May 1995 (vol. 11, #4) 1601 N Tucson Blvd #9, Tucson AZ 85716 c 1995 Physicians for Civil Defense


After the Oklahoma City bombing, Hillary and Bill Clinton were videotaped, surrounded by children.

``Are you scared?'' they asked. The First Couple reassured the children that their parents and their government would do everything possible to keep them safe.

A suspect has been captured. There will be no rerun of the O.J. Simpson trial, with a tour of the scene of the crime; the building has already been demolished. And Congress may pass a new anti-terrorism law to supplement the old anti-murder law.

Do you feel safe now?

The ounce-of-prevention-is-worth-a-megaton-of-cure crowd has little to offer. Shall we outlaw fertilizer and Ryder trucks? And detain everyone who has violent fantasies? (At present, we protect the rights of patients who tell their psychiatrists of plans to hack someone to death or rap singers who advocate killing the police.)


Notably, the general society has not been held responsible for the Oklahoma event. Unlike the Los Angeles rioters, whose actions had ``root causes'' such as racism and poverty, the bombers are greeted with rage.

There is collective guilt, of course, but it is restricted to one side of the political spectrum. The culprits are not those who produce or sponsor entertainment that glorifies wanton violence, nor those who preach nihilism and moral relativism. Rather, the villains engage in ``hate speech'' critical of the government.

It is not disrespect for law but for government that is said to incite the crazies.

Bill Clinton deplored the ``loud and angry voices...whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other.'' These voices are regularly heard ``over the airwaves.'' Robert Scheer was more explicit: ``out-of-control talk-show hosts'' condemn anyone who works for the government as a ``faceless bureaucrat and more often a crook.'' Molly Ivins named names: ``The poisoning of the well of public debate by people like Bob just as much a part of the bomb that went off in Oklahoma as the fertilizer.''

The press reports reveal the new targets of McCarthyite suspicions: not only Muslims and Arabs, but also religious ``zealots,'' angry white men, tax protesters, and people who make ``frequent pilgrimages from trailer parks to convenience stores'' the dangerous denizens of the ``rural outback of America'' who listen to the radio.


The shock of this incident is related more to its location than the number of casualties. Disasters caused by man can be much worse. More lethal means are available: chemical, biological, nuclear, or sophisticated conventional weapons. These are already in the hands of organizations far more powerful than Timothy McVeigh and his associates.

Indeed, the Oklahoma bombing might not actually have been a terrorist act. Terrorism is a means to an end. Webster defines it as ``the use of terror or violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc., especially as a political weapon or policy.'' In Oklahoma City, there were no threats, no demands, and no group seeking credit. The bombing might have been an act of pure madness or revenge.

Terrorism is often an act of a government (or a ``gang-of-thugs masquerading as a national government'') or a group aspiring to govern; the ``Reign of Terror'' occurred under the French Revolutionary government. Just a few unpredictable attacks on arbitrarily chosen victims can unbalance and subdue a large population. Twentieth century totalitarians have made skillful use of this method.


Violence can serve as a pretext for the imposition of governmental terrorism, with martial law and the destruction of liberty. The reaction to the Oklahoma City incident shows the potential for that reaction. What would have happened if the perpetrators had had nuclear explosives? To preserve both life and liberty, it is vital to improve our defenses.

First, we need to ask why terrorism is so widespread. Joseph de Courcy explains: it is cheap, and it pays handsomely.

Nelson Mandela, head of a terrorist organization for many years, is now head of state in South Africa. He received the Order of Merit from Queen Elizabeth II and the Nobel Peace Prize. Chief Buthelezi, who left the African National Congress because of his opposition to violence, is vilified.

While nothing in the treatment of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland justified the taking of a single life, the Irish Republican Army murdered 2,000 innocent citizens and was rewarded by the capitulation of the British government. IRA leader Gerry Adams was feted by the Clinton White House (Intelligence Digest, Stoneyhill Centre, Brimpsfield, Gloucester, GL4 8LF, UK, 3/24/95.) Yasser Arafat is also welcome in the White House. And while mourning the death of some 200 Americans, Bill Clinton still supports Boris Yeltsin, the prosecutor of a murderous war in Chechnya that has claimed more than 42,000 lives.

The first step then should be to assure that terrorists do not achieve their objectives. They should be punished severely if convicted based on actions, not political ideology but at least they should not be rewarded.

A second step should be for the government to set a good example of respect for the rule of law. The government that frustrates justice, or even perpetrates injustice, forfeits its moral credibility, argues Paul Robinson (``Moral Credibility and Crime,'' Atlantic Monthly, March 1995).

Finally, America needs to revitalize its moribund population protection system civil defense as part of preparedness in all dimensions.

In the past hundred years, fewer than a dozen [nongovernmental] terrorist attacks have caused more than 100 deaths. De Courcy warns that the ratio will change dramatically with the wide availability of scientific knowledge, as illustrated by the Tokyo poison-gas subway massacre (op. cit.). Lowell Wood, who will receive the Edward Teller Defender of Freedom Award at the upcoming DDP meeting, warns that current medical response capabilities could be overwhelmed, leading to casualties in numbers not seen since mass air-raids on cities.

The Oklahoma City bombing should be a wake-up call to unite Americans in defense against the threats of the modern age. The tragedy would be magnified many times if it is used as a pretext for dividing Americans against each other, or surrendering the liberties for which our forefathers fought.


Hate Speech?

``Isn't it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?'' (Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit)

``If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.'' (Prince Philip of Great Britain, leader of the World Wildlife Fund)

``In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day.'' (Dr. Jacques Cousteau)>[? ``Loggers losing their jobs because of Spotted Owl legislation is ... no different than people being out of work after the furnaces of Dachau shut down.'' (David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth)


Dangers of Nuclear Terrorism

The call for strategic nuclear defense has found its way even into Science. ``Loose nukes,'' black-market plutonium and uranium, and Third-World weapons development programs are the main focus of an article by John H. Nuckolls of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Science 267: 1112-1114, 2/24/95).

Acts of nuclear terrorism would trigger Draconian efforts to control proliferation. ``Unsuccessful attempts to prevent smuggling of drugs suggest that extreme police state controls would be required to be effective,'' stated Nuckolls. ``These self-imposed controls and mass public reactions (such as, perhaps, de facto abandonment of population centers) would paralyze commerce and strangle the freedom and openness that are fundamental elements of democracy.''

Nuckolls' suggestions include: (1) improved technology for detecting, disabling, and attribution of nuclear weapons; (2) a deployed global defense against ballistic missiles to reduce incentives for proliferation and provide protection should an attack occur; and (3) cruise missile defenses.

Additionally, Nuckolls advocates the continuing credibility of the American nuclear deterrent forces. He states that ``U.S. long-range strategic nuclear forces have been reduced to START I levels, and our active stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear weapons has been reduced 90%. Russia has about 25,000 nuclear weapons. Apparently there is currently a major (up to two to one) gap between the numbers of Russian and U.S. nuclear weapons.''

[Sam Cohen, inventor of the neutron bomb, will discuss the threat of nuclear terrorism at the DDP meeting, August 4-6, in Grants Pass, Oregon.]


Chemical Warfare in Chechnya?

In Chechnya, the parliament declared that Russian troops were using chemical weapons and also opening fire on refugees. The Russian Defense Ministry denied the allegations.

The Russian Federal Troops Command asserted that Chechen secessionist forces were exploding 40-kg containers of chlorine by radio signal in the path of federal troops, and pouring liquid hydrogen cyanide on highways. However, the Russian army's chief medical officer, General Ivan Chizh, told a press conference that the Medical Directorate had seen no evidence of poisonings.

According to Chechen sources, Federal Russian aviation has dropped more than 30 chemical bombs on Groznyy. Russian Duma deputy Ayvars Lezdinsh told reporters that Federal forces had dropped chemicals into a Groznyy reservoir, contaminating the water (Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin, 3/95)

[Chemical and biological warfare will be discussed at the DDP meeting by Drs. Lowell Wood, Michael Baker, and Conrad Chester, and by Colonel Ernest Takafuji, Commander of the USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick, MD.]


Update on the War Against Safe Chemicals:

Arizona Freon Bill Called ``Meaningless'' The following bill has been signed into law by Arizona Governor Fife Symington:

Title 49, chapter 3, article 1, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 49-409, to read:
49-409. Chlorofluorocarbons; permitted use; retaliation prohibited.
A. Notwithstanding any other law, a person may possess, use, manufacture, purchase, install, transport or sell chlorofluor-ocarbons.
B. The possession, use, manufacture, purchase, installation, transportation or sale of chlorofluorocarbons does not subject any person, this state, or any political subdivision of this state to any penalty, fine, retaliatory action, or other punitive measure.

The EPA immediately issued a statement that the law is meaningless because it is preempted by more strin-gent federal law. However, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) has introduced federal legislation, HR 475, calling for repeal of the section of the Clean Air Act dealing with pur-ported ``ozone depleting substances'' (CFCs, methyl bromide, and halons).

For more information on this bill and on the substitutes for CFCs, see The Torch, May, 1995, published by the Society for Environmental Truth, 4060 E. 4th St., Tucson, AZ 85711.

[Astrophysicist Sally Baliunas will speak about the ozone layer at the DDP meeting.]


Repealing the Bill of Rights

Timothy McVeigh has more rights than persons targeted as ``polluters'' by federal regulatory agencies.

Criminal penalties can now be imposed for honest and reasonable mistakes or unavoidable accidents. ``A person can be criminally liable for killing migratory birds even if the person has done everything possible to prevent their death'' (Atlantic, op. Cit.).

In the course of such prosecutions, ``federal lawmakers have authorized coercive `self-confes-sion' programs and warrantless inspections of commercial premises,'' states Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute (Policy Analysis No. 223, 4/20/95, available from Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington DC 20001, for $4).

``The law has stripped environmental criminal suspects of traditional legal defenses such as good faith, fair warning, and double jeopardy.'' Further, more the ``web of regulations has grown so dense that many observers believe compliance with the law is un-achievable.'' Lynch asks, ``What good are procedural safeguards if anything whatever can be made a crime?''