http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
-- Steve
If the link does not work try this one:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
buster-rnep-animation.html
-- Steve
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Derek,
Wow. That really is the "destroy the village in order to save it" mentality. I think the Union of Concerned Scientists animation makes a very reasonable suggestion -- just take out the entrances and exits to the underground facilities with conventional missiles. If this can be accomplished with minimal risk to the lives of people not involved with the project, I would favor such a course of action if Iran's government cannot be persuaded to give up its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. But a nuclear strike? That's nuts. Do you really think it would be helpful for Americans to be more feared (and hated) in the rest of the world than they are now?
The UCS says even a 1-megaton (small) weapon could leave 3 million dead. Even if this number is exaggerated by a factor of 10, that would still be 300,000 casualties, or 100 times more than in the 9/11 attacks. And potentially not just among Iranian civilians, but in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India as well, according to the UCS. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome? I think deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers is a war crime.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
On the matter of nukes, i do think one should be very careful before upping the ante in this way. i'm not necessarily opposed to the nuke option in iran if it will work. Especially if it would save american soldiers' lives.
One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of the world is going to be scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations and condemnations from the streets and pundits worldwide, but nobody who is anybody in government is going to cross us again any time soon.
If the link does not work try this one:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html
Steve Dekorte < steve@...> wrote:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
buster-rnep-animation.html-- Steve
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service .
<image.tiff>
SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Dear Starchild;
As per your statement:
I think deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers
is a war crime.
Ergo - so the two atomic bombs and the fire bombing of Tokyo makes Truman a war criminal and the fire bombing of Dresden makes FDR a war criminal?
Or more lately the various bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq which caused many civilian casualties or the shock and awe pre-war campaign which also caused civilian casualties - do these make Bush a war criminal? Or is that an oxymoron?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Derek,
Wow. That really is the "destroy the village in order to save it"
mentality. I think the Union of Concerned Scientists animation makes a
very reasonable suggestion -- just take out the entrances and exits to
the underground facilities with conventional missiles. If this can be
accomplished with minimal risk to the lives of people not involved with
the project, I would favor such a course of action if Iran's government
cannot be persuaded to give up its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.
But a nuclear strike? That's nuts. Do you really think it would be
helpful for Americans to be more feared (and hated) in the rest of the
world than they are now?
The UCS says even a 1-megaton (small) weapon could leave 3 million
dead. Even if this number is exaggerated by a factor of 10, that would
still be 300,000 casualties, or 100 times more than in the 9/11
attacks. And potentially not just among Iranian civilians, but in
countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India as well, according to
the UCS. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome? I think
deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers
is a war crime.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Such an act would both guarantee and morally justify a nuclear strike on the US.
-- Steve
Dear Steve;
In addition, this would mean India and Pakistan would go nuclear at
each other - sort of damn the casualties full nuclear ahead.
Or Israel would unleash its tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
against whomever it felt like. Just following the lead of Uncle Sap.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
> One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of the world is
going
> to be scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations and
> condemnations from the streets and pundits worldwide, but nobody
who
> is anybody in government is going to cross us again any time
soon.
Such an act would both guarantee and morally justify a nuclear
strike
yeah, I think a more likely scenario would be Iran
suddenly having a nuclear 'accident', which of course
would justify increased intervention by the U.S..
--- Derek Jensen <derekj72@...> wrote:
One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of
the world is going to be
scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations
and condemnations from the
streets and pundits worldwide, but nobody who is
anybody in government is
going to cross us again any time soon.>
> If the link does not work try this one:
>
>
>
>
> *Steve Dekorte <steve@...>* wrote:
>
>
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> buster-rnep-animation.html
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group
"lpsf-discuss<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
> on the web.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
Ron,
I'd say yes to all of those examples. Of course the accused ought to be able to make arguments in their defense, but they should at least be put on trial for war crimes, or should have been in the cases of Truman and FDR. There should not be a double standard when it comes to the standards from prosecuting people from different nations.
In fact I think the offenses ought to be described in such a way as not to reveal the identities of the people being charged, or their countries of origin, to those sitting in judgment. Perhaps judges would be given 100 different cases a year to look at, only one or two of them real and the rest fictional, and asked to rule in each case without knowing which judgments would actually be applied in the real world.
Even short of such a blind system of justice, an International Criminal Court would actually be a good idea in order to avoid double standards, if there were a mechanism to ensure that non-democratic governments with serious human rights problems like Sudan or Cuba did not have any say in it. Unfortunately the United Nations has no credibility on that score.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
As per your statement:
I think deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers
is a war crime.Ergo - so the two atomic bombs and the fire bombing of Tokyo makes Truman a war criminal and the fire bombing of Dresden makes FDR a war criminal?
Or more lately the various bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq which caused many civilian casualties or the shock and awe pre-war campaign which also caused civilian casualties - do these make Bush a war criminal? Or is that an oxymoron?
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianStarchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Derek,
Wow. That really is the "destroy the village in order to save it"
mentality. I think the Union of Concerned Scientists animation makes a
very reasonable suggestion -- just take out the entrances and exits to
the underground facilities with conventional missiles. If this can be
accomplished with minimal risk to the lives of people not involved with
the project, I would favor such a course of action if Iran's government
cannot be persuaded to give up its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.
But a nuclear strike? That's nuts. Do you really think it would be
helpful for Americans to be more feared (and hated) in the rest of the
world than they are now?The UCS says even a 1-megaton (small) weapon could leave 3 million
dead. Even if this number is exaggerated by a factor of 10, that would
still be 300,000 casualties, or 100 times more than in the 9/11
attacks. And potentially not just among Iranian civilians, but in
countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India as well, according to
the UCS. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome? I think
deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers
is a war crime.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> On the matter of nukes, i do think one should be very careful before
> upping the ante in this way. i'm not necessarily opposed to the nuke
> option in iran if it will work. Especially if it would save american
> soldiers' lives.
>
> One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of the world is going
> to be scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations and
> condemnations from the streets and pundits worldwide, but nobody who
> is anybody in government is going to cross us again any time soon.
>
> If the link does not work try this one:
>
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> buster-rnep-animation.html
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> buster-rnep-animation.html
>
> -- Steve
>>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> .
>>
> SPONSORED LINKS>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Dear Starchild;
There still is the International Court Of Justice - The Hague. Which
more or less can pass for a tribunal capable of trying a war
criminal. Like it tried to do with Miloslavic.Yeah Right.
Try Bush and Tony "Torture Is Okay" Gonzalez.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Ron,
I'd say yes to all of those examples. Of course the accused
ought to
be able to make arguments in their defense, but they should at
least be
put on trial for war crimes, or should have been in the cases of
Truman
and FDR. There should not be a double standard when it comes to
the
standards from prosecuting people from different nations.
In fact I think the offenses ought to be described in such a
way as
not to reveal the identities of the people being charged, or their
countries of origin, to those sitting in judgment. Perhaps judges
would
be given 100 different cases a year to look at, only one or two of
them
real and the rest fictional, and asked to rule in each case
without
knowing which judgments would actually be applied in the real
world.
Even short of such a blind system of justice, an
International
Criminal Court would actually be a good idea in order to avoid
double
standards, if there were a mechanism to ensure that non-democratic
governments with serious human rights problems like Sudan or Cuba
did
not have any say in it. Unfortunately the United Nations has no
credibility on that score.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Dear Starchild;
>
> As per your statement:
>
> I think deliberately killing civilians in order to save the
lives of
> soldiers
> is a war crime.
>
> Ergo - so the two atomic bombs and the fire bombing of Tokyo
makes
> Truman a war criminal and the fire bombing of Dresden makes FDR
a war
> criminal?
>
> Or more lately the various bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq
which
> caused many civilian casualties or the shock and awe pre-war
campaign
> which also caused civilian casualties - do these make Bush a war
> criminal? Or is that an oxymoron?
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
> Wow. That really is the "destroy the village in order to save it"
> mentality. I think the Union of Concerned Scientists animation
makes a
> very reasonable suggestion -- just take out the entrances and
exits to
> the underground facilities with conventional missiles. If this
can be
> accomplished with minimal risk to the lives of people not
involved with
> the project, I would favor such a course of action if Iran's
government
> cannot be persuaded to give up its attempts to acquire nuclear
weapons.
> But a nuclear strike? That's nuts. Do you really think it would
be
> helpful for Americans to be more feared (and hated) in the rest
of the
> world than they are now?
>
> The UCS says even a 1-megaton (small) weapon could leave 3
million
> dead. Even if this number is exaggerated by a factor of 10, that
would
> still be 300,000 casualties, or 100 times more than in the 9/11
> attacks. And potentially not just among Iranian civilians, but in
> countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India as well,
according to
> the UCS. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome? I think
> deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of
soldiers
> is a war crime.
>
>
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > On the matter of nukes, i do think one should be very careful
before
> > upping the ante in this way. i'm not necessarily opposed to
the nuke
> > option in iran if it will work. Especially if it would save
american
> > soldiers' lives.
> >
> >
> > One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of the world
is
> going
> > to be scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations and
> > condemnations from the streets and pundits worldwide, but
nobody who
> > is anybody in government is going to cross us again any time
soon.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the link does not work try this one:
> >
> >
> > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-
bunker-
> > buster-rnep-animation.html
> >
> > Steve Dekorte < steve@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-
bunker-
> > buster-rnep-animation.html
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service
> > .
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@...m
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Steve,
Nothing of that sort is guaranteed, but I agree it would certainly make such an attack more likely.
And I hope that you mean it would provide a moral *rationale* (meaning something like a weak excuse, as Allen Rice explained) for a nuclear attack in the United States, not moral justification. I don't think killing civilians in one country just because other civilians in another country were killed is morally justified.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
A nuclear attack on any country is a crime against humanity (and yes, Truman was a war criminal). I only mean it is justified in the common moral sense of "turnaround is fair play".
-- Steve
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
UCS *is* a leftist organization. They were active in the anti-nuclear movement during the 1980s. That's why I allowed their numbers may be exaggerated. But even if you figure their numbers are inflated by ten times, surely you don't see killing 300,000 people to prevent a *potential* threat as morally acceptable?
Along down that line of thinking lies the view of the former U.S. general who was quoted, I think in an article Steve posted recently, as saying something during the Cold War along the lines of "What's all this reluctance about killing the enemy? That's the whole point! If there are two Americans and one Russian left living when the smoke clears, we win!"
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild:
I never said ot was the first option, or even one without huge risks. But I'd do it before allowing Iran to get nukes. It's important from a game theory perspective that all of our options are seen as on the table. Don't believe all those death and injury totals in the animation.
The Union of Concerned Scientists sounds like a leftist organization to me.
Derek,
Wow\. That really is the "destroy the village in order to save it"mentality. I think the Union of Concerned Scientists animation makes a
very reasonable suggestion -- just take out the entrances and exits to
the underground facilities with conventional missiles. If this can be
accomplished with minimal risk to the lives of people not involved with
the project, I would favor such a course of action if Iran's government
cannot be persuaded to give up its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.
But a nuclear strike? That's nuts. Do you really think it would be
helpful for Americans to be more feared (and hated) in the rest of the
world than they are now?The UCS says even a 1\-megaton \(small\) weapon could leave 3 milliondead. Even if this number is exaggerated by a factor of 10, that would
still be 300,000 casualties, or 100 times more than in the 9/11
attacks. And potentially not just among Iranian civilians, but in
countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India as well, according to
the UCS. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome? I think
deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers
is a war crime.Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> On the matter of nukes, i do think one should be very careful before
> upping the ante in this way. i'm not necessarily opposed to the nuke
> option in iran if it will work. Especially if it would save american
> soldiers' lives.
>
> One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of the world is going
> to be scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations and
> condemnations from the streets and pundits worldwide, but nobody who
> is anybody in government is going to cross us again any time soon.
>
> If the link does not work try this one:
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> buster-rnep-animation.html
>
> Steve Dekorte < steve@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> buster-rnep-animation.html
>
> -- Steve
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> .
>
<image.tiff>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
If the U.S. government had the option to take out the Iranian government (Irangov) nuclear facilities in a military raid by likely incurring a few dozen casualties out of a strike team of a hundred or so highly-trained USgov personnel who had volunteered for dangerous duty by joining the military's Special Forces, and chose to launch a nuclear strike anyway, you still think *all* the blood would be on the hands of Irangov? Or should people who voluntarily join high-risk branches of the USgov military expect that USgov will butcher hundreds of thousands of civilians before putting their lives in danger?
If a conventional strike could likely take out the facilities or damage them enough to make them unusable, should a nuclear strike be used anyway if it would increase the chances of success by some small percent? If that's the case, should the plan be to use a 100-megaton warhead instead of a 1-megaton warhead? That would have a greater probability of getting the job done, wouldn't it? How much blood is it worth shedding in order to "guarantee" safety for "Americans"?
If a schoolyard bully is threatening to beat another kid with a baseball bat, would it be reasonable for the kid to take out an ad in the school newspaper which is read by students and families stating that if he even sees the bully carrying a baseball bat, he reserves the right to go to the nursing home where the bully's invalid grandparents live and brutally murder them with his own baseball bat? According to game theory he should leave this option on the table, shouldn't he?
<<< starchild >>>
The blood would be on the hands of the Iranian leadership
UCS \*is\* a leftist organization\. They were active in the anti\-nuclearmovement during the 1980s. That's why I allowed their numbers may be
exaggerated. But even if you figure their numbers are inflated by ten
times, surely you don't see killing 300,000 people to prevent a
*potential* threat as morally acceptable?Along down that line of thinking lies the view of the former U\.S\.general who was quoted, I think in an article Steve posted recently, as
saying something during the Cold War along the lines of "What's all
this reluctance about killing the enemy? That's the whole point! If
there are two Americans and one Russian left living when the smoke
clears, we win!"Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> Starchild:
>
> I never said ot was the first option, or even one without huge risks.
> But I'd do it before allowing Iran to get nukes. It's important from
> a game theory perspective that all of our options are seen as on the
> table. Don't believe all those death and injury totals in the
> animation.
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists sounds like a leftist organization
> to me.
>
> Derek,
>
> Wow. That really is the "destroy the village in order to save
> it"
> mentality. I think the Union of Concerned Scientists animation makes a
> very reasonable suggestion -- just take out the entrances and exits to
> the underground facilities with conventional missiles. If this can be
> accomplished with minimal risk to the lives of people not involved with
> the project, I would favor such a course of action if Iran's government
> cannot be persuaded to give up its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.
> But a nuclear strike? That's nuts. Do you really think it would be
> helpful for Americans to be more feared (and hated) in the rest of the
> world than they are now?
>
> The UCS says even a 1-megaton (small) weapon could leave 3
> million
> dead. Even if this number is exaggerated by a factor of 10, that would
> still be 300,000 casualties, or 100 times more than in the 9/11
> attacks. And potentially not just among Iranian civilians, but in
> countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India as well, according to
> the UCS. Do you consider that an acceptable outcome? I think
> deliberately killing civilians in order to save the lives of soldiers
> is a war crime.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> > On the matter of nukes, i do think one should be very careful before
> > upping the ante in this way. i'm not necessarily opposed to the nuke
> > option in iran if it will work. Especially if it would save american
> > soldiers' lives.
> >
> > One thing is for sure: if we nuke Iran, the rest of the world is
> going
> > to be scared. We'll probably evoke huge demonstrations and
> > condemnations from the streets and pundits worldwide, but nobody who
> > is anybody in government is going to cross us again any time soon.
> >
> > If the link does not work try this one:
> >
> > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> > buster-rnep-animation.html
> >
> > Steve Dekorte < steve@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-
> > buster-rnep-animation.html
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service
> > .
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> <image.tiff>
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >
> > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> <image.tiff>
> >
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
<image.tiff>
>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
August 10th SF Board of Supervisors Hearing
WHAT: Hearing on the First Amendment and the jailing of Josh Wolf
WHEN: Thursday August 10th at 10am
WHERE: City Hall room 263
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi invites you to participate in a public
hearing on a resolution calling for the federal government to respect
the First Amendment guarantee of a free press. The hearing will be in
the Rules Committee on Thursday, August 10th at 10am in City Hall room
263.
They ought to hold this hearing in front of the Federal Building.
<<< starchild >>>