation to minimize findings of health problems among Ranch Hand veterans. When Daschle learned about the unpublished 1984 birth defects report, he asked for a copy. The Air Force refused to give him one. Finally, in a letter to Daschle dated Aug. 25, 1987, the Air Force conceded that the cancer and birth defects information in the 1984 Ranch Hand health report -- the one Albanese said was distorted by advisory committee changes -- might be incorrect. Daschle then met with Albanese, Michalek and a third Ranch Hand scientist, Col. William H. Wolfe. They told Daschle about another unpublished report, which included some of the cancer and birth defects information that was left out of the 1984 general health report. Daschle fought to make the report public. The advisory committee argued that it was a rehash of old data. The report was released in February 1988, but it didn' t gain the attention Daschle had hoped. The Air Force deemed the report "technically correct" but did not publicize it or list it among Ranch Hand publications. One month after the report was released, Scripps Clinic issued a study update, a press release that said the Ranch Hand veterans were doing fine. It quoted Wolfe: "This is the definitive study on Agent Orange in Vietnam veterans, and so far it shows that disease is not related to apparent exposure, that there is no increased incidence of major long-term health effects. "These results are reassuring." ' Forbidden interpretation' Patti Robinson was not reassured. She had been attending meetings of San Diego veterans' groups and had read everything she could find on Agent Orange. Robinson also corresponded with retired Navy Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, who had ordered the spraying of Agent Orange along the Mekong Delta to kill vegetation where enemy snipers hid. His son, Navy Lt. j.g. Elmo Zumwalt III, had commanded a patrol boat in the Mekong Delta, the same waters Geoff Robinson had navigated. Former Lt. j.g. Zumwalt died of cancer in 1988. His son, Russell, was diagnosed with sensory integration dysfunction, the same communication disorder that plagues Patti Robinson' s son, Matthew. Robinson thought the Ranch Hand veterans and her husband were exposed to roughly equal amounts of Agent Orange. She believed the Ranch Hand study would be the one that would "prove how dangerous Agent Orange was." "I placed a high priority on that study," Robinson said. "I was disappointed in the results." The Air Force now regrets having described Ranch Hand findings as "reassuring," Michalek said. "That' s a forbidden interpretation," he said. "You can' t reassure anyone of anything in (statistical studies). You can only establish hazard, not safety." Daschle grew tired of fighting the Air Force on the Ranch Hand study. He tried to find other ways to help Vietnam veterans and their families. "Our whole point was if the government was controlling all the science and analyses veterans would never get compensated," Petrou said. Daschle, along with then-Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., and Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., pushed legislation to compensate Vietnam veterans suffering from soft-tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin' s lymphoma. The bill also authorized the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate scientific and medical information about the health effects of Agent Orange. Earlier attempts to pass similar legislation had failed. But toward the end of 1990, with U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, Congress was eager to help veterans. The Senate passed the bill Jan. 30, 1991, the day Camp Pendleton Marines led the first major ground battle of the Persian Gulf War. During a ceremony to announce the legislation, President Bush proclaimed: "We are here today to ensure that our nation will ever remember those who defended her, the men and women who stood where duty required them to stand." Undue influence? Murphy Chesney, a retired lieutenant general, was an important player in both the Ranch Hand study and the Ranch Hand spraying missions. In Vietnam, as the officer in charge of the health and safety of Air Force personnel, he could have recommended against spraying herbicides if he thought they might be dangerous. But he shared the then-prevailing opinion that Agent Orange, named for the color of the stripe around its 55-gallon storage containers, wouldn' t hurt the troops. After the war, he oversaw the Ranch Hand study from 1979 until he was promoted to Air Force surgeon general in 1985. Chesney couldn' t say whether his role in Operation Ranch Hand influenced his decisions in the Ranch Hand study. "I hope it didn' t," he said in an interview. But Albanese, who worked on the study during the years Chesney was involved, believes it did. He recalled a dispute with a colleague, Wolfe, over data analysis. Chesney sided with Wolfe. "Then," Albanese said, "Gen. Chesney pulled me aside and said, ' If I had to accept your analysis, I' m not sure I could live with myself.' "I could see the water in his eyes. "He said he had approved some of those spraying activities." Chesney said no such conversation took place. But Chesney did remember ordering the scientists to comply with advisory committee recommendations, although such influence by the Air Force is prohibited by the rules of the study design. Looking back, Albanese said, it should have been obvious that the conflict of interest was too strong for the study to be objective. "There' s a faction that doesn' t want to pay the price of treating the veterans," he said, "and a faction that doesn' t want to have made them sick." Birth defects acknowledged In August 1992, the Air Force finally published a Ranch Hand birth defects report. Michalek said the Air Force had withheld the 1984 birth defects report because the advisory committee said it was incomplete. Ranch Hand scientists had verified records of babies with birth defects, but had not yet checked the healthy ones. In the draft of the report, the scientists wrote that it would take about a year to verify records of the healthy babies. But eight years passed before a report came out. The 1992 report confirmed the high rate of birth defects and infant deaths among children fathered by Ranch Hand veterans. But the scientists wrote that because the birth defects did not increase consistently with dioxin exposure, Agent Orange wasn' t to blame. But that might be inaccurate, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1994. The academy criticized the Ranch Hand study and singled out the 1992 birth defects report as an example of its many flaws. "It was confusing how the analysis of the birth defects was presented," said Kathleen Rodgers, one of 16 contributors to the National Academy of Sciences study, "Veterans and Agent Orange." "I remember being incensed at the time that we couldn' t get anything out of it," said Rodgers, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The Air Force scientists, examining a study group that was small to begin with, had omitted hundreds of subjects from the analysis, the academy said. That made it harder to connect birth defects to Agent Orange. Or easier not to. "Some aspect of the Ranch Hand experience seems to have increased the risk of fathering children with birth defects," the academy report said, "but the implications of this finding are unclear." The Air Force, of course, knew that 10 years earlier but sat on the information. "It' s the worst thing I have ever seen from the point of view of medical reporting," Albanese said. Releasing the data In recent years, as the Agent Orange controversy has faded from the public' s consciousness, the Ranch Hand advisory committee' s role has diminished. During its meeting last week in San Antonio -- the first such gathering since 1995 -- Michalek briefed the committee on the Union-Tribune' s investigation of the study. Michalek asked Albanese to detail his concerns about unpublished data and government interference. Afterward, Albanese suggested that the raw Ranch Hand data be made public, repeating an idea he has advocated for years. That way, he said, researchers outside the military might come up with new and useful analyses. Advisory committee Chairman Robert W. Harrison recommended that everything should be released, except for information that would violate the confidentiality of the subjects. Michalek said he would comply. Harrison, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester, said that he and his colleagues on the panel should start looking more closely at how the study is conducted and its findings. Expanded compensation Last year, the Air Force announced its first link between Agent Orange and a serious illness. The Ranch Hand veterans have a higher rate of diabetes. Air Force scientists saw the diabetes increase in 1992 but waited five years to make it public. Michalek said they wanted to be sure. The delay came as no surprise to Daschle and his aide, Petrou, who are still upset with the Air Force for withholding information about cancer and birth defects. "Delay is clearly their major tactic," Petrou said. "The delay is justice denied. It' s extremely disturbing. "From a public health perspective and from a moral perspective in terms of how we treat veterans, there' s no excuse good enough for this." Daschle has given up on the Ranch Hand study. But he has worked around it with some success. The National Academy of Sciences has continued its investigation, examining studies of Vietnam veterans and those of civilians exposed to dioxin in industrial accidents. As the academy links additional diseases to dioxin, more Vietnam veterans get help. The VA -- now the Department of Veterans Affairs -- has expanded its Agent Orange compensation list to 10 diseases, mostly cancers. Spina bifida, a serious spinal deformity, is the only birth defect on the list so far. As of April, the VA had received 92,276 Agent Orange claims from veterans and their survivors. Claims approved for diseases on the compensation list totaled 5,908. Patti Robinson remains a part of the larger group. The academy hasn' t found enough evidence that Agent Orange caused malignant melanoma, the cancer that took her husband. Which leaves Robinson where she was 15 years ago. She still believes Agent Orange killed her husband and disabled her son. But she can' t be sure. And that' s what really hurts, she said. "Look at all the years that have gone by, and there' s still no clear-cut answer." Copyright 1998 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted > Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:57:43 -0800 > BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- Johnie Wise, 72, and Jack Abbott > Grebe, 43, were convicted Thursday of two counts of sending > threatening e-mails -- one message to the Internal Revenue > Service and one to the Drug Enforcement Agency. > > They could get life in prison at their Jan. 29 sentencing. I have a question, if they had threatened just a plain old citizen with this email would they also be facing this life imprisonment? ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

s-format file converter?
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I need to convert some files stored in Motorola s-format (widely used for input into EPROM burners) to a binary blob of data my debugger can read. I know there is a GNU utility that supports converting to and from s-format and a wide variety of other file formats, but a web search turned up empty. If you know where to find such a utility for UNIX, please let me know. Thanks, --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP 5.x encrypted email preferred

1 0

RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:41:24 -0500 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted (fwd) > Jim Choate asked: > > >If they had threatened just a plain old citizen with this > >email would they also be facing this life imprisonment? > > Apparently the charges would have been the same if made > against any > > "person within the United States, and the results of such > use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case > of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected > interstate or foreign commerce." (see below) Ok, exactly how would their threat effect inter-state commerce? > The use of E-mail was incidental to the charges of both > conspiracy and threatening to use weapons of mass destruction: > > 18:2332(a)(2) and (c)(2)(C). Conspiracy to use a weapon > of mass destruction against person(s) w/in the U.S. > the results of which affected interstate & foreign > commerce. Offense dates: 3/24/98 - 6/30/98. Penalty: > Any term of years or for life, $250,000, 5 yrs SRT. (1) Conspiracy requires active steps, not simply talking about it. As I understand it the conspiracy and weapons of mass destructions charges were given a not-guilty by the jury. No proof was presented that they had ever even bought a bic lighter to test with. Hell, even going to the bookstore and buying a book or the library and checking one out is protected under the Constitution. It takes more than talk to generate a conspiracy. > 18:2332a(a)(2) and (c)(2)(C) and 2. Threatening to use a > weapon of mass destruction. Offense date: 6/26/98 > Penalty: any term of years or Proceedings include all events. > for life, $250,000, 5 yrs SRT as to ea ct. (2 - 8) If we're going to go by this then the US government is already guilty re their plan to destroy various contraband plants via genetic weapons. If you think that won't effect inter-state & international commerce you better think again. And they've gone a lot farther than just talking about it in email. Congress has spent millions on it over the last few years. > The eight counts are for the one count of conspiracy and > threats against seven federal agencies ("employees and > families"): > > The President > ATF > FBI > DEA > IRS > Secret Service > Custom Service Ok, so my question still stands what if these had been actual people instead of government agencies? The charges are *NOT* for threatening individuals who happen to be government agents, oh no, they're for threatening government *agencies* a whole different ball game ('The President' is an office not a person). > CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM > > Sec. 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction > > (a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the > United States. - A person who, without lawful authority, uses, > threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass > destruction, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as > those terms are defined in section 178) - Where is 'lawful authority' defined? > (2) against any person within the United States, and the > results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in > the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected > interstate or foreign commerce; I covered this one already. > (c) Definitions. - For purposes of this section - > > (2) the term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means - > > (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this > title; > > (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or > serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or > impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; > > (C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or So if I go out and sneeze on somebody I've committed an attack using a weapon of mass destruction? > (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or > radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life. Where is the definition of 'mass' in there? Hell, just about anything qualifies under this definition. It doesn't even require the death of 1 single individual (it doesn't even require it to be lethal). Oh, *all* radiation is harmful to human life. > CHAPTER 10 - BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS > Sec. 178. Definitions > > As used in this chapter - > > (1) the term ''biological agent'' means any micro-organism, > virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be > engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally > occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, > virus, infectious substance, or biological product, capable of > causing - > > (A) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a > human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; Well this certainly covers each and every effect of a pathogen on a biological system (I particularly like the way they've covered their butts for ET.... 'another living organism'. Not to mention that cleaning your kitchen counter qualifies under this statute. > (B) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or > material of any kind; or > > (C) deleterious alteration of the environment; Well at least they've set themselves up for their anti-drug pathogen program. > (2) the term ''toxin'' means the toxic material of plants, Can you say circular defintion, I thought you could. This sentence say nothing. > animals, microorganisms, viruses, fungi, or infectious > substances, or a recombinant molecule, whatever its origin or > method of production, including - > > (A) any poisonous substance or biological product that may be > engineered as a result of biotechnology produced by a living > organism; or > > (B) any poisonous isomer or biological product, homolog, or > derivative of such a substance; This of course happens to cover plain old water (re 'whatever its origin or method of preduction'). > (3) the term ''delivery system'' means - > > (A) any apparatus, equipment, device, or means of delivery > specifically designed to deliver or disseminate a biological > agent, toxin, or vector; or > > (B) any vector; > > (4) the term ''vector'' means a living organism, or molecule, > including a recombinant molecule, or biological product that may > be engineered as a result of biotechnology, capable of carrying a > biological agent or toxin to a host; and Next time I get food-poisoning at a restaraunt it's comforting to know that the federal government will be right there to prosecute under this particular statute... Geesh. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1