Off Topic War Stuff Still hurts my heart Bill
- From: William Wagner <Nonsence_here_B2wagner@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:13:32 -0400
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=6963
compiled and edited
by Tom Engelhardt
Tomgram: Judith Coburn on the Unnamed Dead of Iraq
On July 23, 2003, not quite four months after Baghdad had been occupied
by American troops, Tomdispatch published a piece by Jack Miles, author
of the Pulitzer Prize winning book God: A Biography, entitled How Many
Iraqis Have We Killed? At that time, less than 100 Americans had died in
the "post-war" era in Iraq, while untold numbers of Iraqis were dying in
those same months. The Bush administration and the Pentagon were already
invested in not counting, or even acknowledging, Iraqi deaths, and the
media had already established a habit of leaving those deaths largely
unconsidered and unnamed. Miles suggested that "at stake was American
honor." He asked: "Will it be said -- years from now, perhaps even
months from now -- that in the first preemptive war in American history,
Americans did not ask and did not want to know how many Iraqis they had
killed and did not consider it their responsibility to so much as notify
the orphans, the widows, and the bereaved parents?"
The answer to that question has long been in and, as Judith Coburn, a
journalist who once covered the carnage of the Vietnam War, indicates
below, it's a sorry answer indeed. Back in that now-distant time, to
introduce Miles' piece, I wrote:
"Each day, for instance, a modest box labeled ?Names of the Dead' --
yesterday with five names: Bertoldie, Joel L, Garvey, Justin W, Jordan,
Jason D., Rozier, Jonathan D, and Whetstone, Mason Douglas -- is nestled
on the inside page devoted to Iraq stories in my hometown paper the New
York Times. Our casualties have, in fact, turned into a kind of
countdown -- or count up -- though to what still remains in question."
What our casualties were already a countdown to seems horrifically
clearer today, while the casualties of the people we claimed to be
liberating still remain largely missing in action.
Two years later, the latest "Names of the Dead" box at the bottom corner
of page 9 of Friday's Times notes: "The Department of Defense has
identified 1,752 American service members who have died since the start
of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American
yesterday. YAHUDAH, Benyahmin B. 24, Specialist, Army; Bogart, Ga.;
Third Infantry Division."
Benyahmin B. Yahudah was killed when a suicide bomber detonated his SUV
near a U.S. military vehicle surrounded by Iraqi children, many of whom
died in the blast. We are told in reports from Iraq that, in the last
few days, two Marines, whose names will in due course be included in one
of those boxed announcements, were killed when their vehicle struck an
IED near the Jordanian border, and seven Americans were wounded in a
string of suicide bomb blasts and explosions across the Baghdad area
which killed at least 29 Iraqis, many (but hardly all of them) policemen
and soldiers, and wounded perhaps another 104.
Of those Iraqis -- as opposed to the Londoners who died (or survived)
the recent subway and bus bombings -- there will be no stirring
portraits of stiff-upper-lip courage or of horror. Hardly even the odd
name. Not here anyway. In this country, there is something impersonal,
numbingly distant, and unreal about Iraqi deaths, even though the dead
Iraqis too had parents and relatives, friends and neighbors, husbands,
wives, or lovers, possibly children of their own.
When it comes to Iraqis, in fact, even the simplest official figures
have been hard to come by. As a result, the carnage we unleashed in the
now failed-state of Iraq in the wake of our invasion is hard even to
grasp. Based on rare figures for Iraqi deaths that Sabrina Tavernise of
the New York Times succeeded in getting the Iraqi Health Ministry to
release, Juan Cole recently concluded the following at his Informed
Comment blog:
"[The ministry officials] estimate about 8,000 [dead Iraqi civilians] in
the past 10 months, or 800 per month. This number appears not to include
persons killed by US military action. Even if the figure of 300,000 for
the number of civilian victims of the Baath regime [of Saddam Hussein]
is not an exaggeration, that would be over 37 years, or 8,000 per year.
That is, American Iraq is presiding over a civilian death rate greater
than the highest estimates per month per capita for that of the Baath
regime."
As he notes, even those figures are exceedingly partial, leaving out as
they do the deaths of Iraqi soldiers as well as those of Iraqis who have
died due to U.S. military action. Consider now Judith Coburn's in depth
look at just how we have treated Iraqi civilian deaths. Tom
Unnamed and Unnoticed
Iraqi Casualties
By Judith Coburn
How many Iraqis have died in our war in their country? Is there a better
symbol of how the war for Iraq has already been lost than our ignorance
about the cost of the war to Iraqis?
"Cost of the war": a clich to normalize the carnage, like the
anaesthetizing term "collateral damage" and that new semantic horror,
"torture lite." And yet the "cost of the war" report, by now a hackneyed
convention of American journalism, includes only American casualties --
no Iraqis -- itself a violation of the American mainstream media's own
professed commitment to "objectivity." Three years of "anniversary"
articles in the American media adding up the so-called "cost of the war"
in Iraq have focused exclusively on Americans killed, American dollars
spent, American hardware destroyed, with barely a mention of the Iraqi
dead as part of that "cost."
The dead are counted. But they are Americans. The names are named. But
they are Americans. The names and numbers of the dead are intoned aloud
or their photographs papered on media "walls" and they are always only
American.
Publishing or pronouncing the names of the American dead everyday
without ever mentioning the names of the Iraqi dead offers a powerful
message that only American dying matters. In Indochina, during the years
I covered that war, we counted but didn't name Americans. That wasn't
done until after the war was over. We never counted and never named the
Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao dead. Still today, though the estimates
run into the millions, there is no reliable count of how many
Indochinese died or were hurt in our war there. Not to mention El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, and the First Gulf War.
But there's no way to count, protest American journalists. What they
mean is that the Pentagon doesn't count for them - "We don't do counts,"
was the way General Tommy Franks put the matter during our Afghan war.
But Iraq Body Count (IBC) counts as does the Brookings Institute among
others. As of July 13, IBC estimated Iraqi civilian casualties to be
between 22,838 and 25,869, an extremely conservative number. (The range
between the two figures represents occasional discrepancies in the
number of civilian casualties reported by different media sources about
the same incident). So what journalists really mean is that only
Pentagon counting counts and that the prosecutor of the war is the only
"reliable" source on the magnitude of its own killing. Pentagon casualty
figures are rarely questioned. When anyone else counts, these figures
are given short shrift.
Who Counts
The alternative media, bloggers included, have seized on Gen. Franks'
words with outrage. But the fact is the Pentagon does count. It just
doesn't care to add those dead bodies up, let alone tell the American
public or the rest of the world how many dead Iraqis there have been or
how many more are being killed at this very moment. In Iraq, as in
Vietnam and the first Gulf war, every unit of the American military must
file "after action" reports about any "contact" with the enemy. Most of
these include injuries and deaths to civilians (even if these are often
counted as enemy-soldier deaths to cover them up, a practice the media
eventually exposed in Vietnam, but has not yet explored in Iraq). Also,
any injury or death of a suspected civilian is supposed to be reported
in a separate "incident" report. "We do keep records of innocent
civilians who are killed accidentally by coalition force soldiers,"
Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander for the First Armored
Division, told New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman last year.
"And, in fact, in every one of those innocent death situations, we
conduct internal investigations to determine what happened."
The military also has a compensation program for victims injured or
killed by American soldiers under the Foreign Claims Act. The bar for
qualifying for this program is absurdly high -- the victim must know and
be able to prove which specific military unit injured or killed her or
his relative, have a claim form filled out by that unit admitting its
responsibility, have two witnesses and produce copies of medical
reports, not to mention being willing in the first place to approach the
very forces who inflicted the suffering. Compensation is apparently
approved for only 50% of those who get up the nerve to file for it. But
the military does at least have figures on how many Iraqis have been
compensated, which it has refused to release, even to Vermont Senator
Patrick Leahy, who requested them. CNN, Newsday, the Associated Press,
and the Christian Science Monitor have managed to ferret out a partial
count: the Pentagon doled out $2.2 million to Iraqis between May, 2003
and February, 2004 with 5,700 out of 11,300 cases approved. (But since
such compensation includes damage to property and people wounded as well
as killed, this figure doesn't translate into numbers of civilian
casualties).
Under another American government program, the Iraqi War Victims Fund,
mandated by Congress and renamed for young aid worker Marla Ruzicka
after her death in a car-bomb attack in Baghdad, $2.4 billion in relief
and reconstruction funds will include compensation for Iraqi civilian
casualties. Once details are worked out of how the victims will be
found, there might be figures of some sort, should the Bush
administration deign to release them.
As for Iraq Body Count's methods, to be added to their count of
civilians killed, each civilian death must be reported by two separate
media sources from IBC's approved list of media websites and then
cross-checked by two different IBC staffers from the original compiler.
More important, IBC counts only civilian deaths inflicted by US-led
coalition forces, so civilians killed by suicide bombers, insurgent
attacks, or the increasing number of assassinations and kidnappings by
insurgents and others are not reflected in their totals. As a result,
the IBC figures certainly now greatly underestimate the actual toll of
the ongoing war on Iraqi civilians-- by far the highest "cost" of the
war.
Human Rights Watch reports that while coalition forces killed more Iraqi
civilians than the insurgents did in the early months of the war, now
insurgents are killing many more civilians than coalition forces. The
Education for Peace in Iraq project, a non profit group of antiwar Gulf
War veterans, Iraqis, and others, reports that insurgents are now
killing 15 times the number of civilians killed by coalition forces and
that the number of civilians killed by insurgents has doubled since the
first six months of 2004. Just last week, the New York Times front-paged
rare Iraqi Interior Ministry figures showing insurgents are now killing
an average of 800 Iraqi policemen and civilians a month.
It's hardly surprising that the Pentagon is loath to tell us how many
innocent Iraqis it has killed. It's a political issue. Early in the war,
the Iraqi Health Ministry ordered morgues and hospitals to count the
number of war dead and wounded coming in. They reported 1,764 civilians
killed in the summer of 2003. But the American occupation's Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) ordered them to stop counting. After the
interim Iraqi government took over, the Health Ministry tried again to
count but was ordered in October, 2004 by the new government of Prime
Minister Iyad Allawi to stop releasing the figures. Last week's Interior
Ministry figures, given to the Times at its request, are the first
official Iraqi counts to be released since then.
The lack of "official" figures, however, shouldn't absolve the media --
or Americans -- from their blindness to Iraqi suffering, since available
figures, incomplete as they are, are staggering for a guerrilla war.
Reliable sources have certainly done their best to count, sources like
IBC, Brookings, and the Iraqi and American epidemiologists who estimated
in a study published in the British medical journal the Lancet that
100,000 Iraqis might have died in the war by September, 2004.
These sources are admittedly critical of the war. But as such, are they
less "objective" than the Pentagon? The American media apparently thinks
so. Yet Iraq Body Count's figures are clearly conservative exactly
because they depend on media reports. Because it is now so dangerous for
journalists to travel outside Baghdad or even the capital's "Green Zone"
where Westerners huddle, many Iraqi deaths go unreported and are thus
uncounted by IBC. (Using hospital or morgue records also results in an
undercount since Iraqis often don't bring their dead, or near-dead, to
chronically overwhelmed, understaffed hospitals and morgues).
Ironically, IBC, once heralded as a brilliantly conceived breakthrough
in monitoring war casualties -- impossible without the Internet -- is
now an object of some dismay among anti-war activists because its
methodology inevitably leads to a casualty undercount.
"Collateral Damage" as a Collateral Story
Most of the American media have now had their one dutiful piece on IBC.
But is it such a radical idea for, say, the New York Times to have a box
next to its daily listing of Americans killed in Iraq with IBC's or
Brookings' Iraq Index count of how many Iraqis have been killed by
coalition forces? A header could explain the source, just as one now
cites the Pentagon as the source for Americans killed. Why, when Ted
Koppel read the names of the American dead on Nightline on the
anniversary of the war, couldn't he have added at least a few Iraqi
names to the list?
The politics of counting got thick the week before the American
presidential election when the Lancet, the British medical journal, put
on line a study by American and Iraqi epidemiologists comparing death
rates before and after the March 2003 invasion. The study estimated that
at least 100,000 Iraqis (and possibly many more) had died in the 18
months that followed the invasion of Iraq who would not have died had
the war not happened. Coalition air strikes were the largest cause of
violent death. The international media has generally misreported the
100,000 as estimated civilian deaths. But the study actually makes clear
that the 100,000 estimate includes all Iraqi dead -- police, soldiers
and insurgents as well as civilians. Last week, Swiss researchers
announced at a UN press conference that, using the data from the Lancet
study, they estimated that, out of the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqis,
39,000 were civilians who had been killed since the war began.
The Lancet study was based on interviews by a team of Iraqi scientists.
It made headlines in Europe but dropped like a stone in the U.S. (as did
the recent Swiss report). The study's lead American author Johns Hopkins
Professor of Public Health Les Roberts may have shot himself in the foot
by rushing the study out in the midst of 24/7 election coverage in the
U.S. He admitted to Lila Guterman of The Chronicle of Higher Education
that he was anti-Bush and hoped to swing votes away from the President.
Had the study been released after the election, however, in a more
sober, scientific way, the American media might still have buried it, as
it has the whole issue of civilian casualties. Only the Washington Post
took much notice. But the Post got Human Rights Watch military expert
Mark Garlasco on the record opining that the figure was way too high
(even though he hadn't read the report). Without the respected HWR
imprimatur, there was even more reason than election mania for the rest
of the American media to spike the report. Ironically, it may have been
the American media's own longstanding blindness to the suffering of
Iraqi civilians that made the 100,000 estimate seem too shockingly high
to be credible to American reporters and their editors.
Only the enterprising Lila Guterman followed up, interviewing other
epidemiologists around the country, who found the methodology and the
study itself to be sound. Guterman also underlined the incredible
bravery of the Iraqi scientists who risked their lives traveling
throughout Iraq -- even to radical Sunni strongholds like Fallujah -- to
interview Iraqis about how many of their families had been killed or
injured in the war. (What does it say about the mainstream media that --
except for the Associated Press and recently the New York Times --
crucial stories about Iraqi civilian casualties are being broken here by
publications like Editor and Publisher and the Chronicle of Higher
Education?)
Granted, it's impossible for any individual journalist in Iraq to count
how many Iraqi civilians have been hurt in the war. You'd have to visit
every battle site, every morgue, and every hospital every day -- in a
country where, for reporters, it's dangerous just to leave your hotel.
Then there is the problem of distinguishing who is a civilian and who is
an insurgent in a guerilla war where combatants don't wear uniforms. But
a few American journalists haven't taken that as an excuse not to try to
count as best they can. The Associated Press, under New York editor
Richard Pyle (AP'S longtime Saigon Bureau Chief during the Vietnam War),
was the first and only news organization to ask its reporters in Iraq to
try to count the civilian dead soon after the invasion. On June 11,
2003, AP reported that 3,240 Iraqis civilians had been killed up to that
moment in the war, based on a survey of 60 of Iraq's largest hospitals.
AP reporters, especially Niko Price, have stayed on the civilian
casualty story, continuing to monitor civilian casualties regularly,
reporting soaring casualties in hard fought battles like one for Hillah
or the siege of Fallujah last November where approximately 600 civilians
reportedly died.
AP broke the story of the CPA suppression of the Health Ministry's count
of civilian deaths, reported the huge increase in car bombs after the
handover of sovereignty and -- alone in the mainstream American media --
included Iraqi casualty figures as well as American ones in their
"anniversary" pieces about "the cost of the war." The New York Times --
especially reporter Sabrina Tavernise -- has recently stepped up
coverage of civilian casualties. One ingenious survey effort for the
Times, written by Norimitsu Onishi with reporting by the paper's Iraqi
staff (unnamed, perhaps for their safety) reported that in one week --
October 11-17, 2004 -- 208 Iraqis died, including policemen, civilians,
journalists, politicians and soldiers. (It did not include deaths in
Kurdish areas).The story pulled together sources from hospitals, the
Iraqi and American military, news sources and reporting by Iraqi
reporters for the Times.
But stories highlighting the magnitude of Iraqi suffering have been rare
indeed. A study by George Washington University researchers found that
American television coverage of the invasion of Iraq itself was
remarkably sanitized. Only 13.5% of the 1,710 TV news stories they
reviewed from the start of the war to the fall of Baghdad on April 9,
2003 included shots of wounded or dead Americans or Iraqis. Only 4%
showed any dead. One reason the war may seem so inconsequential to so
many Americans is that the casualties, as reported in the American
media, are almost exclusively American and so are relatively modest
(though hardly inconsequential, of course, to those who knew and cared
for the dead). "Collateral damage" has lived up to its name. Iraqi
casualties have been collateral to the story of the war told by most
American journalists -- just as they have been to the warmakers in
Washington and London.
War in Another Galaxy
Counting the dead, however, may not finally be the point. Numbers seldom
convey human suffering in a way that moves the distant onlooker. Most
coverage of Iraqi civilian casualties is anecdotal -- the daily carnage
of yet more suicide bombs, the daily photo of ripped-up cars and ripped
apart bodies. Unnamed victims, and all of them -- except rarely -- Iraqi.
While there has been some fine reporting out of Iraq by journalists like
the Washington Post's Anthony Shadid, there is no one in Iraq like
Gloria Emerson, the New York Times' prize-winning reporter in Vietnam,
with her boundless outrage against the war and her novelist's eye.
Emerson's war wasn't the "bang bang" (as she called it). She covered war
from the graveyards where Vietnamese mourned their dead and from the
streets where homeless kids hustled GIs and lepers held out their babies
for alms. Her story was how the Vietnamese got by day-by-day in the war,
simply how they could stand it. So far in Iraq there has been no Gloria
Emerson listening, as she did one night in Saigon, to her Vietnamese
interpreter Nguyen Ngoc Luong and his office mates recite from memory
verses from "The Tale of Kieu", Vietnam's great epic poem, their psychic
bulwark against the mayhem that was devouring their country. But that
kind of passionate identification with the people of a war-torn country,
that kind of -dare we call it personal -- journalism which might help
summon American empathy for the Iraqi victims of our war machine, isn't
in fashion these days. Media cool and caution rule in our culture of
fear.
There are photographs, even a few great war photographs, coming out of
Iraq. Peter Turnley's photo essay in Harper's, "The Bereaved," which
matched images of Iraqis and Americans mourning their dead is
magnificent. But this isn't Vietnam -- the first "television war," as
Michael Arlen so aptly named it. East Timor, Somalia, the first Gulf
War, Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya, Darfur, Congo... The list goes on and on.
By now, there have been so many TV wars, so many grisly scenes, that
they all blur together. Star Wars is so much more exciting anyway,
closer to home in the cineplex or on DVD, and it's all happening far
away in another galaxy. There's no military draft to concentrate kids'
and parents' attention. And it isn't the Sixties -- cynicism reigns
rather than the reach for freedom that led so many Americans then to
take on the powers that be. Should the war intrude? Follow the advice of
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, who, when asked about images of Iraqi civilians
killed by Americans on TV, recommended: "Change the channel."
Patterns of Brutality
Another part of the civilian casualty story neglected by our media
involves American military tactics that have inflicted unnecessary
suffering on civilians. The indispensable Human Rights Watch, which has
staff specialists in military affairs, has done two detailed research
reports on some of these patterns. The October, 2003 report Hearts and
Minds charged that American soldiers often used "indiscriminate force,"
especially at checkpoints after insurgent bombings, and also in raids on
civilian houses, causing many civilian casualties. Few of these injuries
to civilians are investigated by the military, HWR found. The report
pointed out that many checkpoints were manned and house searches
conducted by soldiers who had been trained for combat, not policing, and
called for more training in police techniques.
Although a December, 2003 HRW report, Off Target, found that "US-led
coalition forces took precautions to spare civilians," it decried the
use of cluster munitions (launched both from the air and the ground) by
the American military. These particularly vicious weapons, which pepper
victims with shrapnel so small that the shards shred flesh and are
impossible to remove, are being used in Iraqi cities. They can maim long
after their original use. The unexploded bomblets remain live and go
off, often in the hands of children. "Tens of thousands of duds" litter
Iraq -- as they still do Vietnam, Cambodia, and many other war-torn
countries -- the report charges. HRW reported that cluster bombs had
caused "at least hundreds of civilian casualties" by June, 2003.
Besides cluster munitions, a new and improved version of napalm, the
Vietnam War's other most grisly weapon, and its chemical cousin white
phosphorous, have been used by American forces in Iraq, a fact known to
few Americans because our media has barely reported on the subject. The
Pentagon has admitted that it used napalm near the Kuwaiti border during
the invasion, though the use seems to have been more widespread than the
Pentagon said. For instance, the Bush Administration reportedly lied to
its British allies about its use. (In Europe, the evident use of napalm
by the U.S. in its assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah last November
sparked headlines and furious opposition in the British Parliament.)
Almost nothing has been reported in the American media about bombing
operations in Iraq and especially the use of bunker-buster bombs to
target what the U.S. military calls "high value targets" or insurgent
leaders, who are often dug deep in heavily populated urban
neighborhoods. HWR's "Off Target" examined four such attacks and charged
that they caused "dozens of civilian casualties" while failing to kill
the targeted leaders. Six months after "Off Target" was released, a
front-page piece in the New York Times on such targeted attacks actually
quoted Human Rights Watch. But the piece focused on the spectacular
"zero success rate" of the leadership raids, not civilian casualties
caused by the bombing.
Such Human Rights Watch reports usually receive dutiful but cursory
one-time coverage in the American media. A few hundred words on page 14,
a few seconds on the evening news. Hardly the kind of media spotlight
that could turn Iraqi suffering into a burning issue for most Americans.
So far, these laudable reports haven't been able to change the nature of
the Iraq War story in the United States. The Faces of the Fallen, as the
Washington Post calls its daily count, remain American.
Still, a few million Americans in today's antiwar movement care how many
Iraqis are dying and are committed to honoring them. When the American
Friends Service Committee put its exhibit Eyes Wide Open on the road
with a pair of boots for every American soldier who has died in Iraq, it
also had a "Wall of Remembrance" with the names of more than 11,000
Iraqis who have died in the war. The Iraqis' names, as well as the
American ones, were read at ceremonies at the AFSC wall, the way
veterans read the names of the American -- but not the Indochinese --
dead at the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington.
While in the Capitol these days there may be no Sen. William Fulbright
(whose hearings on the Vietnam War galvanized official Washington),
there is some eloquence and even some action about Iraqi suffering from
a few politicians like West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, Massachusetts
Sen. Edward Kennedy, who also campaigned vigorously to help Vietnamese
war victims forty years ago, and Vermont's Sen. Patrick Leahy. As Leahy
reminded his colleagues in a speech on the Senate floor this May 10:
"More than 90% of the casualties in World War I were soldiers. That
changed in World War II and since then, it is overwhelmingly civilians
who suffer the casualties. Yet while rosters are kept of the fallen
soldiers, no official record is kept of the civilians. This is wrong. It
denies those victims the dignity of being counted, the respect of being
honored and it prevents their families from receiving the help they
need."
Journalist Judith Coburn has covered war and its aftermath in Indochina,
Central America, and the Middle East for the Village Voice, Pacifica
Radio, the Far Eastern Economic Review, Mother Jones, the Los Angeles
Times, the New York Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, among others.
Copyright 2005 Judith Coburn
Print this Post
E-mail to a Friend
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
posted July 17, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Pass It Along!
Use the "E-mail to a Friend" link at the bottom of each dispatch to
bring the underreported news and commentary found here to friends and
colleagues.
search
about
Tomdispatch.com is researched, written and edited by Tom Engelhardt
(bio), a fellow at the Nation Institute, for anyone in despair over
post-September 11th US mainstream media coverage of our world and
ourselves. The service is intended to introduce you to voices from
elsewhere (even when the elsewhere is here) who might offer a clearer
sense of how this imperial globe of ours actually works.
An editor in publishing for the last 25 years, Tom is the author of The
End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold
War era. He is at present consulting editor for Metropolitan Books, a
fellow of the Nation Institute, and a teaching fellow at the journalism
school of the University of California, Berkeley.
--
Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to
advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral,
ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This
material is distributed without profit.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The event... where they paid $1850 to hear Chung speak... The name, please
- Next by Date: Re: statins don't reduce dementia risk
- Previous by thread: Different BP Readings Sitting/Standing Lying in Bed
- Next by thread: Re: Off Topic War Stuff Still hurts my heart Bill
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
