Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

An Assessment Of The Threat From Al Qaeda in 2003


Despite being the most hunted movement in history, Al Qaeda and its associated organizations will pose a significant threat in 2003. Al Qaeda will fragment, decentralize, regroup in five zones of the world, work with like-minded groups, select a wider range of targets, focus on economic targets and population centers, and conduct most attacks in the global south. Although the group will be constrained from conducting coordinated simultaneous attacks against high profile symbolic or strategic targets in the West, together with its regional counterparts Al Qaeda will conduct similar attacks in Asia, Africa, Middle East, and even in Latin America. Despite heavy losses, including the likely capture or death of its core and penultimate leaders, Al Qaeda's anti-Western universal jihad ideology inculcated among the politicized and radicalized Muslims will sustain support for Islamism, Islamist political parties and Islamist terrorist groups. With the detection, disruption, and degradation of its human and material infrastructure, Al Qaeda may evolve and survive as a state-of-mind among Islamist territorial and migrant pockets. With a skewed US Middle Eastern policy, Islamist support for political violence will grow, prompting terrorist groups to conduct mass casualty attacks, especially suicide bombings of economic targets and population centres.

Since October 7, 2001 when US-led coalition forces began to dismantle Al Qaeda's state-of-the-art operational and training infrastructure, its intention to attack has not diminished but its capability to attack has gravely suffered. With US working with several Middle Eastern and Asian governments, Al Qaeda's strength has depleted to a third of its rank and file especially the loss or capture of its key leaders and experienced operatives. For instance, in Afghanistan, its military commander Mohommad Atef was killed in a predator attack; in Pakistan, its director of external operations Abu Zubaidah was captured, as was its maritime commander Al Nishri in the United Arab Emirates. Al Qaeda as an organization has gravely suffered severe disruption to its command and control. Therefore, the group is increasingly probing targets that can be attacked with least effort and least cost. In keeping with its doctrine of repeating its successes, Al Qaeda and its associate groups are increasingly adopting the tactic of suicide terrorism against soft targets.

While Al Qaeda's priority will be to attack US targets, it only has the resources and opportunity to attack US allies and friends. With diminished Al Qaeda assets and hardened US and Israeli diplomatic targets, the group will mount and attempt to mount attacks against British, French, German, Italian, Canadian, Australian targets and possibly other European and Japanese targets. Throughout 2002, Al Qaeda or its associate groups killed German tourists in Djerba, Tunisia; French naval technicians in Karachi, Pakistan; Australians and Westerners in Bali, Indonesia; and Israelis in Mombassa, Kenya. Osama bin Laden's pronouncements in October and November 2002 will be the best guide to unfolding Al Qaeda events in 2003. As such more effort is needed to track and target Al Qaeda experts moving worldwide and disrupt them from coordinating attacks together with Al Qaeda associate groups with which it had shared ideology, finance and training during the last decade in Afghanistan and in other conflict zones.

Countermeasures, especially target hardening, by law enforcement and protective services of vulnerable government personnel and infrastructure have forced Al Qaeda to focus on economic targets and population centers. Hardening of government targets will displace the threat to softer targets making civilians prone to terrorist attack. Economic targets, especially the tourist and the hotel industry, will suffer from terrorism. Churches, synagogues, and other non-Islamic institutions as well as trade and investment will remain particularly vulnerable. Similarly, hardening of land and aviation targets will shift the threat to sea targets particularly to commercial maritime targets. Due to the difficulty of hijacking aircraft to ram them against targets difficult to acquire from surface attacks, Al Qaeda will acquire and employ hand held Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs). If appropriate and immediate countermeasures are not taken to target the Al Qaeda shipping network, SAMs under Al Qaeda control held in the Pakistan-Kashmir-Afghanistan theater, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa will find its way to the Far Asia and to Europe, and possibly even to North America. Other groups operationally and ideologically unconnected to Al Qaeda will learn from Al Qaeda technologies, tactics, and techniques.

With US security forces and the intelligence community targeting Al Qaeda's nerve center in Afghanistan-Pakistan, Al Qaeda will decentralize even further. While its organizers of attacks will remain in Pakistan and its immediate neighborhood, its operatives will travel back and forth coordinating with Al Qaeda nodes in the south. To make its presence felt, Al Qaeda will increasingly rely on its global terrorist network of like-minded groups in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Horn of Africa, Middle East, and the Caucuses to strike its enemies. Already attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Kuwait and Yemen seek to compensate for the loss and lack of space and opportunity to operate in Afghanistan. Its operatives will work together with Jemmah Islamiyah (JI: Southeast Asia), Al Ithihad al Islami (Horn of Africa), Chechen Mujahidin (Khattab faction: Caucuses), Tunisian Combatants Group (Middle East), Jayash-e-Mohommad (South Asia) and other groups it trained and financed in the past decade. In addition to its own members, Al Qaeda will operate through the Salafi Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) and Takfir Wal Hijra – two groups it had infiltrated in Europe and North America. With the transfer of terrorist technology and expertise from the center to the periphery, the attacks by the associated groups of Al Qaeda will pose a threat as great as Al Qaeda.

Although attacking inside North America, Europe, Australasia and Israel remains a priority, the measures and countermeasures taken by these governments will make it difficult for Al Qaeda to mount an operation in the West. Al Qaeda finds it less costly to operate in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where there is lack of security controls. Therefore, most attacks will be against Western targets located in the global south. While focusing on Western targets will remain a priority, Al Qaeda will continue to conduct operations against Muslim rulers and regimes supporting the US-led "war on terror." The physical security of Pakistani and Afghan leaders will remain particularly vulnerable and their regimes will come under sustained political challenges. While a number of Pakistani groups fighting in Kashmir will come under greater control of Al Qaeda, the group working together with the surviving elements of the Taliban will develop a clandestine network inside Afghanistan to conduct guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and political assassination.

For greater impact, Al Qaeda prefers to conduct coordinated simultaneous attacks against symbolic, high prestige or strategic targets with the intention of inflicting maximum damage to human and physical infrastructure. With Al Qaeda resources under strain and its operatives coming under increasing scrutiny in the global north, Al Qaeda will be constrained from mounting multiple attacks in the global north. However, Al Qaeda and its associate groups are still able to mount multiple operations in the global south where they have greater leverage, space, and time to operate. For instance, JI attacked Sari and Kuta clubs and the US consulate in Bali, Indonesia on October 12, 2002; and Al Qaeda attacked an Israeli-owned hotel and aircraft in Mombassa, Kenya on November 29, 2002.

RESILIENCE

Al Qaeda has suffered with the arrest of nearly 3,000 organizers, operatives and supporters in 98 countries since October 2001. With the increase in pressure, Al Qaeda is increasingly depending on its associate groups to conduct attacks. Traditionally, Qaeda with better trained, more experienced and highly committed operatives wanted to attack more difficult targets, especially strategic targets, and leave the easier and tactical targets to its associated groups. Today, with Al Qaeda operatives working closely together, the lethality of the attacks conducted by the associate groups of Al Qaeda is increasing. As Bali demonstrated, the attacks conducted by the associate groups of Al Qaeda can be as lethal as the attacks conducted by Al Qaeda itself. With attacks conducted by Al Qaeda's associated groups posing a threat as great as Al Qaeda, the theater of war will widen. US assistance, presence and influence will grow in the Muslim world, generating wide-ranging reactions.

With the loss of Afghanistan as a "liberated theater of jihad," Islamists will seek to create new theaters. Dr Ayman Zawahiri, Osama's deputy, designated successor and principal strategist of Al Qaeda considers Afghanistan and Chechnya as the only two liberated theaters of jihad. Already due to the difficulty of movement of recruits and flow of support from Islamist migrant pockets in the West and in the Middle East to Afghanistan, there has been a partial diversion of support to Chechnya. Although there is a significant reserve of Afghan-trained active and sleeper terrorists in the West, terrorists entering the West to attack Western targets may be trained in a number of theaters, especially Chechnya. With Al Qaeda fragmenting ,several other groups will take over the role of waging a universal jihad. More territorial Islamist groups will espouse universal agendas and more Muslim separatist groups will become vulnerable to penetration by Islamist groups.

Al Qaeda will be operating across the technological spectrum but is likely to use low-tech high impact attacks, especially civilian infrastructure to attack civilian society and critical infrastructure. With greater border controls, members and associate members of Al Qaeda will use what can be readily purchased off the shelf especially from pharmacies, chemist shops, and hardware stores. Al Qaeda members will live off the environment and turn commercially available material into weapons. Al Qaeda's Tunisian member conducted a suicide attack against the oldest Jewish synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia, using a LPG truck; JI used a consignment of chlorate purchased from the port city of Surabaya in Indonesia against targets in Bali; and 9/11 hijackers used passenger aircraft against America's icons. The latter attack, an Al Qaeda detainee said, was "like using your own finger to prick your eye." Using multiple identities, Al Qaeda members will travel to target countries, receive instructions, plan and prepare attacks through the Internet, and attack targets. They will generate support from low level crime, organized crime, infiltrated charities, and from politicized and radicalized segments of their migrant and diaspora communities.

With the capture of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohommad alias Mohommad the Pakistani alias MP, the head of the military committee of Al Qaeda, on March 1, 2003, Al Qaeda has lost tactical control of its cells. He was central in the planning and preparation of attacks. His persona highly influenced the nature of almost all Al Qaeda attacks -- first, mass casualty attacks, second, the abundant use of suicide terrorism, third, bombings, and fourth, assassination. As mass casualty attacks need a large number of operatives, greater resources, and planning over a long period of time, Al Qaeda today will be able to conduct fewer attacks. But still they are likely to become spectacular or theatrical attacks. Assassination will be used more frequently, although suicide bombings will be the most predominant form of attack. As suicide attacks are very difficult to disrupt in the execution phase, 2003 will see the tactic of suicide terrorism being used more widely. As Al Qaeda maximizes its successes and partial successes of attacks and minimizes its failures, suicide attacks will become increasingly common. Although Al Qaeda's long term and sustained interest to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents has not diminished, conventional terrorism will remain the preferred mode of attack.

CONCLUSION

US policies towards the Middle East, especially the unilateral US invasion of Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, will strengthen support for Islamism, Islamist political parties and terrorist groups. US's skewed foreign policy will continue to pose a significant terrorist threat to Western interests both at home and overseas. In many countries, Islamism will move from the periphery to the center, making it difficult for many governments to openly support the US-led "war against terrorism." With support for Islamism rising, Islamists will campaign either politically or violently or both in Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and other emerging democracies. In addition to well-organized groups, individual terrorists will mount operations, similar to the shooting at the El Al counter at the Los Angeles Airport on America's Independence Day 2002. With more news in the media about Islam, the Muslim public will become more aware of Islam. The number of Muslims directly supporting violence will remain very small but there will be more support for a Muslim way of life, especially the implementation of Sharia laws. Furthermore, the need to wage jihad in support of their suffering brethren will rise among politicized and radicalized segments of the Muslims.

If the threat posed by Islamism is to be countered and the life span of Islamist terrorist groups is to be shortened in the long term (10 years), the current Western, especially the US, approach of 95 percent military and five percent ideological will have to be reversed. To reduce the space for the Al Qaeda to survive and grow, the international community must develop a multipronged, multidimensional, multiagency, and multijurisdictional approach against terrorism. Failure to develop a comprehensive long term strategic response will mean, Al Qaeda changing shape, surviving and continuing the fight.

As much as 2002 was, 2003 will be a year of experience and learning both for government law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With the wider acknowledgement that there is no standard textbook for fighting Al Qaeda, it will be a learning process where new structures and institutions will have to be built and shaped to fight a rapidly evolving cunning and ruthless foe, willing to kill and die. To win, governments will have to repeat their successes and build upon their successes.

In its founding charter, Al Qaeda Al Sulbah (The Solid Base) is defined as the "spearhead of Islam" and the "pioneering vanguard of the Islamic movements." The existing and emerging Islamist groups burdened with the Al Qaeda ideology will pose a continuous terrorist threat. Although Al Qaeda as a physical entity will be relegated to history, it has at least partially accomplished its primary role of "showing the way" to other groups, especially the need to go beyond a limited territorial agenda and wage a universal jihad. The momentum Al Qaeda has so successfully unleashed will spawn and sustain a dozen existing and emerging Islamist groups at least in the immediate (1-2 years) and in the mid term (5 years).

 

Special Registration


Within hours of the US invasion of Iraq, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began interviewing thousands of Iraqi-born immigrants throughout America hoping to find potential terrorists and spies. Some of those interviewed the FBI determined to be living in the United States without legal immigration status and promptly arrested them (The FBI would not say how many).

It was to make easier just such a war-time crackdown that the federal government late last year began implementing a new program called Special Registration.

Protesters outside the New York office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service.

When the Immigration and Naturalization Service announced the special registration program in October, it required that all males 16 or older residing in the United States who are citizens of Iraq and four other nations (Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria) "register" with the agency — which meant showing up in person, being interviewed, fingerprinted and photographed.

A month later, the feds added citizens from 13 more countries, including North Korea, to the list. Then a month after that, they added two more, Pakistanis and Saudi Arabians; then a month after that, five more. All together, immigrants from 25 countries (24 of which are predominantly Muslim) were required to participate in the special registration, and given a series of deadlines by which they had to do so.

By the time the first deadline rolled around in December, word had spread among immigrant communities that thousand of immigrants who had dutifully registered had been detained and issued notices of deportation.

The United States Justice Department maintains that the special registration program is meant to protect the United States from terrorist groups, which have bases of operations and actively recruit from the nations on the list.

The need for a centralized tracking system of foreigners, the program's advocates say, was prompted by the September 11 attack; the 19 hijackers who flew airplanes into the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon all had entered the country on student and tourist visas.

But others argue that the program has gone beyond any reasonable security measures.

"Why Bangladesh?" asked Mohammad Ferdous Bin Zaman about his native country's inclusion on the list. "We don't have a past record of terrorist activities. The people of my country are very peaceful. I never thought they would add Bangladesh".

Whatever the intended effects of the special registration program, there are already deep consequences among immigrants in some neighborhoods of New York City. On some blocks, one shop after another has suddenly been shuttered. Some are so fearful of having to register that, though they had lived in the United States for many years, they have abruptly decided to move.

IMMIGRANTS DURING WARTIME AND INTERNMENT CAMPS

The registration program is not something thought up by the Bush administration. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a proclamation branding as "enemy aliens" Japanese and Japanese-Americans, and also immigrants from Germany and Italy who had not become American citizens, and requiring them all to register and apply for certificates of identification. Approximately one million registered.

What followed was one of the most embarrassing chapters of American history. Thousands of Japanese, German and Italian aliens were sent to internment camps throughout the country. While no US citizens of German and Italian descent were put in internment camps, many were regarded as "potentially dangerous," and some were forced to move to a different part of the country. No distinctions were made, however, between Japanese aliens and Japanese Americans who were US citizens. Both were sent to the internment camps.

More than four decades later, the U.S. Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians concluded that Japanese internment was " motivated by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria and a failure of political leadership." In 1988 President Ronald Reagan apologized for "a grave injustice" imposed on Japanese Americans during WWII. Each victim was entitled to $20,000 in reparations, but many were already dead.

Is this new registration program, some ask, repeating the same mistake?

"It echoed something from our own experience in 1941," John Tateishi of Japanese American Citizens League told the San Francisco Chronicle recently. "It's really about racial identity and racial profiling."

Jorge Martinez, a spokesman for the Justice Department, has said that contemporary comparisons to the Japanese internment camps were "ridiculous."

The current special registration program exempts naturalized US citizens and legal immigrants — green card holders. Viewed as unlikely to pose a security threat to the United States, women are also not required to register. Until last week, political asylum seekers were also exempt.

The special registration program is a requirement for 1) foreigners who are here on a temporary basis, such as international students and professionals holding work visas 2) immigrants whose permanent resident status is pending and 3) undocumented immigrants.

"The Japanese individuals were put in internment camps for no reason whatsoever," Martinez said. "These individuals who were detained — mind you, temporarily — were people who violated the law. Anyone who violates the law is subject to the penalties."

THE REGISTRATION

On any given day, it is not uncommon to wait in line for several hours to do business with the federal immigration agency. But on January 10, the deadline for the second group required to register, immigrants swarmed the Federal Plaza building. More than 400 people were waiting to register from 8 am until 6 o'clock the next morning, according to Norman Eng of the New York Immigration Coalition.

"The INS does not have the resources to be processing huge numbers of people like this. They had to take officers away from other departments," Eng said. Adding to the chaos, most immigrants did not have lawyers to consult about the process. "A lot of them had no clue about whether they even really needed to be there," Eng said. " We were there to give information to people about their situation."

Once the waiting was over, immigrants were called into an interview room. "The officer interviewed me for 25 minutes. They asked me about my immigration status, employment, my family and other personal information. Then I was photographed and fingerprinted," said a Lebanese citizen. "I felt humiliated having to go through the interrogation and the whole process."

Most immigrants were let go after officials found no criminal records or any violations of immigration status. Some say that it does not make sense to put so many law-abiding immigrants through the registration process.

"It's a waste of law enforcement resources that clutters the government with useless information and distracts law enforcement officials from pursuing individualized suspicion of wrong doing," said Donna Lieberman, New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director.

Immigration officials argue that this information is going to be used to track criminals and future terrorists. So far 46 immigrants are charged with crimes and 1, 745 detained on minor immigration violation.

If immigrants fail a background check, they must go through an interrogation process. On January 10, one of Eng's clients was detained.

"We went upstairs with one of the clients. They told us just wait outside, 'we'll be back in ten minutes.' They took him inside through the doors. Fifteen minutes later they came out with the guy's belongings in a plastic bag and told us 'we're detaining him,'" Eng said. "They said he was a criminal alien."

The man was found guilty of what his attorney calls "a minor criminal violation" (declining to specify what) but the immigration agency could not gather enough evidence to issue him a deportation notice. He was released the next day.

At six o'clock the morning on the day after the second deadline, the agency was not able to complete the process of running through all the different background checks. To get people out of the building, they issued new appointments and announced one-month deadline extension for the third and fourth groups.

There is some indication that the chaos will not end anytime soon. The Immigration and Naturalization Service itself officially went out of business on March 1, replaced by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service which was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, but had been moved to the new Department of Homeland Security. New name or not, the lack of staff and resources continues to paralyze the agency. As each of the deadlines approach, hundreds of immigrants are kept waiting to register in the frigid weather for hours.

UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

The deadline was extended in part to give undocumented immigrants a chance to comply with the law. By far the most affected, undocumented immigrants find themselves in a catch-22. If they register they risk being detained for violating immigration law. If they do not register, they are breaking another law and become deportable.

According to a new estimate, New York has more than 400,000 undocumented immigrants. (Nationwide there are estimated to be 7 million.)

"There are a sizeable number of undocumented people who are affected by this policy," said Surav Sakara of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "They either are detained or they're served with notices to appear, which start their deportation proceedings."

Undocumented immigrants who choose not to register will continue to live in a situation that has become increasing risky. In the past, an executive order issued by then Mayor Ed Koch discouraged the New York Police Department from collaborating with the federal immigration agency. Police officers were not allowed to ask any suspects about their immigration status. Lacking resources, personnel and official support, the immigration agency left New York's undocumented immigrants alone.

But "that's changed," said Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Last August the federal government allowed local police to enforce immigration law for the first time. Many stories have emerged from many immigrant communities saying that the city police department has acted more and more in conjunction with the immigration agency.

"A man named Malik Muhamad was stopped by police officers while walking back from work," Bobby Khan of the Coney Island Avenue Project, an immigrant advocacy group, alleged. "They asked him about his immigration status but he refused to answer so they beat him."

City Councilmember Kendall Stewart, chair of the immigration subcommittee, said that he received similar complaints from his constituents in District 45. "Pakistani groups are being profiled, singled out and stopped by police more frequently than anybody else," he said.

So far Mayor Michael Bloomberg has not expressed his position on using the local police force as an extension of the immigration agency, but New York City Immigrant Affairs Commissioner Sayu Bhojwani has said that the Bloomberg administration is exploring ways to keep Koch's executive order in place without interfering with the federal law.

While public officials are figuring out what to do, many undocumented immigrants are convinced that going to register equals being deported. Nationally, according to the US Department of Justice, more than 4,825 of the 88,989 immigrants who have registered now face deportation.

LEAVING THE CITY

In a single immigrant household, there are often people with different types of immigration status; a son can be a citizen, a father undocumented. Fearful that family members could be detained and, hence, separated, some immigrant families have decided to move out of the country altogether.

Jo Anne C. Adlerstein, head of the immigration law practice at Proskauer, Rose said that in some cases, she has encouraged her clients to leave the country before the registration date.

"We had to put the issue on the table in black and white," said Alderstein. "If you're going to register, you're going to be locked up. If you go home before the registration date, the likelihood is you're going to get out of the United States. Can we get you back? I don't know."

As the third registration deadline approached, a sizeable number of Pakistani immigrants fled to Canada to apply for political asylum, according to aid workers and US-Canadian border officials.

""My kids come home from school and say, 'my friend, Imad, left with his family to go to Canada. Why did they go to Canada?" and I say "Oh, because his father got a good job up there,' " said one Pakistani immigrant.

On Coney Island Avenue, where most Pakistanis live, business is slow. "Some people just up and left, " said a spokesman from the Council of Pakistani Organizations. "There was a barber shop here and one day it was just closed and the owner never showed up."

Immigrant advocacy groups have been taking to the street to protest the registration. At the same they are conducting workshops to help inform immigrants about the laws. There are not many choices.

"At this point the majority of people we talked to decided to leave because they don't want have to live with the type of treatment they've been dealing with," said Sin Yen Ling, a lawyer at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

"There are no lively gatherings in any Bangladeshi restaurants, as there were prior to announcement of special registration," reported the Weekly Thikana, a Bengali newspaper. "Many are saying 'We may not meet again. We are ending our days of expatriate life.'"

 

Will Albany's Scandals Lead To Reform?


Recently New York State's lobbying commission issued the largest fine to a corporation in state history. The Correctional Services Corporation, a company that has received some $20 million in state contracts since 1992, was fined $300,000 for giving gifts to Albany law makers, including free van rides to Albany, meals, flowers, candy and even cell phones - totaling some $2,000 a month. Among the New York City representatives under investigation for allegedly accepting the gifts are former Bronx Assemblymember Gloria Davis (who recently pled guilty to bribery charges), Brooklyn Assemblymember Roger Green and former State Senator (now New York City Councilmember) Larry Seabrook.

The fine, while significant and a sign that the lobby commission is serious about enforcing its laws, will not halt corruption in the state capital.

The Legislative Ethics Committee is not expected to do anything to discipline the lawmakers who took the gifts. In the 14 years since the ethics committee was formed, it has never brought charges against an incumbent politician.

It is also clear that the recent scandals are not isolated incidents. Albany has a culture of secrecy and insider politics and New York State lacks basic and necessary laws that would curtail unethical behavior in government. Even Governor George Pataki's administration is currently under investigation. The governor's former labor commissioner, James McGowan, has been indicted (and pled not guilty to charges) for allegedly taking thousands of dollars in bribes from a friend and business acquaintance who was seeking state grants.

And conduct that is dishonest and undemocratic - but still perfectly legal - is commonplace, and it often is as shocking as headline-making illegal activities.

However, change is still possible in Albany.

The first step is to strengthen New York State's notoriously weak campaign finance laws.

Albany, unlike the city and the federal governments, has no ban on corporate contributions for state offices. And it shows. Corporate contributions of up to $5,000 are allowed under the law, and even this limit is routinely ignored and circumvented by companies that give money via their executives or subsidiaries.

Corporations, trade groups and other special interests also use a loophole to avoid contribution limits; money is given directly to state parties' rather than individual candidates, and can be given in unlimited amounts in New York State. Corporations and special interests routinely make contributions worth tens of thousands of dollars to both parties.

In the case of gifts to lawmakers, New York State law sets a $75 limit on gifts from lobbyists to politicians, but the executive and legislative branches of state government disagree on the interpretation of this law. The executive says it is $75 a year, but the State Legislature interprets this to mean a $75 limit per instance.

In 1987, after a series of corruption scandals rocked New York State government, Governor Mario Cuomo established a commission that recommended a long list of needed reforms to the campaign finance system as well as well as ethics and the electoral process. These proposals have been ignored for over a decade.

Our state government is fueled by a culture where campaign contributions frequently lead to government contracts.

Last fall, research by Common Cause, the organization I work for, showed that most of the $340 million in Liberty Bonds approved for the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan was awarded to major campaign contributors at the state and local levels. The New York State Housing Finance Agency approved $100 million in tax-free bonds to be awarded to each of three luxury housing projects. Two of the developers of the projects, Glenwood Management and The Related Companies, together had donated over $458,000 in campaign contributions to candidates at the state level and $221,000 at the city level.

In another telling example, in 1997 the Silverite Construction Company was on the verge of losing in a competitive bid for a $100 million government contract to repair a tunnel in New York City. According to media accounts, Silverite was able to revamp its bid and win the contract after making campaign donations to key Republican campaign accounts.

This year, Albany could make a decision to change all of this.

Both houses of the legislature and Governor George Pataki have introduced bills addressing these issues. But as is common in Albany, bills that only have the support of one house provide cover for politicians but frequently languish and never pass because our lawmakers won't sit down and work out a compromise.

New Yorkers must keep the pressure on lawmakers, demanding that they form a conference committee to work out differences between the bills and vote on the final proposal.

Citizens should demand openness and honesty in government including:

  • Ban on gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and other top policymakers
  • Ban on lawmakers accepting honoraria
  • Creation of a new, independent ethics oversight agency for both the executive and legislative branches
  • Expansion of the lobbying commission's jurisdiction to oversee all lobbying of state agencies
  • Establishment of a full one year "cooling off
  • period for all legislative staffers and top party officials, so that none can immediately cash in on political contacts by lobbying their former colleagues
  • Dramatic changes to New York's campaign financing system by banning soft money, lowering contribution limits, boosting disclosure and enforcement, and creating a voluntary system of public financing for candidates for state offices

Albany's corrupt culture leaves its mark on countless New York issues, from criminal justice, to health care, to labor, to housing, to schools. Now more than ever, as we face unprecedented fiscal challenges both in Albany and New York City, we need accountable government.


RELATED STORY:
HAVA heartburn
Why New York will be uniquely affected by the new federal Help America Vote Act, probably for the worse.

 

HAVA Heartburn


In response to the troubling and controversial presidential election of 2000, Congress passed The Help America Vote Act of 2002, known as HAVA, which will significantly alter the way Americans vote.

The federal government is going to give $3.86 billion to state and local governments in order to make the way we vote in this country uniform and efficient -- to get rid of the pesky lever machines and replace them with machines that are accessible to people with disabilities; to create a state-wide voter database; to take steps to ensure against fraud and vote tampering.

So why were the only votes against the law in the United States Senate cast by Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, the two senators from New York?

They knew what they were doing.

The truth is, the law could affect New York City more than any other city in the country. But trying to make the changes the new federal law requires, given the current state election system, is like putting a brand new engine in a car with a dead battery.

To give a glimpse into the problem: The federal law requires that the "chief election officer" in each state head a task force to figure out how to implement the reforms.

But the New York State Board of Elections is an autonomous patronage mill, with all employees (from the executive director on down to temps) evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

The executive director of this state board would naturally be considered the chief election officer of New York State. The executive director happens to be a nationally respected electoral expert, Thomas Wilkey. But he is a Democrat appointed by Mario Cuomo. The current governor, Republican George Pataki, decided not to appoint Wilkey as chief election officer, and instead gave that designation to the deputy director of the Board of Elections, Peter Kosinski, who is (will this surprise you?) a Republican.

That appointment, highly criticized, was just a sign of worse to come. The entire task force, as a recent Associated Press story put it, "is dominated by Republicans and representatives of the Pataki administration."

So far, the task force has met four times in Albany, and done little.

The last task force meeting focused on the requirement of the new law that voters who register by mail must show a form of identification. This requirement is probably the most controversial aspect of HAVA in New York, because the law designates a drivers' license or social security number as key forms of identification. Only about half of the residents in New York City have drivers' licenses, while upstate almost everybody does. In general, the ID requirement may disenfranchise the growing immigrant and youth electorate.

This was surely a major reason why the two U.S. Senators from New York voted against the act; they realized the challenges of implementing broad identification requirements in a city that holds eight million of the most diverse population in the nation.

These issues were brought up in the task force meeting and discussed. But none of the suggestions to alleviate this problem were voted on. No votes have been taken on anything.

There is only one more task force meeting scheduled, then (as Kosinski explained), the staff of the Board of Elections will be writing the report required by the federal law, before it is released to the public. Members of the task force asked whether or not they would be able to read the report and amend it and whether or not there would be changes made after public hearings were set. No time, Chairman Kosinski basically replied; the deadline for federal funds was the end of April and the report had to be finished by then. Then it would be up to the local boards of election to administer the changes.

And this is exactly why we should all be worried.

Luckily, public hearings by the Assembly and possibly the Senate are being scheduled, regardless of whether or not the task force holds them formally.

The only true way to ensure that all New Yorkers protect their right to vote and for their vote to count is to wage a campaign to fix the broken system. Since New York will be affected the most, it is imperative that we remind the task force and state legislators that the Help America Vote Act was created to make it easier for us to vote, not to make it easier for the Board of Elections to implement. It is sad and outrageous that HAVA is becoming yet another victim of Albany's dysfunction.

Jillian Matundan is the election reform associate for Citizens Union Foundation.

 

RELATED STORY:
Will Albany's Scandals Lead To Reform? by Rachel Leon

 

A Western Expert Denies Iraqi Arson In Oil Fields -- From Al-Jazeera


Michael Alcorn, the president of a company specializing in disasters, who left Iraq last Wednesday, said that the fire in the oil well in Karkook is due to a human mistake made 4 weeks ago and not like Washington and allies pretend caused by Iraqi arsonists.

Michael Alcorn, who's in Dubai now, said that his company, was working under a contract with the Iraqi government to put out the fire. He also said that he went to Karkook for this purpose on March 16th and stayed there until his company took him out because of the war. He added that he didn't see any facts showing that the Iraqi army was planning to destroy the oil wells in Karkook. He also said that the fire in Karkook wells is not linked to the Iraqi army and was due to a mistake in well digging, a human mistake that started the fire in the well on the 24th of last month.

Concerning the accusations about Iraq placing mines in the Karkook wells, Alcorn said that in the well where he was working there was no proof of existing explosives. "We saw a big number of army personnel digging trenches but we didn't see them filling these trenches with oil."

A British army spokesman in Qatar has confirmed the American and Kuwaiti accusations that Iraq set on fire multiple wells in the south of Iraq to prevent the American and British forces from controlling these wells. Iraq denied this. Karkook produces 900,000 barrels daily.

Translated from Arabic by Elias Saber

President Bush's Speech On The Beginning Of War With Iraq


My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.

More than 35 countries are giving crucial support, from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all of the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you.

That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military.

In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military; a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon.

Million of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent.

For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people and you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others. And we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

 

I Sell New York


When Mayor Michael Bloomberg canceled the trip to London that he had scheduled for this week — the first stop on the "road show" to foreign business capitals in order to help sell New York to out-of-towners — he announced that he would wait "until international tensions subside." Yet, both Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff and Andrew Alper, the president of the city's Economic Development Corporation, went ahead with the trip, which includes plans to meet one-on-one with various business executives and wine and dine them in Bloomberg's London townhouse.

Even as international tensions convinced the mayor to stay home, local concerns seemed to have dictated that the show must go on. Indeed, it is precisely because a war with Iraq looms and the city is in an economic recession that city officials remain focused on promoting New York, to both businesses and tourists. To Bloomberg the businessman, New York City is a "luxury brand" with untapped potential - and the city had better do some tapping.

"We think that New York has enormous advantages over other places...but you have to tell people that," the mayor said. "Any company that has a brand name that they've tried to promote and maintain...can tell you [it] is a nonstop, constant, expensive proposition."

And an anxiety-ridden one. Officials were alarmed by the four-day musicians' strike last week, which temporarily dropped the curtain on 17 of the 18 musicals running on Broadway. Their concern was not just because of the millions of dollars of lost income, but because it threatened to undermine the brand. "It's...the negative image that this sends about New York City," Cristyne L. Nicholas, president of the city's tourism office NYC & Company, told the Times. "What we've learned with tourism is there are other cities that are competing for our business. They have bigger budgets and better means to compete... I don't think we can take this lightly."

To promote the product known as New York, Mayor Bloomberg has taken several steps since coming into office. Besides the road show, these include staging pep rallies, hiring the former head of the Miss Universe pageants, even planning to license the NYC brand for an official line of doodads.

Will treating New York like Coca-Cola improve the city's economic health, or even its morale?

"Will it have a significant economic impact?" asks Kathryn Wylde, head of the New York City Partnership, the city's largest business group. "That depends on how successful the program is."

THE HISTORY OF SELF-PROMOTION

This is not the first time a New York mayor during hard times has attempted to boost the city's spirits (and its revenue) by marketing (and spinning) its image. In 1966, during a debilitating transit strike, Mayor John Lindsay made the off-hand comment, "I still think the city is fun." Dick Schaap, a columnist for The New York Herald Tribune, picked up on the comment and coined the expression, "Fun City." The mayor soon adopted the phrase as a slogan to promote the city's theaters, museums and many cultural "happenings." But as racial divisions, strikes and the political upheaval of the day marred his administration, the term soon took on a derisive tone, and the mayor's efforts backfired.

When Mayor David Dinkins toured Europe in 1992 on a road show similar to the one that Bloomberg has now planned, the trip was deemed a publicity failure — even though it eventually resulted in the creation of a small number of jobs. "It had an air of desperation about it," said Steve Malanga, who covered the trip as a reporter for Crain's New York Business. "City officials spent most of their time answering questions about crime. It only reanimated a discussion that was already in the back of people's minds." Now with the Manhattan Institute, Malanga remains skeptical about such campaigns. "This is the kind of stuff that matters on the margins. What matters most is making sure the city itself remains as attractive as possible. And if that happens the rest of the world and the media will do the work for you."

The most successful effort to "brand" the city came during the final moments of the city's fiscal crisis in the 1970's. Crime was rampant and, then as now, the city's coffers were empty. Businesses (and their employees) were leaving the city in droves. Fear permeated perceptions of the city, and tourism was suffering. The city had lost much of its glamorous allure, and the State of New York turned to Madison Avenue for help. The state commissioned the ad agency Well, Rich and Greene and graphic artist Milton Glaser to develop a campaign, and the "I love NY" slogan was born. Its goal: to promote tourism.

Launched in 1977, the "I love NY" design became one of the most recognizable logos of any city in the world. The campaign was so successful it was plastered on everything from coffee mugs, to buttons, to bumper stickers. John Lennon and other boldfaced names have all been famously photographed wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, and the state still sells official "I Love NY" merchandise today.

After the twin towers fell in 2001 Glaser revamped the logo, so that it read, "I love NY more than ever," the heart blackened ever-so-subtly in the bottom left-hand corner. Then in December, the graphic artist suggested yet another slogan: "Together for the City We Love."

But the city and state, which had bought Glaser's original logo, did not buy into his revisions. They are sticking with "I Love NY."

The mayor is focusing on ways to spread that love around.

MAYOR MARKETER

In his State of the City address in January, Mayor Bloomberg announced plans to hire a "chief marketing officer" for the city. "New York is the best-known city on the planet," he said. "Yet, as a city, we've never taken direct, coordinated custody of our image."

According to Doctoroff, this person's primary responsibility will be to seek out sponsorship, merchandising and other revenue-generating opportunities for the city. Programs could range from creating a line of New York City licensed products to partnering with corporations interested in becoming official sponsors of the city.

A preview of the kind of commercial quid-pro-quo the city seems to have in mind took place last fall, when the city played official host to the National Football League's "Kick Off" rally in Times Square. In return, the league donated time on its television network and sponsored an ad campaign aimed at attracting tourists to the city.

The mayor has also assembled a team of business leaders to help the city encourage investment, attract jobs and expand tourism. The task force, which is set to meet for the first time later this month, includes Kathryn Wylde of the Partnership for New York, and such advertising luminaries as Rochelle Lazarus, head of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Mike Dolan, head of Young & Rubicam, Inc.

And Mayor Bloomberg has created a "permanent host committee" to help the city woo major events (such as the national political conventions and the Olympics), and put Maureen Reidy in charge of it. "We want to secure the biggest deals to bring the best events to the greatest city in the world," Reidy told The Sun, with a breathlessness one might expect from the former president of the Miss Universe pageants. "There's nothing I would rather do than be showing people how great New York is."

Prior to the committee's formation, the city established ad hoc committees and had to "reinvent the wheel" each time it bid on an event, according to Jonathan Tisch, chairman of NYC & Company and co-chair of the new permanent committee. "We would have to set up an office, set up a fundraising operation, find people to do a million different things," he told the Sun. "Now there will already be a mechanism in place."

SUCCESS?

Will the city's efforts pay off?

The Bloomberg administration can already point to some successes. The city has been designated the U.S. candidate for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games (after the staging of a fake ticker tape parade to show the Olympic committee how enthusiastic New Yorkers can be). It also has captured both the 2004 Republican National Convention and the 2003 WNBA All-Star game. It is bidding with confidence on the 2008 and 2011 Super Bowls as well.

When the Grammy's returned to the city this year after a five-year absence, city officials were quick to cite the $40 million worth of economic activity it generated — as well as the publicity (including an appearance by Bloomberg to plug "the greatest city on earth" on national television.) The city estimates that the 2004 Republican National Convention will generate another $150 million in direct economic activity.

But critics are asking a larger question: How does one define success? To put it less cosmically: Will these successes translate over the long-term into clear-cut benefits for the city? There is already a sharp debate over whether the benefits of bringing the Olympics to New York will outweigh the costs.

Others see the administration's plan to sell the city's "brand," especially the corporate sponsorships, as potentially damaging to the city's image, and by extension, ultimately its economy. If it allowed the Brooklyn Bridge, say, to become the Starbucks Brooklyn Bridge, "New York could be the butt of jokes across the country," said Gary Ruskin, head of Commercial Alert, a national organization dedicated to keeping advertising out of the public sphere. "Does any company want to locate to a city that is the butt of jokes?"

And some economists question the effectiveness of an international road show. International networking, while a good idea as part of a more comprehensive strategy, according to James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute, is unlikely to attract by itself the kinds of small businesses that employ nearly half of the city's private-sector workers.

The critique by Emanuel Tobier, a professor of economics at New York University, is more fundamental: "A product as diverse as New York City," he said, "can't be couched in a marketing campaign."

COMPETITION

But the supporters of the mayor's efforts believe they are all worth trying. To them, the situation is urgent. Times are tough, and the competition is tougher.

As the mayor said in the State of the City, "New York is in a fierce, worldwide competition; our strategy must be to hone our competitive advantages. We must offer the best product — and sell it, forcefully."

The competition is in many arenas.

The City of Las Vegas, with a population of just over a million people, spends $191 million a year marketing itself. The State of Illinois spends over $91 million a year in promotion — and that doesn't include money spent by the city of Chicago. By contrast, NYC & Company has a budget of $14.5 million, which may explain why most of the mayor's marketing initiatives rely less on advertising, and more on forging alliances with the private sector and behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Cities like Tampa, Atlanta and Kansas City all have more aggressive marketing machines in place, according to Dennis J. Donovan, the director of a New Jersey-based consulting company that has helped such companies as Federal Express relocate. But it is not just American cities that New York must compete with, Donovan says; companies are as likely these days to move their corporate headquarters to foreign financial centers like London and Brussels.

In an index of the most livable cities of the world New York's ranking is an embarrassing 44, behind San Francisco (20), Sydney (5), and the index's most livable city, Zurich.

Even as a cultural mecca, New York is not what it once was. New York magazine profiled artists and others who had skipped town for Berlin's low rents, chic galleries, and hip-cheap restaurants. Austin, Seattle, and Detroit all have thriving underground music scenes; fashionistas flock to places like Antwerp, Belgium, according to Newsweek; even post-war Kabul has a thriving film industry.

But the city's boosters can take heart that many out-of-towners still apparently subscribe to an old adage about the city. Last year, New York was named Conde Nast Traveler Magazine's "Hot City" and received Travel & Leisure magazine's award for "World's Best North American City." In reviews of travel destinations on the comparative shopping site, Epinions, New York gets an overall rating of 5 stars, compared to a measly 4 stars for Los Angeles. In other words, whether or not they want to live here, New York remains a nice place to visit.

 

The New York City Council And War


Last week, the City Council debated and passed Resolution 549-A calling on the United States to go to war with Iraq only as a last resort. The council, which usually votes unanimously, was divided - the measure passed with 30 "yes" and 18 "no" votes. (For a list of how each council member voted, click here.)

It is not unusual for the City Council to delve into foreign affairs. In the last year, the City Council has introduced over 600 resolutions - including calling on the United States Navy to stop test bombing in Vieques, urging an "even-handed policy in the Middle East," condemning "terrorist attacks against civilians in Israel," and giving official recognition of Filipino-American World War II veterans. (Read the article "New York's Foreign Policy" for why city officials think globally when they legislate locally.)

However, it is unusual for the City Council to spend so much time debating an issue, particularly one that is out of its control. Decisions of whether to cut recycling programs, ban smoking in public places, or raise the property taxes did not generate anywhere near such heated public debate.

Some council members argued that the council should instead focus on local issues like the fiscal crisis, education, and housing. "We have spent more time and more energy, both publicly and privately, on this issue than we did on the property tax vote," said Councilmember James Oddo.

But others argued that because New York City is an international city - home to the United Nations, the media, and millions of recent immigrants, that foreign affairs is a local issue. "Whether we like it or not - and most of us do like it - we live in the capital of the world," said Councilmember Phil Reed.

And for some, the location of City Hall just blocks from Ground Zero, made the debate not only relevant, but personal. "I don't want to be back here in six months, naming streets for dead New Yorkers because our country did nothing," said Councilmember Lewis Fidler.

Here are some excerpts from the City Council debate.

 

"WORK FOR PEACE" - Bill Perkins (Primary sponsor of the bill)

...On April 4, thirty-six years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made an historic speech right here in New York at Riverside Church deploring the war in Vietnam. King's sentiment at that time was that the war abroad was crippling our domestic agenda and could not be more salient than what is going on with us today.

With our local and national economy in peril, a war in Iraq will drain urgently needed resources from our cities, our suburbs, and our small towns. We can not afford to engage in such costly diversions. Not to mention the recent polls reflecting enormous concern on the part of New Yorkers for new acts of terrorism if the war begins with Iraq. And there is the human cost of war. I know that I am not alone when I pray that our troops will not be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. Let us not forget that those who declare war are usually not those who have to fight it...

 

"NO MORE STREET NAMES FOR DEAD NEW YORKERS" - Lewis Fidler

...We know that in any war innocent men, women, and innocent civilians die. But we have to remember why we are here.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein violated the terms of a peace resolution that was necessitated because they invaded a sovereign neighbor. And during the course of that invasion, they launched missiles at a sovereign neighbor with whom they were not at war. They have gassed and oppressed minorities in their own country. Not to mention how they treat their women. They have given support and assistance to the exportation of terrorism around the world. And in all probability are sitting on a stockpile of dangerous nuclear, chemical, and germ weapons.

History reminds of what happens when the world does nothing, when a madman and imperialist rolls his tanks into a neighboring country. I am sure that Prime Minister Tony Blair, for whom I have the greatest respect, won't make the mistake Neville Chamberlain made in thinking that appeasement was necessarily buying peace in our time. And I am certainly not going to wait for Jacque Chirac's permission to defend myself.

We are sitting today in what should be the shadows of the World Trade Center. I don't want to be back here in six months, naming streets for dead New Yorkers because our country did nothing.

 

"LET THE HAWKS SEND THEIR KIDS" - James Sanders, Jr.

...I am no bleeding-heart liberal. I am a former U.S. Marine Corp grunt, front-line trooper. That means the ones who actually do the fighting. My godson and my nephew are in the Gulf right now awaiting the call to war.

...I am not against all war. World War II was a just war. The battle to find Bin Laden is a just battle. But I am reminded of what Congressman Charles Rangel said a couple of days ago - that we need a draft to give the opportunity to defend our country to all of the American people. Not just the working class and the poor stiffs who have to get out there, but all American people.

...I am kind of nervous when the war hawks (or are they chicken hawks?) have other people's children go forward. I will be more convinced of this when our federal officials - those who beat the drums of war the loudest - have their children sign up first...

 

"CITY POLICY, NOT FOREIGN POLICY" - James Oddo

...I am opposed to this resolution on the merits and because of the process.

My opposition on the merits can be summed up best in the words of Winston Churchill when he said, "An appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."

I am opposed to the process because we are the City Council, not the Security Council... I have said time and time again that I think this body spends way too much time on issues outside of our immediate jurisdiction. I think we need to shed the criticisms of this body. We should not be focusing on street name changes and we should not be focusing on things outside of what our constituents elected us to do.

We have an incredible fiscal situation in this city, we have a high unemployment rate, we have welfare, and we have an education system that is being revolutionized. We have spent more time and more energy, both publicly and privately, on this issue than we did on the property tax vote. Those are the issues we were elected to talk about, not foreign affairs...

 

"A MIDDLE AND PROPER COURSE" - G. Oliver Koppell

...This is not an anti-war or a pro-war resolution. It is a resolution that says killing people should always be a last resort... It councils a middle course, a proper course, a course that both rejects Saddam Hussein and says give peace a chance whenever a chance remains...

 

"WE ARE NOT PREPARED FOR THE NEXT ATTACK" - Yvette Clarke

...Our first line of defense - not just our Army, our Navy and our Air Force - but our local first line - police, fire, and emergency medical services must be taken care of first. Before we go off to other nations to liberate their people, New York City is not prepared for its next terrorist attack. If we are not safe on Wall Street, we are not safe on Main Street.

...If we are going to be looking for a fight, let's fight poverty here in New York City. Let's fight firehouse closures here in New York City. Let's fight racism and sexism. Mr. Bush, get your house in order before you go and burn down someone else's...

 

"ABOLISH THESE RESOLUTIONS" - Simcha Felder

...City Council resolutions are meant to project "a sense of the body." It makes no sense for the City Council to involve itself in international resolutions that have no real impact. No matter what the issue - these resolutions should be abolished...

 

"STAND BY BUSH" - Allan Jennings

...I want you to know that right now in Kuwait City, there is a camp called Camp New York, where men and women in uniform are there fighting for our freedom and for our democracy. We should stand behind our troops. As leaders and elected officials, we must stand behind our President as good Americans...

 

"THE TIME IS NOT NOW" - Gifford Miller

...I will not surrender to any country or to anyone outside of this country our right to determine our own foreign policy. But neither will I surrender my responsibility as an American citizen, as an elected official to speak out about what I think is the right conduct for our country. And I certainly won't surrender my responsibility to think strategically about this subject...

 

"SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" - Michael Mcmahon

...As nearly 300,000 American service men and women sit in the very real dangers of a theater of war, I do not believe that the New York City Council should be conducting national security policy.

...You can hear it in the debate this afternoon, we are not even sure what the message of this resolution is. But I am sure that the men and women in uniform that sit in harms way will only see it in one way...

 

"NYC IS AT RISK" - Helen Sears

...Three months ago, I would have voted for this resolution. Not because the U.S. should not use its military if called for, but because the case for war had not yet been made. I have discussed this issue with my colleagues in past weeks. I have come to the conclusion that the case has been made. New York City, as the world's premier international city, is at great risk...

 

"THE COST OF INACTION IS TOO GREAT" - Peter Vallone, Jr.

...Just blocks from the Ground Zero, we debate whether we have the ability to defend ourselves from terrorists and we debate the financial costs of a war. What is the cost of 3,000 lives? In the next attack, when we lose 10,000 people, will that justify the cost?

New York City was attacked by terrorists. Saddam Hussein supports terrorists. He is a terrorist. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has used them on his own people. The risks of inaction are too great. If we don't disarm Saddam now, we won't have enough streets to name after the victims.

 

"DON'T USE 9/11 AS AN EXCUSE" - Charles Barron

...We are sending a message to the president today, at least I am, I'm not going to speak for everybody, that you can no longer use 9/11 as an excuse for war. There is no linkage of Saddam Hussein to 9/11. There is no linkage of Saddam Hussein to Al Aqaeda...

 

"GO TO GROUND ZERO" - Andrew Lanza

...I suggest that you take a walk down the street and take a long, hard look at that gaping hole in the ground, at that gaping hole in our lives...

 

"CAPITAL OF THE WORLD" - Phil Reed

...Whether we like it or not - and most of us do like it - we live in the capital of the world. And the challenge for us is to balance the democracy that our constituents ask for as well as to be a representational body as an experiment that proves to the world that democracy works...

 

Other Links:

 

Transcript of President Bush's Speech on Iraq


My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.

It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me as commander of chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.

America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.

One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's longstanding demands. Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.

Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.

The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq so that disarmament can proceed peacefully.

He has thus far refused.

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

For their own safety, all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.

I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.

Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.

If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end.

In desperation, he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible.

And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.

In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services.

Among other measures, I have directed additional security at our airports and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail.

No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people, yet we are not a fragile people. And we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.

If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.

With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war.

In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.

And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.

Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose.

Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.





New York City Council STATED MEETING - MARCH 12, 2003


New York City Council Stated Meeting Report

Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting, where the 51 members of the council introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of what bills were passed.

STATED MEETING - MARCH 12, 2003

Quote of the Day:
"We have spent more time and more energy, both publicly and privately, on this issue than we did on the property tax vote. Those are the issues we were elected to talk about, not foreign affairs."
Republican City Councilmember James Oddo on the City Council's anti-war resolution.

Meeting Summary:
On March 12, New York City joined some 125 other cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kalamazoo in passing a resolution urging restraint in a possible war with Iraq.

After significant revisions to the initial resolution and lengthy debate, the New York City Council passed its resolution with 30 "yes" and 18 "no" votes. (For a list of who supported and opposed the resolution, see the list below).

The council's resolution (Res 549-A) opposes a pre-emptive military attack unless it can be demonstrated that "Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States" or unless all other options of achieving compliance with United Nations resolutions have failed.

The resolution also calls on the United States government to:

  • make all efforts to work with the United Nations Security Council
  • take appropriate steps toward securing participation of other nations to ensure that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction
  • work with the United Nations and other countries to ensure access of weapons inspectors
  • ensure that inspectors be given a full and fair opportunity to conduct their work

 

The resolution changed significantly from its initial wording, which had sharp criticism for the Bush administration and warned of "devastating consequences" of a war.

The council members who usually vote unanimously on most legislation argued passionately on both sides of the issue.

"We are not being forced into war to protect ourselves," said Councilmember David Yassky, who supported the measure. "We can not push the rest of the world into democracy by ourselves."

"New York was attacked by terrorists," countered Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr. "Saddam Hussein supports terrorists. He is a terrorist. The risk of inaction is too great."

Some felt that the debate extended beyond the actual wording in the document. "This is not an anti-war or a pro-war resolution," said Bronx Councilmember G. Oliver Koppell. "It is a resolution that says killing people should always be a last resort."

Others argued that the resolution was meaningless and sent the wrong message to members of the U.S. armed forces. "It is evident from this debate that we are not even sure what the message of this resolution is," said Staten Island Councilmember Michael McMahon.

Other legislation was overshadowed by the debate over a possible war with Iraq.

The council unanimously approved a measure (Intro 102-A) requiring future New York City mayors to turn over their records to the city's Municipal Archives upon leaving office.

The legislation was inspired by the actions of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who removed more than 2,000 boxes of his mayoral records to a Queens warehouse before leaving office. However, Giuliani does not have to immediately turn over his records, an exception negotiated by the Bloomberg administration. Councilmember Bill Perkins, who drafted the legislation, promised that an oversight committee would ensure that all of the Giuliani records are eventually returned to the city.

The council also passed several resolutions urging the State Legislature to preserve rent regulation. These measures were largely symbolic since the City Council does not have the power to change rent laws on its own.

The first measure (Res 690/Intro 367) fulfills the City Council's portion of the legislative process to extend rent regulations. The second (Res 691) calls on Albany to repeal the Urstadt law, which prevents New York City from passing rent laws that supercede state laws. The third resolution (Res 692) supports the State Assembly, which recently passed its rent regulation measure, and urges the State Senate and the Governor to do the same.

The first resolutions were passed by a vote of 45 to 3; the three Republican council members James Oddo, Dennis Gallagher, and Andrew Lanza opposed them. The third passed by a vote of 44 to 4. The three Republicans, joined by Peter Vallone, Jr., voted against it.

The next stated meeting is scheduled for March 26.

CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON THE ANTI-WAR RESOLUTION 549-A

SUPPORT
Maria Baez
Charles Barron
Tracy Boyland
Gale Brewer
Yvette Clarke
Leroy Comrie
James E. Davis
Bill deBlasio
Erik Martin Dilan
Pedro Espada, Jr.
Alan Gerson
Eric Gioia
Sarah Gonzalez
Robert Jackson
G. Oliver Koppell
John Liu
Margarita Lopez
Miguel Martinez
Gifford Miller
Hiram Monserrate
Bill Perkins
Christine Quinn
Diana Reyna
James Sanders, Jr.
Larry Seabrook
Jose Serrano
Kendall Stewart
Albert Vann
David Yassky

OPPOSE
Joseph Addabbo
Anthony Avella
Simcha Felder
Lewis Fidler
Dennis Gallagher
James Gennaro
Allan Jennings
Melinda Katz
Andrew Lanza
Michael McMahon
Michael Nelson
James Oddo
Madeline Provenzano
Dominic Recchia
Joel Rivera
Helen Sears
David Weprin
Peter Vallone, Jr.

ABSENT
Helen Foster
Eva Moskowitz


 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years