638 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
638 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: FROM A REPORTER WHO WORKS OUT NEAR AREA 51 FILE: UFO2851
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE GROOM LAKE DESERT RAT. An On-Line Newsletter.
|
|
Issue #14. August 10, 1994.
|
|
-----> "The Naked Truth from Open Sources." <-----
|
|
AREA 51/NELLIS RANGE/TTR/NTS/S-4?/WEIRD STUFF/DESERT LORE
|
|
Written, published, copyrighted and totally disavowed by
|
|
psychospy@aol.com. See bottom for subscription/copyright info.
|
|
|
|
In this issue...
|
|
A LAND GRAB ARGUMENT
|
|
WHERE TO WRITE
|
|
INTEL BITTIES
|
|
|
|
[Note: This issue has been sent in two parts. The first ends with
|
|
a "CONTINUED" notice and the second ends with "###".]
|
|
|
|
----- A LAND GRAB ARGUMENT -----
|
|
|
|
The Battle for Freedom Ridge will be coming to a head in the next
|
|
few weeks when the local BLM office completes processing of the
|
|
Air Force withdrawal application and submits it to Washington for
|
|
a decision. A letter writing campaign could be effective now, but
|
|
only if the letters focus on technical weak points in the
|
|
application, not on the broader social implications of the
|
|
withdrawal.
|
|
|
|
When we recently reviewed the application case file at the Las
|
|
Vegas BLM office, we found it packed with passionate letters
|
|
denouncing the withdrawal. The bulk of these made a government-
|
|
accountability argument: If the military closes the land, citizen
|
|
oversight will be lost over the "nonexistent" Groom facility.
|
|
Essentially, these letters are asking BLM and the Dept. of
|
|
Interior to evaluate social priorities and defense needs and make
|
|
a value judgment about what is most important.
|
|
|
|
No matter how compelling this kind of argument may seem to an
|
|
average citizen, it probably won't go very far in the bureaucratic
|
|
world. The Dept. of Interior isn't qualified to make judgments
|
|
outside the realms of land use and environment impact. It cannot,
|
|
for example, evaluate national security needs; it simply does not
|
|
have the qualifications or resources in this area. If forced to
|
|
make a value judgment about defense priorities, it will simply
|
|
follow the recommendation of the only government entity that does
|
|
have the resources and expertise--the Department of Defense.
|
|
|
|
More effective challenges are subtle procedural ones, which only a
|
|
few people have presented so far. These require an understanding
|
|
of how the system works and the sort of things that the Dept. of
|
|
Interior is qualified to deal with. The most promising kind of
|
|
challenge is to find a flaw in the application itself or the way
|
|
it was processed. One could challenge the Environmental
|
|
Assessment and show that it is somehow incomplete or
|
|
inappropriate. One could look for inconsistencies between this
|
|
land action and some obscure planning document. One could gum up
|
|
the proceedings with FOIAs, appeals and nuisance lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
There are many possible procedural challenges, but the one that we
|
|
find most appealing is elegantly simple. It appeals to common
|
|
sense and does not stray far from the government-accountability
|
|
issues that are our true motivation. To appreciate this argument,
|
|
we must first understand the basic structure of our government and
|
|
how this withdrawal fits in.
|
|
|
|
----- FUNDAMENTALS OF GOVERNMENT -----
|
|
|
|
There could be no more inept form of government than a pure
|
|
democracy. Imagine a country where every national decision was
|
|
put to a popular vote and every citizen was entitled to an equal
|
|
say in everything their government did. Nothing would get done!
|
|
There are too many decisions to be made, and no citizen has the
|
|
time or interest to remain informed on all of them. In an ideal
|
|
nation run by talk show hosts where each day's government policy
|
|
was wired directly to public opinion polls, the mercurial whining,
|
|
sentiment and hysteria of the audience would soon cripple every
|
|
institution and bring to a halt all public services.
|
|
|
|
Thank God in own semi-democratic society the people are kept at
|
|
bay. Aside from occasional state referenda on isolated issues,
|
|
the citizenry has the ultimate say in only a single kind of
|
|
decision: that of who to elect to represent them for a given
|
|
period of time. The people do not participate in every new law
|
|
drafted by Congress; they are only empowered to choose senators
|
|
and representatives who, once in office, are allowed to exercise
|
|
their own personal judgment.
|
|
|
|
The people delegate to their congressional representatives the
|
|
authority to make major decisions about their country's future,
|
|
but Congress does not have the time to oversee every decision the
|
|
government makes. Instead, it drafts the broad outline of what
|
|
must be done, and then delegates to the Executive Branch the power
|
|
to fill in the missing regulations and decide on specific actions
|
|
within the law.
|
|
|
|
The Executive Branch of government is the massive bureaucracy that
|
|
is charged with carrying out the laws and programs authorized by
|
|
Congress. All the "public services" the government provides,
|
|
including national defense and public land management, fall within
|
|
this hierarchical structure. At the top of the organizational
|
|
tree is the President. He is the manager we hire every four years
|
|
to oversee the bureaucracy and make the thousands of day-to-day
|
|
operating decisions that Congress couldn't be bothered with. The
|
|
sheer volume of these decisions would overwhelm the man himself,
|
|
so he hires a staff of specialized managers to handle specific
|
|
areas. This is his Cabinet and the politically appointed cadre of
|
|
undersecretaries, diplomats, federal attorneys and miscellaneous
|
|
high-level bureaucrats. They all represent, in essence, the arms
|
|
of the President. They are appointed by him, and he is ultimately
|
|
accountable for their performance as they carry out the
|
|
instructions of Congress.
|
|
|
|
Various laws and standards have evolved over the years to define
|
|
which actions Congress must approve and which others can be left
|
|
to Executive discretion. In the case of transfers of public land
|
|
between government agencies, the boundary is specific: The Engle
|
|
Act of 1958 decrees that congressional approval is required for
|
|
new defense-related withdrawals of 5000 acres or more. Since the
|
|
Freedom Ridge withdrawal is only 4000 acres, the decision about
|
|
whether to approve it need not be referred to Congress.
|
|
|
|
The lingering question is, if Congress does not make the decision
|
|
on this withdrawal, then who does? And on what basis do they make
|
|
it? Is it possible that the decision HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE by the
|
|
Executive Branch and that the application process is only a
|
|
formality? Maybe NO ONE makes a decision: Is the mere fact that
|
|
the Air Force has asked for the land sufficient reason for it to
|
|
be granted?
|
|
|
|
----- EXECUTIVE POWER -----
|
|
|
|
BLM does not decide. It seems primarily concerned with processing
|
|
the application itself. BLM is like the secretary in a college
|
|
admissions office who receives applications in the mail, creates
|
|
folders for them, verifies transcripts and collates SAT scores.
|
|
The steps that BLM must follow are defined in excruciating detail
|
|
in federal regulations and its own established procedures. It
|
|
must require the completion of certain environmental reports--and
|
|
officials agonize over which ones. It must collect public
|
|
comments, and search through these for any possible environmental
|
|
or land use implications. It must verify that the proposed action
|
|
is consistent with land management framework plans and other
|
|
obscure bureaucratic documents. Like the secretary in the
|
|
admissions office, BLM can sideline the application if certain
|
|
paperwork is not properly completed, but it does not make any
|
|
judgment about the material it is processing. BLM's job is to
|
|
prepare the case file for submission to a higher deciding
|
|
authority.
|
|
|
|
According to Federal Code, "The Federal Land Policy and Management
|
|
Act of 1976 (43 USC 1714) gives the Secretary of the Interior
|
|
general authority to make, modify, extend or revoke withdrawals."
|
|
In short, Secretary Bruce Babbitt is responsible for the final
|
|
decision on the Freedom Ridge withdrawal. Babbitt is a political
|
|
appointee of the President. He exercises some of the President's
|
|
discretion to make day-to-day operating decisions without referral
|
|
to Congress.
|
|
|
|
Babbitt, it might appear, can do anything he wants. He does not
|
|
have to obtain the approval of the American people or even the
|
|
President before granting the withdrawal. It does not matter if
|
|
his decision is unpopular. He is a manager who has been entrusted
|
|
with the power to do these things, and managers have to upset
|
|
people sometimes. He can weigh the pros and cons of an action and
|
|
use his own judgment to decide what is best. His word is the
|
|
final say.
|
|
|
|
In reality, though, Babbitt's discretion is much more constrained
|
|
than it seems. He cannot make a decision, as we suggested in
|
|
DR#13, "by voodoo and sorcery, by studying the entrails of
|
|
sacrificed animals." Only Congress can do that. As the nation's
|
|
highest lawmaking body, Congress can make a decision for any
|
|
reason it chooses, a prerogative it exercised in 1987 when it
|
|
approved the 89,000 acre Groom Range withdrawal. Just because
|
|
Congress accepted the vague reasons given by the AF back then does
|
|
not mean that the same reasons are sufficient for the Secretary of
|
|
the Interior now.
|
|
|
|
Unlike Congress, every Executive agency is constrained by a
|
|
million different laws, rules and ethical guidelines. Because the
|
|
Executive Branch has so much power that could be easily abused,
|
|
enormous rule-making effort has been expended over the years in
|
|
assuring that every decision made by an Executive agency at least
|
|
APPEARS to be fair and objective. Hence all the explicit rules
|
|
that BLM must follow when processing the withdrawal application.
|
|
The aim is to assure that all the relevant evidence has been
|
|
collected before the Secretary makes his decision. When he does
|
|
make a decision, a lot of people are bound to be unhappy, and
|
|
having followed the established guidelines allows the Secretary to
|
|
claim that he was at least working from a solid base of data.
|
|
|
|
The Secretary is allowed to make unpopular decisions, but he
|
|
cannot make ones that are "arbitrary and capricious"--that is,
|
|
which are made without a basis in some sort of data. Fundamental
|
|
to government ethics is the openness of that data. In accordance
|
|
with this country's open records laws, any citizen should be able
|
|
to inspect the same files and evidence that the Secretary bases
|
|
his decision upon, at least to assure that there isn't some
|
|
obvious conflict of interest or an error in the data. The
|
|
Secretary has a right to make bad decisions or decisions that
|
|
favor his political philosophy, but he cannot make decisions from
|
|
a secret pool of information that is not available to the general
|
|
public. If he does, he and his decision will be legally and
|
|
politically vulnerable.
|
|
|
|
There are only a few exceptions to the openness requirement, and
|
|
one of these is "national security." The Executive Branch
|
|
regularly makes decisions based on classified information. If the
|
|
U.S. invades Haiti, for example, how and when the invasion occurs
|
|
will depend to a large extent on secret intelligence about
|
|
defenses there. Because revealing the details of this data might
|
|
jeopardize its source, the military need not make it public.
|
|
|
|
At first glance, the Freedom Ridge withdrawal might seem to fall
|
|
into the same category. The existence of the Groom base is
|
|
classified and its continued secrecy is--in the minds of the
|
|
military--essential to national security. If the public release
|
|
of any information about the base would, in military eyes,
|
|
compromise the safety of the nation, it is possible that this
|
|
information can be presented to the Secretary of the Interior in
|
|
secret. Even though the public does not have access to this data,
|
|
the Secretary can still use it as the basis for his decision.
|
|
|
|
Such a provision does indeed exist in the law governing
|
|
withdrawals. According to 43 CFR 2300.1-2, the withdrawal
|
|
application must specify....
|
|
|
|
"(7) The public purpose or statutory program for which the
|
|
lands must be withdrawn. If the purpose or program for which the
|
|
lands would be withdrawn is classified for national security
|
|
reasons, a statement to that effect shall be included..."
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the Air Force failed to include that statement in
|
|
its application. Their full and only written response to Item #7
|
|
is...
|
|
|
|
"(7) The purpose of the withdrawal is to ensure the public
|
|
safety and the safe and secure operation of activities in the
|
|
Nellis Range Complex."
|
|
|
|
If the Air Force had made the statement that the purpose was
|
|
classified, then the Secretary could presumably make use of
|
|
classified information in his decision. The Air Force could
|
|
present its case to Babbitt in secret; Babbitt could make his
|
|
decision based upon it, and citizens who objected might be
|
|
powerless to appeal.
|
|
|
|
However, as it stands, there is no hint in the application that
|
|
there is any classified information or facilities involved. The
|
|
Air Force can't have it both ways. It can't choose to pursue an
|
|
open process and still expect the Secretary to consider classified
|
|
information. The Air Force's position presented in the
|
|
application is the same as it is in public: They know nothing
|
|
about any classified facility, and even if it exists it has
|
|
nothing to do with this withdrawal. Bound by ethical constraints
|
|
to act only the data actually found in the application, the
|
|
Secretary must respect the Air Force's public position and cannot
|
|
consider the Groom Lake base at all.
|
|
|
|
----- THE BURDEN OF PROOF -----
|
|
|
|
This land, along with all other public lands in this country, has
|
|
been designated by Congress for the purpose of "public multiple
|
|
use." The public is ENTITLED to access to this land unless a
|
|
solid case can be presented that some other purpose is more
|
|
important. The decision of whether a certain military purpose is
|
|
more important than public use is a discretionary judgment by the
|
|
Secretary, but there still has to be a well-defined purpose,
|
|
supported by some kind of data. The Secretary cannot simply
|
|
rubber-stamp whatever request the Air Force makes; that would be
|
|
"arbitrary and capricious." He has to make a real, active
|
|
decision about whether this withdrawal makes sense, and he has to
|
|
make it based on the public information actually presented in the
|
|
application.
|
|
|
|
Has the Air Force presented a strong case to justify its need for
|
|
this land? Has it presented a compelling set of data?
|
|
|
|
What evidence has the Air Force presented that the "public safety"
|
|
is currently at risk? The Air Force has not presented even a
|
|
SINGLE INCIDENT where a person's safety has been placed in danger
|
|
by visiting those hills. If the Air Force has other definitions
|
|
of "public safety" in mind, it has not presented any data in
|
|
support of these either.
|
|
|
|
What evidence has the Air Force presented that leaving the land
|
|
public jeopardizes the "safe and secure operation of activities in
|
|
the Nellis Range Complex"? The most informative statement in this
|
|
regard was made by Col. Bennett at the Caliente hearing:
|
|
|
|
"When someone is on White Sides and other nearby areas,
|
|
altitude and route changes have to be made by aircraft to avoid
|
|
harming people and to prevent disclosure of operational matters.
|
|
Some missions have to be delayed or canceled. This impacts the
|
|
effective use of the Nellis Range Complex."
|
|
|
|
This could indeed be a valid argument for the withdrawal if it was
|
|
backed up by concrete examples. Unfortunately, the Air Force has
|
|
not been able to produce even a SINGLE CASE where some flight was
|
|
delayed or rerouted due to visitors being on the ridge. It has
|
|
not even presented a POSSIBLE case where a flight might be so
|
|
affected in the future.
|
|
|
|
In short, the Air Force has presented no data whatsoever. In
|
|
support of its application, the AF has submitted only some vague
|
|
and general arguments about the importance of a strong national
|
|
defense and the value of the Nellis Range in training pilots. It
|
|
has presented only empty words, expressing noble emotions but
|
|
conveying no information. It seems to have assumed the role of
|
|
defendant who is "innocent until proven guilty," who need present
|
|
no argument in his defense as long as the prosecution can't prove
|
|
its case against him "beyond a reasonable doubt." No opponent has
|
|
been able to prove that the withdrawal will have a significant
|
|
environmental impact. It won't. No opponent has been able to
|
|
prove that the Air Force's reason for withdrawing the land is NOT
|
|
valid--but that's because the AF has presented no specific
|
|
argument that could be refuted. The Air Force is playing coy and
|
|
pretending that the responsibility is on the citizen to prove it
|
|
wrong, when, in fact, the burden is the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Is the Air Force entitled to any block of public land simply
|
|
because it asks for it? The logical answer has to be no. If it
|
|
can take the Freedom Ridge parcel without a supported reason, THEN
|
|
IT CAN TAKE ANY 5000 ACRE PARCEL ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. If the
|
|
military takes only one or two blocks of land in each Western
|
|
state, the total could amount to over 100,000 acres in aggregate,
|
|
and the taking doesn't have to stop there. By attaching a variety
|
|
of different nonsense reasons to Item #7 of the applications, the
|
|
Air Force could conceivably withdraw ALL PUBLIC LANDS IN THE
|
|
COUNTRY, without the approval of Congress and without being
|
|
required to provide any evidence of need.
|
|
|
|
Why the AF wants the land is no mystery to the world: It wants to
|
|
keep visitors off the viewpoints that overlook its unacknowledged
|
|
Groom Lake base. It feels that sensitive operations at the base
|
|
would be jeopardized if their existence is made public. This may
|
|
indeed be a valid and supportable reason, but it has never been
|
|
presented. The Secretary of the Interior and his staff have
|
|
probably read the many news reports about Groom Lake and from this
|
|
have a good idea why the military wants the land, but as far as
|
|
the application is concerned, this is only unconfirmed rumor and
|
|
hearsay--no more admissible here than in a court of law. If the
|
|
AF wants the problems of the Groom Lake base to be considered in
|
|
the Secretary's decision, it must present this data explicitly.
|
|
The Secretary of the Interior cannot be required to "read minds,"
|
|
and his ethics are suspect if he does. If he chooses to rely,
|
|
without public notice, on secret data the public cannot challenge,
|
|
he has stepped outside the boundaries of his authorized
|
|
discretion.
|
|
|
|
If the Air Force had presented almost ANY plausible data in
|
|
support of the application, then the Secretary could cite it as a
|
|
basis for his decision, and the withdrawal could go through. With
|
|
no evidence at all presented, the Secretary cannot possibly
|
|
approve the withdrawal without seeming "arbitrary and capricious"
|
|
--doing it only because the Air Force asked. Logically, he has no
|
|
choice in the matter, and no value judgment is involved: The
|
|
withdrawal application cannot be approved as it stands now.
|
|
|
|
----- WHAT NOW? -----
|
|
|
|
About a month from now, in mid-Sept., the Las Vegas BLM office is
|
|
expected to issue its findings in the limited areas it is
|
|
qualified to evaluate. It will probably conclude that this
|
|
withdrawal presents no significant environmental or land use
|
|
impacts. If this were a less contested action, we sense that the
|
|
"No Significant Impact" finding would have been the equivalent of
|
|
an approval recommendation. The state and national BLM directors
|
|
would have rubber-stamped the application, and Babbitt would have
|
|
authorized the withdrawal with little more than a cursory
|
|
examination of what he was signing.
|
|
|
|
We don't want that to happen in this case. "No Significant
|
|
Impact" does not imply that the decision-making process is over.
|
|
It has, in fact, only just begun. We want to make it clear to
|
|
Babbitt that a real decision now rests on his shoulders.
|
|
Normally, the application would likely be approved, because that's
|
|
the easiest thing for the Secretary to do. Not approving it could
|
|
create inter-agency tensions and internal dissent within the
|
|
Cabinet. To counteract this natural tendency toward approval, we
|
|
must make sure there is equivalent pressure from the outside to
|
|
hold back. We want Babbitt to understand that approving the
|
|
application as it is will create political tensions and legal
|
|
burdens from outside the Executive Branch that will fall squarely
|
|
on Interior, not on the Air Force where they belong.
|
|
|
|
Through its own bad decisions about how to handle Area 51, the Air
|
|
Force has painted itself into a corner. Scandals are brewing here
|
|
that could drag on for years, and the AF has placed itself in a
|
|
position where it cannot adequately defend itself. It has trapped
|
|
itself into supporting an absurdity, and its public relations and
|
|
congressional rapport may suffer as a result. If Interior
|
|
approves the application, it will, in effect, be volunteering to
|
|
share the Air Force's burdens. It, too, must defend the
|
|
absurdity, and it could be vulnerable for its decision in ways
|
|
that the Air Force isn't. Handling the inevitable protests and
|
|
appeals and justifying its action to the press and members of
|
|
Congress could soak up valuable resources that are needed to fight
|
|
Interior's own battles. Interior has no interest in secret bases.
|
|
It is preoccupied with contentious land reform battles in the
|
|
West, and this tiny but highly publicized withdrawal only fans the
|
|
flames and makes it harder to get things done.
|
|
|
|
[CONTINUED IN NEXT DOCUMENT]
|
|
[Part 2 of Groom Lake Desert Rat #14. Continued from previous
|
|
document.]
|
|
|
|
----- WHERE TO WRITE -----
|
|
|
|
There's no sense wasting any more of your toner cartridge on BLM.
|
|
The most effective pressures on Babbitt cannot come from below,
|
|
they have to come laterally, from the only people who can make the
|
|
Secretary sweat. Now is the time to write to some key senators
|
|
and congressmen.
|
|
|
|
Maybe you've written to them before. Each member of Congress must
|
|
receive dozens or hundreds of letters a day, most of which
|
|
probably generate a courteous reply and then are promptly filed in
|
|
the "Wacko" bin. Most letters are ignored because most people
|
|
don't make realistic requests. If the letters received by BLM are
|
|
any gauge, most are rambling, impassioned harangues without a
|
|
clear goal and with little understanding about the political
|
|
process and what it is the recipient can act upon.
|
|
|
|
The most effective letters to Congress focus on a simple, well-
|
|
defined problem and request a specific action from the congressman
|
|
that he can reasonably carry out. In this case, it is probably
|
|
not productive to dwell on government accountability, defense
|
|
priorities or other complicated issues. Don't ask the congressman
|
|
to try to reform the military; that is unrealistic. Keep your
|
|
letter short, courteous and very limited in scope, something like
|
|
this...
|
|
|
|
"Dear Representative Smith,
|
|
|
|
"I am concerned about the pending Air Force land withdrawal at
|
|
Groom Lake, Nevada, and its implications for military land use in
|
|
our own state. The military may indeed be justified in taking
|
|
this land, which overlooks their secret air base. My main concern
|
|
is the vague and unsubstantiated purpose they have given for this
|
|
withdrawal: 'For the public safety and the safe and secure
|
|
operation of activities.' I am worried that if the military is
|
|
granted this land for this vague reason, then it could easily
|
|
expand its bases in our state in the same manner, without having
|
|
to demonstrate need.
|
|
|
|
"Interior Secretary Babbitt will be making a decision on the
|
|
withdrawal within the next few weeks. The military is pressuring
|
|
the Dept. of Interior to approve the current application without
|
|
change. I hope that you can contact Babbitt's office as soon as
|
|
possible to apprise yourself of the situation. We must be sure
|
|
that this withdrawal is approved only within the bounds of
|
|
established ethical guidelines and reasonable expectations of
|
|
proof."
|
|
|
|
If you live in a Western state, where most public lands are
|
|
located, the dangers of unsubstantiated military withdrawals
|
|
should be of direct interest to your congressman. If you live in
|
|
an Eastern state, your congressman will probably be indifferent.
|
|
In that case, it is better to write to the members of
|
|
congressional land use committees.
|
|
|
|
The addresses for senators and representatives are...
|
|
|
|
The Honorable John Q. Smith
|
|
U.S. Senate
|
|
Washington, DC 20510
|
|
|
|
("Dear Senator Smith...")
|
|
|
|
The Honorable Jane R. Smith
|
|
U.S. House of Representatives
|
|
Washington, DC 20515
|
|
|
|
("Dear Representative Smith...")
|
|
|
|
Most members of Congress also maintain offices in the major cities
|
|
of your state. Look up their name in the phone book for that
|
|
address, then send your letter to both.
|
|
|
|
The address for the land use committees and the person to address
|
|
are...
|
|
|
|
Subcommittee on Public Lands,
|
|
National Parks and Forests
|
|
SD-308 Dirksen Senate Office Building
|
|
Washington DC 20510
|
|
|
|
Chairman: Senator Dale Bumpers
|
|
|
|
Subcommittee on National Parks,
|
|
Forests and Public Lands
|
|
812 O'Neill House Office Bldg.
|
|
Washington, DC 20515
|
|
|
|
Chairman: Representative Bruce F. Vento
|
|
|
|
Here are some guidelines for an effective letter:
|
|
|
|
-- Write to your OWN senators and congressman first, at least if
|
|
you live in a Western state. Letters to out-of-state
|
|
representatives are less effective, since they don't need your
|
|
vote.
|
|
|
|
-- Be courteous and observe the polite forms of address.
|
|
|
|
-- Remember that your letter will be read by a tortured aide who
|
|
is required to read dozens of others. To be noticed among all
|
|
that rambling verbiage, the letter must be short and concise. IT
|
|
SHOULD NOT EXCEED ONE PAGE.
|
|
|
|
-- Do not express anger or outrage; it won't get you anywhere.
|
|
Stick to the facts, and don't offer anything more than "concern."
|
|
|
|
-- Make your comments specific to the person you are writing to.
|
|
Point out how this land use case will directly affect his state.
|
|
If you live in a Western state, you could mention a specific base
|
|
within your state that might be expanded if the military is given
|
|
carte blanche.
|
|
|
|
-- Do not attack the military. Members of Congress generally
|
|
support the military and tend to tremble and fold whenever the
|
|
term "national security" is used. Don't bother with government
|
|
accountability arguments either; they will only clog up your
|
|
letter and dilute your message. Stick with this one specific land
|
|
use problem.
|
|
|
|
-- Do not ask your representative to tell Babbitt what to do. You
|
|
are asking only that he "look into" the situation to be sure the
|
|
proper procedures are followed. The withdrawal application is
|
|
naturally weak and could fall apart on its own if only we can get
|
|
enough eyes looking at it. If we draw enough congressional
|
|
attention to this one simple issue, then they could catch on to
|
|
the more complex accountability problems as well.
|
|
|
|
After you write to your own congressional delegation or the
|
|
subcommittee chairman (or both), it doesn't hurt to write directly
|
|
to Babbitt...
|
|
|
|
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt
|
|
Secretary of the Interior
|
|
Dept. of the Interior
|
|
1800 "C" St., NW
|
|
Washington, DC 20240
|
|
|
|
(Dear Secretary Babbitt...)
|
|
|
|
If you wish, you can contact us for a list of the individual
|
|
members of the land use committees, who might also warrant a
|
|
letter.
|
|
|
|
----- INTEL BITTIES -----
|
|
|
|
CAMPBELL ARRAIGNMENT DELAYED. Glenn Campbell's arraignment on
|
|
obstruction charges has been postponed by the county District
|
|
Attorney from Aug. 3 to Aug. 24. Campbell was arrested on July 19
|
|
for interfering in the warrantless seizure of a news crew's
|
|
videotapes. KNBC-TV of Los Angeles still has not received their
|
|
tapes back, although they insist they did not photograph the
|
|
secret base. Campbell says he will plead "absolutely one hundred
|
|
percent not guilty," and he had already requested a jury trial.
|
|
|
|
AUG. 27-28 OUTING. The FREEDOM RIDGE/TIKABOO PEAK FREE-SPEECH
|
|
ENCAMPMENT, as mentioned in DR#13, is going ahead as proposed. It
|
|
will be held Sat. and Sun., Aug. 27-28. (For those who cannot
|
|
make it on this date, a similar event may also be held Sept. 3-4.)
|
|
A notice about the camp-out has already been sent to DR
|
|
subscribers, and detailed instructions will be sent out by email
|
|
in a day or two. (Others may request this document by fax or
|
|
mail.) The general plan is to meet at the Freedom Ridge trailhead
|
|
at noon on Saturday, then spend the night on Freedom Ridge. On
|
|
Sunday, there will be a optional hike to Tikaboo Peak, the more
|
|
distant viewpoint that the AF isn't touching. An optional protest
|
|
will also take place: Participants are invited to bring "cameras"
|
|
to point at the base, although film is optional. The camp-out on
|
|
Freedom Ridge does not require a lot of gear. All you really need
|
|
is a sleeping bag, a ground cover and enough food and drink to
|
|
last a day. More details will be provided in the instruction
|
|
document.
|
|
|
|
A GROOM PLAGUE? According to an article in the Aug. 9 Las Vegas
|
|
Review-Journal, a sheet metal worker for the EG&G subsidiary REECo
|
|
recently contracted hantavirus syndrome at an unspecified AF
|
|
facility within the "Nellis Air Force Range Complex" in Lincoln
|
|
County. It is apparently the first such case in Southern Nevada.
|
|
Not to be confused with the popular FLESH EATING BACTERIA,
|
|
hantavirus is the deadlier but less colorful disease that was
|
|
first recognized on Indian reservations and that has killed 42
|
|
people so far. The virus is transmitted by contact with the
|
|
saliva, urine or droppings of infected rodents. Makes you wonder:
|
|
Could we have a bit of a SANITATION PROBLEM down there at the
|
|
unspecified facility?
|
|
|
|
===== SUBSCRIPTION AND COPYRIGHT INFO =====
|
|
|
|
(c) Glenn Campbell, 1994. (psychospy@aol.com)
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without
|
|
permission. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: For
|
|
one year following the date of publication, you may photocopy this
|
|
text or send or post this document electronically to anyone who
|
|
you think might be interested, provided you do it without charge.
|
|
You may only copy or send this document in unaltered form and in
|
|
its entirety, not as partial excerpts (except brief quotes for
|
|
review purposes). After one year, no further reproduction of this
|
|
document is allowed without permission.
|
|
|
|
Email subscriptions to this newsletter are available free of
|
|
charge. To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send a message to
|
|
psychospy@aol.com. Subscriptions are also available by regular
|
|
mail for $15 per 10 issues, postpaid to anywhere in the world.
|
|
|
|
Back issues are available on various bulletin boards and by
|
|
internet FTP to ftp.shell.portal.com, directory
|
|
/pub/trader/secrecy/psychospy. Also available by WWW to
|
|
http://alfred1.u.washington.edu:8080/~roland/rat/desert_rat_index.
|
|
html
|
|
|
|
Current direct circulation: 1302 copies
|
|
|
|
The mail address for Psychospy, Glenn Campbell, Secrecy Oversight
|
|
Council, Area 51 Research Center, Groom Lake Desert Rat and
|
|
countless other ephemeral entities is:
|
|
HCR 61, Box 38
|
|
Rachel, NV 89001 USA
|
|
|
|
###
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |