TheHNIC's blog: "Interesting"

THIS IS WHY I HATE THE MEDIA.... WHY WOULD YOU REPORT SOMETHING LIKE THIS? TO START WIDESPREAD PANIC? REVEAL HOW WE ARE TRANSPORTING OUR NUKES !!!!!! AHOLES ---------------------------- WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states last week, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. Karen S. Doerr, The Advertiser / AP The six nuclear warheads were mounted onto pylons on the B-52 bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand. Here, another B-52 flies overhead Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama in May. The mistake was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force inquiry, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell. What's Your Take? He said Gates was assured that "the munitions were part of a routine transfer between the two bases and at all times they were in the custody and control of Air Force personnel and at no time was the public in danger." Rep. Ike Skelton , chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the mishandling of the weapons "deeply disturbing" and said the committee would press the military for details. Rep. Edward J. Markey , a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, said it was "absolutely inexcusable." "Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible," said Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House task force on nonproliferation. The plane was carrying advanced cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a Defense Department policy not to confirm information on nuclear weapons. The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand. According to the officials, the weapons are designed with multiple safety features that ensure the warheads don't accidentally detonate. Arming the weapons requires a number of stringent protocols and authentication codes that must be followed for detonation. And they are designed to withstand a significant impact, including an aircraft crash, without detonating. The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on Sept. 14 to review procedures, officials said. They said there was minimal risk to crews and the public because of safety features designed into the munitions. In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved with the mistaken load - including ground crew workers - have been temporarily decertified for handling munitions, one official said. The investigation is expected to take several weeks. The incident was first reported by Military Times newspaper group. "There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons," Skelton said in a statement Wednesday. "The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal." Skelton, D-Mo., said his committee will pursue answers on the classified matter "to ensure that the Air Force and the Department of Defense address this particular incident and strengthen controls more generally." Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. 2007-09-05 12:11:26

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Doris Moore was shocked when her new couch was delivered to her Toronto home with a label that used a racial slur to describe the dark brown shade of the upholstery. The situation was even more alarming for Moore because it was her 7-year-old daughter who pointed out "nigger brown" on the tag. "My daughter saw the label and she knew the color brown, but didn't know what the other word meant. She asked, 'Mommy, what color is that?' I was stunned. I didn't know what to say. I never thought that's how she'd learn of that word," Moore said. The mother complained to the furniture store, which blamed the supplier, who pointed to a computer problem as the source of the derogatory label Kingsoft Corp., a Chinese software company, acknowledged its translation program was at fault and said it was a regrettable error. "I know this is a very bad word," Huang Luoyi, a product manager for the Beijing-based company's translation software, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. He explained that when the Chinese characters for "dark brown" are typed into an older version of its Chinese-English translation software, the offensive description comes up. "We got the definition from a Chinese-English dictionary. We've been using the dictionary for 10 years. Maybe the dictionary was updated, but we probably didn't follow suit," he said. Moore, who is black, said Kingsoft's acknowledgment of a mistake does not make her feel better. "They should know what they are typing, even if it is a software error," she said. "In order for something to come into the country, don't they read it first? Doesn't the manufacturer? The supplier?" Romesh Vanaik, owner of Vanaik Furniture, where Moore bought the sofa, said it has been a best seller. He said he checked his stock but found no other couch with the offensive label. "It's amazing. I've been here since 1972 and I never knew the meaning of this word," said Vanaik, a native of India. His supplier, Paul Kumar of Cosmos Furniture in Toronto, denied responsibility and refused to give the name of the couch's Chinese manufacturer. "It's not my fault. It's not the manufacturers' fault," he said, adding that Kingsoft was to blame. Huang said Kingsoft has worked to correct the translation error. In the 2007 version, typing "dark brown" in Chinese does not produce the racial slur in English. But if the offensive term is typed in English, the Chinese translation is "dark brown," he said. Moore is consulting with a lawyer and wants compensation. Last week, she filed a report with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Commission spokeswoman Afroze Edwards said the case is in the initial stages and could take six months to two years to resolve. Moore, 30, has three young children, and said the issue has taken a toll on her family. "Something more has to be done. We don't just need a personal apology, but someone needs to own up to where these labels were made, and someone needs to apologize to all people of color," Moore said. "I had friends over from St. Lucia yesterday and they wouldn't sit on the couch." Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Column calls blacks "weak-willed" for being enslaved for 300 years • Asian petition: Column is irresponsible, hurtful, racist, replete with stereotypes • Petition: Cut ties with author, apologize, refute column in print, punish editors • Newspaper's editor at large calls decision to publish "a mistake" Adjust font size: Decrease fontDecrease font Enlarge fontEnlarge font ------------- SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Asian-American leaders are calling on a weekly newspaper to apologize and cut ties with a writer who penned a column titled "Why I Hate Blacks." In the piece, which appeared in the February 23 edition of San Francisco-based AsianWeek, contributor Kenneth Eng lists reasons why he supports discrimination against blacks, writing, among other things, "I would argue that blacks are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years." An official at the nationally circulated paper apologized and called the column's publication a mistake. Leaders at the Asian American Justice Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Coalition for Asian Pacific Americans and other groups are circulating a petition denouncing the piece as "irresponsible journalism, blatantly racist, replete with stereotypes, and deeply hurtful to African Americans." The petition calls on AsianWeek to cut ties with Eng, issue an apology, print an editorial refuting the column, and fire or demote the editors who published it. "Something like this should never have been printed," said Vincent Eng, deputy director of the Asian American Justice Center in Washington, who is not related to the columnist. "Deliberate action needs to be taken to make sure this type of hate speech doesn't continue." AsianWeek, with a circulation of 48,505, issued a statement apologizing for "any harm or hurt this has caused the African American community." The newspaper plans to hold a news conference with NAACP leaders in San Francisco on Wednesday to discuss how the Asian and black communities "can be different and yet get along and work together," said Ted Fang, the paper's editor at large. "The newspaper is sorry that this got published, and I am personally sorry that this got published," Fang told The Associated Press. "The views in that opinion piece do not in any way reflect the views of AsianWeek." The paper plans to review its policies to "understand how this happened and make sure it doesn't happen again," Fang said, calling the decision to publish Eng's piece a "mistake." Fang's family publishes AsianWeek, along with a local newspaper called the Independent, and owned the San Francisco Examiner between 2000 and 2004. AsianWeek calls itself "The Voice of Asian America." The column was among several written by Kenneth Eng, who has described himself as an "Asian Supremacist." Previous columns have been titled "Proof That Whites Inherently Hate Us" and "Why I Hate Asians." A telephone listing for Eng could not be located. Sophie Maxwell, one of the city's top black officials and a member of the city's board of supervisors, said she doesn't believe Eng's column will hurt relations between blacks and Asians in San Francisco. She has co-sponsored a city resolution condemning the article and AsianWeek's decision to publish it. "This man clearly is very ignorant of African-American history and his own history, and he's very angry," said Maxwell, who represents a district with large black and Asian populations. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. - An Air Force officer was found guilty Tuesday of raping four men and attempting to rape two others. A nine-member military jury deliberated for about seven hours in Capt. Devery L. Taylor's court-martial. Taylor gave no reaction upon hearing the verdict. Taylor, a medic and the former chief of patient administration at Eglin Regional Hospital, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing was to begin Wednesday. "I am pleased. I am emotional, but I am very, very pleased," said Maj. Kathleen Reder, a military prosecutor. "These men can sit up a little straighter now, I am proud of them," she said of the six victims who testified. Martin Regan, Taylor's civilian defense attorney, declined to comment before sentencing. Military prosecutors described Taylor, 38, as a serial rapist who met men in bars, spiked their drinks with the "date-rape" drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, and kidnapped them. Taylor was charged with two counts of attempted sodomy, four counts of forcible sodomy, two counts of kidnapping and one count of unlawful entry. Taylor testified that he had consensual sex with five of the men and that the sixth, who is openly gay, raped him. Regan said the men lied to protect their military careers. Four of the men were in the military when they met Taylor, and a fifth wanted to join the Navy and feared being identified as gay, Regan said. Regan said Taylor's only crime was being gay in the military and violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans people who are openly homosexual from serving in the armed forces. and everyone wonders y people in the military don't want gender impaired folks

Some UCMJ rules now cover U.S. contractors By William Matthews Staff Writer During an argument, a U.S. civilian contractor utters a few unprintable words to a U.S. military officer. Under newly revised U.S. law, the contractor may be court-martialed. The same new rules may apply to contractors who drink alcohol or possess pornography in countries where it is forbidden, commit adultery or fraternize — the military’s term for having improper relationships. A five-word revision of the U.S. legal code, passed virtually unnoticed by Congress last fall, would make U.S. civilians working for the U.S. military in Iraq, Afghanistan or other “contingency operations” subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Before the revision, contractors were governed by the UCMJ only in times of declared wars. The change was intended to close a legal loophole that has enabled contract personnel to escape punishment for violating the law, said Peter Singer, a military scholar at the Brookings Institution. But a result may be that contractors now can be punished for actions not ordinarily prosecutable under U.S. law, said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, an organization that represents government contractors. The legal change is the work of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said it would “give military commanders a more fair and efficient means of discipline on the battlefield” by placing “civilian contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the field under court-martial jurisdiction during contingency operations as well as in times of declared war.” The new law appears to impose the UCMJ — the military’s “code of behavior” — on contractors working for the U.S. military in contingency operations, Soloway said. The UCMJ’s “behavioral requirements are very different and potentially in conflict with contract law and criminal law,” Soloway said. New Reasons To Prosecute Civilian contractors now might be punished for disrespecting an officer, disregarding an order or committing adultery — actions that are not prosecutable under U.S. law, Soloway said. “If a general or colonel directs a contractor or government civilian to do something that is outside terms of contract, under U.S. procurement law, the contractor does not do it without authority from the contracting officer,” Soloway said. But under the UCMJ, “that might be failure to follow an order.” Singer, who has studied the use of civilian contractors in contemporary wars, called Graham’s amendment “long overdue.” Without the new law, “whenever our military officers came across episodes of suspected contractor crimes in missions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan, they had no tools to resolve them,” he said. Alleged contractor misdeeds range from theft and fraud to mistreatment of prisoners, operating sex rings, rape and murder. But according to Singer, contractors are almost never prosecuted. Contractors have escaped through a legal gap, he said. They were not covered by the UCMJ, and while they are subject to local laws, often, as in Iraq, there is no functioning legal system to prosecute criminal activity. Soloway said U.S. contractors are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). “If you are working under a DoD contract at a U.S. military facility and you commit a crime, that is considered a crime in the United States and you can be prosecuted under U.S. law,” he said. But Singer said, “the reality of MEJA is it has not been activated for Iraq.” Despite atrocities by contract interrogators and killings by contract security guards, no contractors have been prosecuted under MEJA, he said. “We have had contractors involved in all sorts of stuff, but the military has said there’s nothing we can do,” Singer said. “Many JAG [judge advocate general] officers and contracting officers have wanted this.” “For the longest time, there has been a legal vacuum and a lack of political will on part of the Bush administration and Congress to do anything about it,” he said. Concern that contract personnel will be prosecuted for disrespecting an officer, fraternization or other actions that are not violations of civilian law are probably exaggerated, Singer said. Although it has not been determined yet, it would be reasonable to prosecute civilians under the UCMJ for felony violations, but not for lesser offenses, he said. That is the level at which prosecution occurs under MEJA. Soloway agreed that “there needs to be a way that contractor and government employees can be prosecuted for criminal acts.” But the Professional Services Council would prefer to have MEJA expanded rather than have contractors subjected to the UCMJ. “We’re deeply concerned that the broad and arbitrary application of the UCMJ imposes a whole range of behavioral requirements” on contract employees, Soloway said. But Singer said for too long, contractors have taken advantage of “the unregulated marketplace.” If private individuals want to do military jobs for profit in war zones on behalf of the U.S. government, then they should agree to fall under the same laws as U.S. soldiers, he said. “If a contractor doesn’t agree to those regulations, that’s fine, don’t contract,” he said. • E-mail: bmatthews@defensenews.com.

Conscientious Rejector? *** Shoot this SOB *** First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday. By the Hot Zone Team, Tue Jan 2, 6:38 PM ET Email Story IM Story First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal. Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion. He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison. First Lt. Ehren Watada Photo courtesy: Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas. Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions. Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii. Click here to listen to the full audio version of the conversation. A transcript of the interview follows. KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this? EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat. Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq. SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion? WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link. And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear." SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point? WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government. SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war? WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power. SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"? WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers. SITES: At what point was that? WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq, that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here." "I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."— Lt. Ehren Watada SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision? WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us. SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq? WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people. SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers: never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that? WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered. There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest. SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war? WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence. SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct? WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable. SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot. WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year. Lt. Watada with his mother, Carolyn Ho, and father, Robert Watada Photo courtesy: Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that? WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons. You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq." And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that. SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote? WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end. It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful. SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision? WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand. SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there? WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support. SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial. WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances. STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision? WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today. I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that. SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well? WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea, and Vietnam, volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power. STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that? WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late.

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- James Brown, the dynamic, pompadoured "Godfather of Soul," whose rasping vocals and revolutionary rhythms made him a founder of rap, funk and disco as well, died early Monday, his agent said. He was 73. Brown was hospitalized with pneumonia at Emory Crawford Long Hospital on Sunday and died around 1:45 a.m. Monday, said his agent, Frank Copsidas of Intrigue Music. Longtime friend Charles Bobbit was by his side, he said. Copsidas said Brown's family was being notified of his death and that the cause was still uncertain. "We really don't know at this point what he died of," he said. Along with Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan and a handful of others, Brown was one of the major musical influences of the past 50 years. At least one generation idolized him, and sometimes openly copied him. His rapid-footed dancing inspired Mick Jagger and Michael Jackson among others. Songs such as David Bowie's "Fame," Prince's "Kiss," George Clinton's "Atomic Dog" and Sly and the Family Stone's "Sing a Simple Song" were clearly based on Brown's rhythms and vocal style. If Brown's claim to the invention of soul can be challenged by fans of Ray Charles and Sam Cooke, then his rights to the genres of rap, disco and funk are beyond question. He was to rhythm and dance music what Dylan was to lyrics: the unchallenged popular innovator. (Watch the "hardest working man in showbusiness.") "James presented obviously the best grooves," rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy once told The Associated Press. "To this day, there has been no one near as funky. No one's coming even close." His hit singles include such classics as "Out of Sight," "(Get Up I Feel Like Being a) Sex Machine," "I Got You (I Feel Good)" and "Say It Out Loud -- I'm Black and I'm Proud," a landmark 1968 statement of racial pride. "I clearly remember we were calling ourselves colored, and after the song, we were calling ourselves black," Brown said in a 2003 Associated Press interview. "The song showed even people to that day that lyrics and music and a song can change society." He won a Grammy award for lifetime achievement in 1992, as well as Grammys in 1965 for "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" (best R&B recording) and for "Living In America" in 1987 (best R&B vocal performance, male.) He was one of the initial artists inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986, along with Presley, Chuck Berry and other founding fathers. He triumphed despite an often unhappy personal life. Brown, who lived in Beech Island near the Georgia line, spent more than two years in a South Carolina prison for aggravated assault and failing to stop for a police officer. After his release on in 1991, Brown said he wanted to "try to straighten out" rock music. From the 1950s, when Brown had his first R&B hit, "Please, Please, Please" in 1956, through the mid-1970s, Brown went on a frenzy of cross-country tours, concerts and new songs. He earned the nickname "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business." With his tight pants, shimmering feet, eye makeup and outrageous hair, Brown set the stage for younger stars such as Michael Jackson and Prince. In 1986, he was inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And rap stars of recent years overwhelmingly have borrowed his lyrics with a digital technique called sampling. Brown's work has been replayed by the Fat Boys, Ice-T, Public Enemy and a host of other rappers. "The music out there is only as good as my last record," Brown joked in a 1989 interview with Rolling Stone magazine. "Disco is James Brown, hip-hop is James Brown, rap is James Brown; you know what I'm saying? You hear all the rappers, 90 percent of their music is me," he told the AP in 2003. Born in poverty in Barnwell, South Carolina, in 1933, he was abandoned as a 4-year-old to the care of relatives and friends and grew up on the streets of Augusta, Georgia, in an "ill-repute area," as he once called it. There he learned to wheel and deal. "I wanted to be somebody," Brown said. By the eighth grade in 1949, Brown had served 31/2 years in Alto Reform School near Toccoa, Ga., for breaking into cars. While there, he met Bobby Byrd, whose family took Brown into their home. Byrd also took Brown into his group, the Gospel Starlighters. Soon they changed their name to the Famous Flames and their style to hard R&B. In January 1956, King Records of Cincinnati signed the group, and four months later "Please, Please, Please" was in the R&B Top Ten. While most of Brown's life was glitz and glitter, he was plagued with charges of abusing drugs and alcohol and of hitting his third wife, Adrienne. In September 1988, Brown, high on PCP and carrying a shotgun, entered an insurance seminar next to his Augusta office. Police said he asked seminar participants if they were using his private restroom. Police chased Brown for a half-hour from Augusta into South Carolina and back to Georgia. The chase ended when police shot out the tires of his truck. Brown received a six-year prison sentence. He spent 15 months in a South Carolina prison and 10 months in a work release program before being paroled in February 1991. In 2003, the South Carolina parole board granted him a pardon for his crimes in that state. Soon after his release, Brown was on stage again with an audience that included millions of cable television viewers nationwide who watched the three-hour, pay-per-view concert at Wiltern Theatre in Los Angeles. Adrienne Brown died in 1996 in Los Angeles at age 47. She took PCP and several prescription drugs while she had a bad heart and was weak from cosmetic surgery two days earlier, the coroner said. More recently, he married his fourth wife, Tomi Raye Hynie, one of his backup singers. The couple had a son, James Jr. Two years later, Brown spent a week in a private Columbia hospital, recovering from what his agent said was dependency on painkillers. Brown's attorney, Albert "Buddy" Dallas, said singer was exhausted from six years of road shows. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Those who knew my father know that he prized honesty and was not given to embellishment - unless he was kidding or weaving an elaborate joke. His stories were either "true," because they actually happened, or "good," because they were shocking, bizarre, improbable. However, those who know him also know he made it difficult for others to distinguish between "true" and "good," in a couple of ways. First, Henry Lee was trickster-sly, handsome, adventurous and masterful. Second, he told all stories, "true" and "good," in the same offhand, matter-of-fact, unmodulated manner. The story you are about to read is my father's. He told it to me over light coffee and Dutch Masters cigars at a nursing home in Tampa, where he was patiently awaiting death. I preserve it here in the first person, and believe it to be both true and good. * * * The time was the Cuban Missile Crisis, October 22, 1962. We had just come to McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. I was supervising air traffic control, working the midnight shift in the RAPCON - Radar Approach Control - which tracked and guided airplanes by radar and conventional means. President Kennedy had issued the Cubans an ultimatum to remove all the Russian missiles or risk war. Because U.S. forces were on alert, all air traffic across the entire nation was terminated. There was not a plane in the sky. So, for one of the few times in my career, we turned on the RAPCON lights, and I decided that we would thoroughly clean the facility. Moving a radar console that had been butted flush with my desk, the supervisor's desk, I discovered a dust-encrusted red phone. Neither I nor anyone else on the shift had known it was there. I checked all the operating manuals. Nothing. So, thinking it must have been an old maintenance phone, I picked up the receiver. Not hearing a tone or vibration, I replaced it and resumed the cleaning. A few moments later an air traffic controller's voice came over the hotline from the tower, asking if I was aware of an Air Defense Command scramble. I said, "Negative." Immediately, the controller - Oglesby was his name - barked, "F-86's taking off, abort, abort!" on the emergency radio, a frequency that all aircraft are required to monitor. Two F-6 fighters had taxied out of their special Air Defense hangar onto the runway and had begun their takeoff roll, to attack predetermined targets in Cuba. The dirty red phone had automatically set off the claxon horn in the alert hangar, without signaling the RAPCON or the tower. I detailed everything in the shift log and advised the RAPCON officer in charge of the incident. At 8 a.m. I turned the RAPCON over to the next shift adviser with instructions, "Do not touch that phone." I went home and showered, shaved, put on a clean uniform and ate breakfast with your mother, awaiting the call I knew was coming. About 9 a.m., Colonel Tate, the commanding officer, called and told me to be present at a 10 a.m. meeting in the base commander's office. The meeting, attended by all the base officials connected with the alerting procedures, opened with a heated discussion of the false scramble. I explained the exact details of the night before, over and over again. After the situation sank in, they all sat stunned. How could such a foolproof and fail-safe operation allow an unauthorized scramble phone to exist? As you can imagine, the lines were dismantled that morning. In the next couple of days, the mystery of the phone was solved. About 10 years before, in the early '50s, Air Defense Command had worked closely with the regional air traffic control center in New York. The Air Defense Command would alert the center, which in turn would pass the information to the RAPCONs on the various bases. The RAPCONs would pick up the mystery telephone, and the claxon horns in the alert hangars would automatically sound, signaling the scramblers. The system was changed in the late '50s. The Air Defense Command determined to alert the New York center, which in turn alerted its contingents on the individual air bases scattered across the U.S. They disconnected all the alert phones. But one.

SPRINGTOWN, Texas — One teenager was killed and another was injured today when a crude oil storage tank exploded as the pair used a lit match to try to look into the tank, authorities said. Parker County Fire Marshal Shawn Scott said the two were exploring around a pair of tanks when the explosion occurred after the lid was raised and the lit match ignited vapors in the tank. The resulting fire spread to about four acres and a second tank. The explosion occurred late this afternoon. Fire in the tanks was being fed by gas flowing into the tanks. Crews were working to shut off the gas, but the fire was expected to burn through the night, Scott said. Parker County Judge Mark Riley said a shelter in place call went out for residents in about a two-mile area around the tanks. The warning was lifted a few hours later. EnCana officials reported the tank that exploded held 4,000 to 5,000 gallons of crude oil. The tank that caught fire after the initial explosion did not have much oil in it, Scott said.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The $13 per person "high tea" service and $12 bagel breaks will be gone from the January directors meeting of the government's legal aid program for the poor. And the meeting will be held at the headquarters conference room rather than the upscale hotel used in the past. After severe criticism from Congress, stinging reports from a financial watchdog and several articles by The Associated Press, the Legal Services Corp. has decided to temper the expensive tastes of its top officials while poor clients are turned away for lack of program funds. Internal memos, provided to the AP voluntarily by a Legal Services official, made clear there would be no more $70 lunches and $14 "Death By Chocolate" desserts at board meetings. Only in special circumstances would there be a repeat of hotel costs that shot through the government's room rate ceiling, limousine services and first-class air travel. The AP documented in August and September how the program's executives spent freely while the corporation's own study showed many poor Americans -- in need of legal help -- were being turned away at local clinics funded by the corporation. Special status Legal Services is financed with tax dollars but given special status as an independent, nonprofit corporation, meaning it did not have to follow government-wide expense guidelines. After the outcry over its spending, the program decided to rein itself in by voluntarily imposing the same expense limits that apply to federal workers. Three members of Congress expressed outrage at the extravagance: Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, and Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming. "It looks like the Legal Services Corporation learned its lesson," Grassley said in a statement. "I hope $14 cookies and limo rides around town are a thing of the past." Board chairman Frank Strickland, an Atlanta attorney, said in a letter to the lawmakers that the corporation board and top management have embraced the changes. $27 snack breaks LSC's chief administrative officer Charles Jeffress wrote in one memo, "During board meetings, only beverages will be provided ... no food will be provided for snack breaks." "Reasonably priced restaurants will be selected for board dinners," and guests of board members will be expected to pay, he explained. Corporation inspector general Kirt West, the agency's internal watchdog, reported that at the January 2006 board of directors meeting in Washington, snack breaks cost as much as $27 per person. The board also has ended a policy that allowed its members who dined together at meetings -- rather than alone -- to double their meal allowances. That policy has been dropped. The corporation board usually has four meetings a year, including one in Washington each January. The inspector general has concluded that holding the meeting in the corporation's own conference room could save thousands of dollars, compared to the nearby hotel used previously. Limos less common Jeffress said use of limousine services will be curtailed. "It's not going to be a common occurrence," he said. LSC President Helaine Barnett, board chairman Strickland and another board member have used limousine services. Strickland last April used a car and driver to take him and Barnett to meetings on Capitol Hill with lawmakers -- about a 15-minute ride from headquarters. The car and driver, which cost $423, also took them to Arlington National Cemetery for a funeral and to a separate memorial service, also in Arlington -- all short rides and accessible by taxi. Barnett, the corporation president, used a hired car and driver to attend a funeral service for a former board member in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, about a two-hour drive. The cost: $400. In a memo on travel policy, Jeffress wrote that first-class travel must follow restrictive government rules. The government allows first-class tickets under circumstances that include a lack of available coach seats; accommodations for disabilities; security needs; meeting urgent timetables; and flights outside the country that exceed 14 hours. Barnett flew first class to a conference in Ireland, at a cost the inspector general called unnecessary and excessive. Jeffress, in another memo, said the corporation adopted government hotel rate guidelines, which allow waivers only under limited circumstances, including escalated rates due to special events or natural disasters. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.