<html>
<body>
<h2><b>Bringing the War on Terrorism Home: Congress Considers How to
‘Disrupt’ Radical Movements in the United
States</b></h2><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/19/bringing-the-war-on-terrorism-home-congress-considers-who-to-%E2%80%98disrupt%E2%80%99-radical-movements-in-the-united-states/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/19/bringing-the-war-on-terrorism-home-congress-considers-who-to-%e2%80%98disrupt%e2%80%99-radical-movements-in-the-united-states/</a>
<br><br>
<br>
From the
<a href="http://www.indypendent.org/2007/11/19/bringing-the-war-on-terrorism-home-congress-considers-who-to-%e2%80%98disrupt%e2%80%99-radical-movements-in-the-united-states//?pagename=issue&issue=">
November 26, 2007</a> issue<br><br>
By Jessica Lee<br><br>
<b>Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of “homegrown
terrorism,” Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of
terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and
traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience,
according to civil liberties advocates, scholars and historians.<br><br>
</b>The proposed law, The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), was passed by the House of
Representative in a 404-6 vote Oct. 23. (The Senate is currently
considering a companion bill, S. 1959.) The act would establish a
“National Commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and
ideologically based violence” and a university-based “Center for
Excellence” to “examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent
radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in
the United States” in order to develop policy for “prevention, disruption
and mitigation.”<br><br>
Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based
groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from
political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to
radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill
will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a
decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil
liberties.<br><br>
David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s University who
studies government surveillance and harassment of dissident scholars,
says the bill “is a shot over the bow of environmental activists,
animal-rights activists, anti-globalization activists and scholars who
are working in the Middle East who have views that go against the
administration.” Price says some right-wing outfits such as gun clubs are
also threatened because “[they] would be looked at with suspicion under
the bill.”<br><br>
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), which has been organizing
against post-Sept. 11 legislative attacks on First Amendment rights, is
critical of the bill. “When you first look at this bill, it might seem
harmless because it is about the development of a commission to do a
study,” explained Hope Marston, a regional organizer with BORDC.<br><br>
“However, when you realize the focus of the study is ‘homegrown
terrorism,’ it raises red flags,” Marston said. “When you consider that
the government has wiretapped our phone calls and emails, spied on
religious and political groups and has done extensive data mining of our
daily records, it is worrisome of what might be done with the study. I am
concerned that there appears to be an inclination to study religious and
political groups to ultimately try to find subversion. This would violate
our First Amendment rights to free speech and freedoms of religion and
association.”<br><br>
One pressing concern is definitions contained in the bill. For example,
“violent radicalization” is defined as “the process of adopting or
promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating
ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social
change.”<br><br>
Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional
Rights Center, asks, “What is an extremist belief system? Who defines
this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much. … It is
criminalizing thought and ideology.”<br><br>
For her part, Marston takes issue with the definition of homegrown
terrorism. “It is about the ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of
force or violence to intimidate or coerce the government.’ This is often
the language that refers to political activity.”<br><br>
Congressional sponsors of the bill claim it is limited in scope.<br><br>
“Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the nation develop
a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism,
and the steps we can take to stop it,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Oct. 23, who co-authored the bill. “Free speech, espousing even very
radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution but violent behavior
is not.”<br><br>
The bill’s purpose goes beyond academic inquiry, however. In a press
release dated Nov. 6, Harman stated: “the National Commission [will]
propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals
turn violent.” (Harman’s office refused three separate requests by The
Indypendent for comment.)<br><br>
Some assert this would allow law enforcement agencies to target radicals
in general. Price says, “This bill is trying to bridge the gap between
those with radical dissenting views and those who engage in violent acts.
It’s a form of prior restraint.”<br><br>
Price explains how this may work, citing an example in his home town of
Olympia, Wash., where a peaceful blockade took place in early November at
the Port of Olympia to prevent the shipment of war materials between the
United States and Iraq. He says, “It will be these types of things that
will start getting defined as terrorism, including Quakers and indigenous
rights’ campaigns.”<br><br>
Kamau Franklin, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights
(CCR), is also concerned at the targeting of peaceful protests. He says
the “Commission’s broad mandate can lead to the ability to turn civil
disobedience, a form of protest that is centuries old, into a terrorist
act.” It’s possible, he says, “that someone who would have been charged
with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may
soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute.”<br><br>
“My biggest fear is that they [the commission] will call for some new
criminal penalties and federal crimes,” says Franklin. “Activists are
nervous about how the broad definitions could be used for criminalizing
civil disobedience and squashing the momentum of the left.”<br><br>
The bill provides a list of Congressional findings, including a failure
to understand the development and promotion of “violent radicalization,
homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence,” which is argued to
pose a threat to domestic security. The Internet was highlighted as a
tool in “providing access to broad and constant streams of
terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”<br><br>
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would cost $22
million over four years.<br><br>
<b>THE THREAT (OR LACK THEREOF)<br><br>
</b>Although the legislation is vague, a chief target appears to be
Islamic militants living in the United States. Harman, in her Nov. 6
press release, says the bill is needed to combat violent radicalization
and cites four cases as examples of such all of them involving Muslim
Americans allegedly engaged in terrorist activity. The bill’s language
also states that proposed appointees to the National Commission should
have “expertise and experience” in a long list of disciplines such as
“world religions.” But the only religion named is Islam.<br><br>
The bill appears to be influenced by the government-affiliated RAND
Corporation, whose website includes a letter from Harman noting, “RAND …
and I have worked closely for many years.” Harman, who chairs the House
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk
Assessment, introduced H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007.<br><br>
Two weeks prior to this, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered
testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s
subcommittee. Jenkins claimed “radicalization and recruiting are taking
place in the United States,” and listed a number of high-profile cases in
which Muslim Americans have been arrested on terrorism-related
charges.<br><br>
In his testimony, Jenkins admitted convictions in these cases in
Lackawanna, N.Y., Northern Virginia, New York City, Portland, Ore., and
elsewhere relied on charges being “interpreted broadly” by the
courts.<br><br>
There has been significant criticism of how government officials have
hyped many of these cases as mass terror attacks thwarted in the nick of
time despite a lack of any actual plans or means to commit a violent act
on the part of the defendants. It’s also been noted that in numerous
instances the government employed informants who goaded the suspects into
committing the illegal acts for which they were arrested.<br><br>
In June, Jenkins was back before Harman’s subcommittee discussing the
role of the National Commission. According to the <i>Congressional
Quarterly</i> website, Jenkins said, “[Homegrown terrorism] is the
principal threat that we face as a country and it will likely be the
principal threat that we face for decades.” The website stated, “Unless a
way of intervening in the radicalization process can be found, ‘we are
condemned to stepping on cockroaches one at a time,’ he added.”<br><br>
At the end of his second round of testimony, Jenkins undercut the claims
that there is any real danger requiring the creation of the National
Commission and Center for Excellence. He said, “Judging by the terrorist
conspiracies uncovered since 9/11, violent radicalization has yielded
very few recruits. Indeed, the level of terrorist activities in the
United States was much higher in the 1970s that it is today.” (Repeated
inquiries by <i>The Indypendent </i>to the RAND Corporation to interview
Jenkins or other staff analysts were turned down by the media relations
department, which claimed they were all unavailable for the rest of the
year.)<br><br>
This has the Arab-American community worried. “When you look at the
creation of the Commission, it is scary, especially when people [on the
national commission] will be appointed by the White House,” said Kareem
Shora, executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee (ADC). He pointed to the recess appointment, despite widespread
criticism, of Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, who,
Shora said, “propagated hate against Arabs.”<br><br>
Shora is worried H.R. 1955 will unfairly target Muslims, even though he
says they have been largely helpful in terrorist investigations since
Sept. 11. Despite the assistance, he says civil rights abuses continue to
occur, including “voluntary interviews,” the Absconder Apprehension
Initiative and the Special Registration Program.<br><br>
<b>MAPPING MUSLIMS<br><br>
</b>The passage of the H.R. 1955 coincided with a furor over the Los
Angeles Police Department’s plan to “map” Muslim communities in the city.
Appearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security on Oct.
30, Michael Downing, the assistant commanding officer of LAPD’s
Counter-terrorism/Criminal Intelligence Bureau, said the project “will
lay out the geographic locations of the many different Muslim population
groups around Los Angeles [and] take a deeper look at their history,
demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown, socio-economic status
and social interactions.”<br><br>
Shora says, “Looking at a community based on religious affiliation alone
… is unconstitutional. The ADC added in a press release that singling
“out individuals for investigation, surveillance, and data collection
based solely on religion … would violate equal protection and burden the
free exercise of religion.”<br><br>
Following the outcry, the LAPD announced Nov. 15 that it was dropping the
mapping plan. Opposition came from many quarters, including scholars,
because the LAPD envisioned using academics in the mapping program. It
reportedly intended “to have the data assembled by the University of
Southern California’s Center for Risk and Economic Analysis.” Recruiting
academics for counterterrorism efforts is also at the heart of H.R. 1955,
which proposes a university-based Center of Excellence.<br><br>
Roberto Gonzalez, an anthropologist who co-authored a recent article with
David Price criticizing the Pentagon’s use of scholars in the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, says the prospect of creating a Center “is a bad idea
because it is likely to compromise the intellectual integrity of the
academy.” H.R. 1955 advocates for the use of “cultural anthropologists,”
which concerns Price that they would “be doing secretive work for the
state.”<br><br>
Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the Boston-based Political Research
Associates, argues the government is trying to establish a Center to get
around legal prohibitions on gathering data specifically based on race
and religion. He explains that there is already extensive research being
done on the roots of political violence by scores of academics around the
country but many of their findings do not fit into the government’s
agenda. To Berlet, the proposed Center is nothing more than “a slush fund
for politically connected hacks.”<br><br>
<b>TARGET ‘ANTI-GLOBALISTS’<br><br>
</b>Islamic militants are not the only threat on the government’s
radar.<br><br>
“A chief problem is radical forms of Islam, but we’re not only studying
radical Islam,” Harman told <i>In These Times,</i> a Chicago-based
newsmagazine. “We’re studying the phenomenon of people with radical
beliefs who turn into people who would use violence.”<br><br>
In 2004, the FBI named “eco-terrorism,” a broad term that includes
property destruction, the top domestic threat. The July 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate found that “special interest groups” were also
likely to cause small-scale violent attacks.<br><br>
These “special interest groups” were outlined in a 2005 RAND report,
“Trends in Terrorism.” One chapter was devoted to a non-Muslim “homegrown
terrorist” threat anti-globalists. “Anti-globalists directly challenge
the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable
quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the
world’s ecology, indigenous cultures and individual welfare,” stated the
report. The report identifies rightwing movements such as neo-Nazis as
threats and states there should be a focus on anarchist and radical
environmental groups, citing anarchists involved in civil disobedience
during the 2004 National Republican Contention in New York City and
millions of dollars in property damage by the Earth Liberation Front in
the last decade.<br><br>
<b>A WAR OF WORDS A LOOK AT VIOLENCE<br><br>
</b>Observers say using vaguely defined terms is part of a historical
pattern of sweeping government repression that includes the post- World
War II “Red Scare” and the FBI’s counter-intellegence program, nicknamed
Cointelpro. They are also concerned that H.R. 1955 will foster a
legislative momentum on criminalizing a broad range of dissident
voices.<br><br>
Jules Boykoff, an assistant professor of politics and government at
Pacific University and author of <i>Beyond Bullets: The Suppression of
Dissent in the United States</i>, said he was alarmed that “violence” was
not defined. He noted the definition of “ideologically based violence” is
the “means to use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by
a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political,
religious, or social beliefs.”<br><br>
“It is a circular definition, what does that mean?” asked Boykoff, while
reading the bill aloud. “What does violence mean? We do not need laws
like this because we already have plenty of laws on the books that make
it a crime to blow up or set fire to buildings. It is called
arson.”<br><br>
Boykoff commented that the bill used the terms “extremism” and
“radicalism” interchangeably. “The word ‘radical’ shares the etymological
root to the word ‘radish,’ which means to get to the root of the problem.
So, if the government wants to get at the actual root of terrorism, then
let’s really talk about it. We need to talk about the economic roots, the
vast inequalities in wealth between the rich and poor.” Boykoff says
historically the government has used “radical” as a way of dismissing
groups as “extremists,” however, and uses the two words as
synonyms.<br><br>
Hope Marston of the BORDC is nervous about the definition of homegrown
terrorism, which is “about the ‘use, planned use, or threatened use, of
force or violence’ to intimidate or coerce the government.” She says,
“The definition does not make clear what force is.”<br><br>
Bron Taylor, a professor at University of Florida who studies radical
religion and environmental movements, questioned the government’s
interpretation of violence. He spent years as an ethnographic researcher
exploring the propensity of individuals within the radical environmental
movement to turn to violence, a word he says defines as harm to sentient
beings, not property destruction.<br><br>
“There are all sorts of things that activists do that involve little or
no risk of hurting people, but their actions get labeled as violent, or
even worse, as acts of terrorism,” Taylor said. “For example, if 10
activists push themselves into a congressperson’s regional office, make
noise, pull out files and make a scene, is that an act of terrorism? It
is quite possible that the act could scare the hell out of the secretary
and office workers because they don’t know these people or what they
intend to do? But is that terrorism? Some people would like to frame it
that way.”<br><br>
“In any political dispute, whoever succeeds in defining the terms is
likely to prevail in the debate,” Taylor said. “That is why scholars and
the media need to be scrupulous in the ways they use and define terms
deployed by the partisans in these disputes. They should strive to come
up with terms that are as descriptive, accurate and as neutral as
possible.”<br><br>
<b>THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION<br><br>
</b>The legislation authorizes a 10-member National Commission (the
Senate bill calls for 12 members) appointed by the President, the
secretary of homeland security, congressional leaders and the
chairpersons of both the Senate and House committees on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.<br><br>
After convening, the Commission is to submit reports at six-month
intervals for 18 months to the President and Congress, stating its
findings, conclusions, and legislative recommendations “for immediate and
long-term countermeasures … to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown
terrorism and ideologically based violence.”<br><br>
Kamau Franklin of CCR says he finds the timing of the legislation
disturbing coming a year before the presidential elections and about
eight months prior to the Democratic and Republication National
Conventions both which of have increasingly been the site of
large-scale protests and civil disobedience.<br><br>
More disturbing are the similarities to Cointelpro, which was
investigated by a U.S. Senate select committee on intelligence activities
(commonly known as the Church Committee), which convened in 1975. The
Church Committee found that from 1956 to 1971, “the Bureau conducted a
sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the
exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the
theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation
of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter
violence.”<br><br>
Hope Marston says, “In the 1970s when we learned of the violation in
rights that the government had been doing for 40 years, there was public
outrage. Because these erosions of the Bill of Rights have happened
during ‘the war on terror,’ we aren’t supposed to protest anything the
government does because they are ‘protecting us.’ That feeling has made
the government’s actions more dangerous.”<br><br>
<b>MONEY FOR COPS, REPRESSION FOR FREE<br><br>
</b>The Senate version of the bill finds that the domestic threats
“cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or
law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and
local solutions.”<br><br>
“That’s about joint terrorism task force making,” Franklin said. “It’s a
way to create a federal slush fund so local police departments can get
their hands on it. This happened in the 1960s.”<br><br>
Marston agreed. “This sounds like part of the same continuum we’ve
experienced in the last seven years, which is the effort to deputize
local law enforcement to work with the FBI and national agencies without
local accountability, as we have seen with the establishment of
joint-terrorism task forces across the country,” Marston said. “On 9/11,
there were only a few joint-terrorism task forces, now there are more
than 100 in existence. … When you talk about working with local law
enforcement to possibly spy on groups and individuals to try to find the
so-called ‘needle in the haystack,’ this definitely poses a threat to
local autonomy.”<br><br>
Although Cointelpro was partially dismantled in the 1970s and the FBI’s
power to conduct domestic intelligence curbed, many safeguards have been
overturned in the last 30 years, according to David Cole and Jim Dempsey,
authors of <i>Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties
in the Name of National Security</i>. Legislation such as the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the 2001 USA
Patriot Act “radically transformed the landscape of government power, and
did so in ways that virtually guarantee repetition of some of law
enforcement’s worst abuses of the past,” the authors wrote.<br><br>
In the last few years, many states have passed versions of the Patriot
Act, while Congress has placed further checks on civil liberties with the
Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act (2006), the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act (2006) and the Protect America Now Act (2007), which
amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and legalized
the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.<br><br>
<b>THE BOGUS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE<br><br>
</b>H.R. 1955 gives Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff the power to establish a “Center of Excellence,” a
university-based research program to “bring together leading experts and
researchers to conduct multidisciplinary research and education for
homeland security solutions.” The Department currently has eight Centers
at academic institutions across the country, strengthening what many see
as a growing military-security-academic complex.<br><br>
Rep. Harman, in an Oct. 23 press release, stated that, the Center would
“examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic
roots of domestic terrorism.”<br><br>
“I do not have a lot of concerns with this legislation,” said Jim
Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
“Violent radicalization is an issue that deserves to be studied and
understood. I am more comfortable with this bill’s approach, which is to
treat the issue as a matter for broad study using largely open sources,
than I would be with an approach that directed the FBI, DHS or the CIA to
examine the issue,” Dempsey said. Dempsey was the assistant counsel to
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights from
1985-1994, the former Deputy Director for the Center for National
Security Studies and co-authored with David Cole, <i>Terrorism and the
Constitution.<br><br>
</i>“I do have some concern that the Commission and the Center will focus
on Muslims and will contribute to a climate of apprehension,” Dempsey
continued. “But I still think the bill is probably a good idea, if its
concepts are in a true spirit of inquiry.”<br><br>
Taylor agrees, but is leery that Washington politicians will hold power
over commission and Center. “As an academic, I like the idea of creating
Centers of Excellence in general because they bring together excellent
scholars,” Taylor said. “But this is not something that the government
should have a great deal of control over, because it is so ideologically
charged. We’ve had plenty of examples of administrations, this one in
particular, that likes to manipulate and downplay scientific findings
that run at variance with their ideological and political
objectives.”<br><br>
“The bill itself, no matter how well drafted, does not guarantee a
balanced outcome,” noted Dempsey. “To ensure balance, human rights
activists will have to get involved in the work of the Commission and the
Center.”<br><br>
“If they really want to know why we have terrorism, they are going to
need to explore counter-narratives,” explained Boykoff. “When the Sept.
11 attacks occurred, one narrative to explain the situation was that
there is ‘an external enemy out there who hates America.’ Other
narratives, such as that perhaps U.S. foreign policy might be fueling
acrimonious feelings towards the U.S., were not considered. I am
skeptical that the Center for Excellence would be open to these other
narratives, but rather would be regurgitating the standard
narrative.”<br><br>
It is unclear how researchers would gather the information.<br><br>
“If you are trying to understand in the broadest sense what turns people
to violence in a variety of political causes, it is not something you can
do easily, and it must be studied in a serious way,” said Taylor, who has
began studying the radical environmental movement since 1989. “It is
exceptionally hard to study these groups. They tend to be suspicious of
new comers and outsiders, rightfully so. They aren’t fond of academic
institutions or academics because they tend to view most of what goes on
at institutions of higher education as being subservient to interests of
global capital,” he said.<br><br>
With his research experience, Taylor believes that it is absurd to think
the Commission could produce a significant report in 18 months.<br><br>
“To find out what makes people tick, you actually have to engage with
them as a human being, and that is a long process that takes patience and
trust building.”<br><br>
Anthropologist Price is also worried. “My concern is that anthropologists
would again be doing secretive work for the state. This bill is going to
be interpreted so narrowly. It is calling for an ideological litmus
test,” Price said. “The military believes there are ways to get around
this questions legally, but ethically, it is a big deal. There are
ethical codes of conduct in anthropology, sociology, psychology, in the
social sciences in general, that they very basic precautions are
taken.”<br><br>
<b>A LONG HISTORY OF DISSENT<br><br>
</b>For U.S. historian Howard Zinn, author of <i>A People’s History of
the United States</i>, H.R. 1955 can be added to a long list of
government policies that have been passed to target dissent in the United
States.<br><br>
“This is the most recent of a long series of laws passed in times of
foreign policy tensions, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts of
1798, which sent people to jail for criticizing the Adams
administration,” Zinn said in an email to <i>The Indypendent.</i> “During
World War I, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act sent close to a thousand
people to jail for speaking out against the war. On the eve of World War
II, the Smith Act was passed, harmless enough title, but it enabled the
jailing of radicals first Trotskyists during the war and Communist
party leaders after the war, for organizing literature, etc., interpreted
as “conspiring to overthrow the government by force and
violence.”<br><br>
“In all cases, the environment was one in which the government was
involved in a war or Cold War or near-war situation and wanted to
suppress criticism of its policies,” Zinn said.<br><br>
Regardless, Zinn remains optimistic. “We should keep in mind that an act
of repression by the state is a recognition of the potential of social
movements and therefore we need to persist, through the repression, in
order to bring about social change,” Zinn said. “We can learn to expect
the repression, and not to be intimidated.”<br><br>
Hope Marston remains hopeful. “The work we have been doing at BORDC is
mobilizing people in the grassroots across the political spectrum, she
said. “It is not just a Leftist effort to protect the Bill of Rights. We
have worked with libertarians and republicans. We have helped get 412
resolution passed on the state and local level against the erosion of the
Bill of rights.”<br><br>
<i>Editors Note:<br><br>
Shortly after this article went to press, the Los Angeles Police
Department announced they scrapped their plan to “map the muslim
community” after meeting behind closed doors with leaders in the
Arab-American communities. <br><br>
A.K. Gupta contributed research and interviews.<br><br>
<br><br>
</i></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>