[PAA-Discuss] International Law and War Crimes (UN Observer)

Mon Feb 18 01:04:36 EST 2008

  _____  

International Law and War Crimes

by Michael Ratner

In the work of this Commission, we are undertaking an historic task. We are
here to inquire into and ultimately judge whether the United States has
violated laws that are fundamental to a civilized world; laws that are
designed to protect people, human beings, from the barbarity of war. These
laws prohibit war except in the narrowest of circumstances; they severely
restrict who can be killed, the types of weapons that can be used and the
appropriate targets. 

An indicia of a civilized country is adherence to these laws, not only by
pious words but through actions. To act outside these laws, to disobey these
laws, to flaunt these laws is to become "hostis hurnani generis," an enemy
of all mankind. In days past "enemies of all mankind" were slave traders and
pirates. They could be brought to justice wherever found. Today such enemies
include those countries and individuals who violate the fundamental laws
that protect the peace and limit war. The testimony presented at the various
Commissions of Inquiry here in New York and in other hearings throughout the
world will determine whether the United States and its leaders are enemies
of all mankind. 

As people living in the United States we have an obligation not to close our
eyes, cover our ears and remain silent. We must not and cannot be "good
Germans." We must be, as Bertrand Russell said about the crimes committed by
the U.S. in Vietnam, "Against the Crime of Silence." We must bear witness to
the tens of thousands of deaths for whom our government and its leaders bear
responsibility and ask the question - Has the United States committed war
crimes with regard to its initiation and conduct of the war against Iraq? As
investigators we believe that the United States and its leaders have
committed international crimes. Although we cannot bring them to justice, we
can reveal their criminal conduct to ourselves, to the people of the United
States, and to the world with the hope that U.S. conduct will be repudiated,
conduct, which by the way, still continues. The U.S. still occupies parts of
Iraq, it continues an embargo against food, and it engages in battle after a
cease-fire. 

Today I want to outline for you the legal framework in which we are
operating and explain some of the broad principles of law applicable to
judging the United States' conduct. 

War crimes are violations by a country, its civilians, or its military
personnel of the international laws of war. The laws of war are laws that
must be obeyed by the United States, its officials and its military, and by
the UN. The laws are contained in treaties that the U.S. has signed, for
example the Geneva Convention of 1949 on Prisoners of War. They are
reflected in what is called customary international law. This law has arisen
over hundreds if not thousands of years. All countries must obey it. 

War crimes are divided into two broad categories. The first are called
crimes against peace. Crimes against peace include the planning,
preparation, or initiation of a war of aggression. In other words one
country cannot make aggressive war against another country. Nor can a
country settle a dispute by war; it must always, and in good faith,
negotiate a settlement. The second category are what we can call crimes
against humanity; I am including here crimes against civilians and soldiers.
These are violations of the rules as to the means and manner by which war is
to be conducted once begun. These include the following prohibitions:
killing of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the use of certain types of
weapons, killing of defenseless soldiers, ill treatment of POWs and attacks
on non-military targets. 

Any violation of these two sets of laws is a war crime; if the violations
are done on purpose, recklessly or knowingly, they are considered very
serious and called grave breaches; Nazis and Japanese following World War II
were hanged for such grave breaches. 

First, I want to discuss crimes against peace and give you some sense of its
application here. This prohibition is embodied in the Charter of the United
Nations <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm> , the Nuremberg Charter
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm> , which is the law under which the Nazis
were tried, and a treaty called the Kellogg-Briand pact. As the Nuremberg
Charter <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm>  defines, 

a.	Crimes against peace: 

i.	Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; 
ii.	Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment
of any of the acts mentioned under (i). 

The United Nations Charter is the highest expression of this prohibition on
aggressive war and sets down very rigorous rules for avoiding the use of
force - rules which were flagrantly violated by the United States and a
Security Council it controlled. Article <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm#a2>
2131 of the UN Charter <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm>  requires that
international disputes be settled by peaceful means so that international
peace, security and justice are not endangered; Article 2141
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm#a2>  requires that force shall not by used in
any manner that is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN and Article 33
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-un.htm#a33>  requires that parties to a dispute
shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies,
or other peaceful means. Not until all such means are exhausted can force be
used. 

So, taken together we have two basic rules: a nation cannot plan and make
war, and second, if there is a dispute, the nations must exhaust every means
of settlement - every means. Even then, only the UN can authorize war. There
is strong evidence, some of which is presented in the papers here, that the
U.S. violated both of these basic laws. These facts are not hidden. Much of
the evidence indicating that the U.S. set up the war with Iraq is contained
in U.S. Rep. Gonzalez's impeachment resolution and brief in support
presented to Congress and printed in full in the Congressional Record (H.
Res. 86, February 21, 1991, included in the printed report: ISBN
0-944-624-15-4). It is only the major commercial press which has ignored the
facts. In part it includes the following revelations: 

As early as October 1989 the CIA representatives in Kuwait had agreed to
take advantage of Iraq's deteriorating economic position to put pressure on
Iraq to accede to Kuwait's demands with regard to the border dispute. 

. . . Encouraging Kuwait to refuse to negotiate its differences with Iraq as
required by the United Nations Charter, including Kuwait's failure to abide
by OPEC quotas, its pumping of Iraqi oil from the Rumaila oil field and its
refusal to negotiate these and other matters with Iraq. 

Months prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the United States
administration prepared a plan and practiced elaborate computer war games
pitting United States forces against Iraqi armored divisions. 

In testimony before Congress prior to the invasion, Assistant Secretary
Kelly misleadingly assured Congress that the United States had no commitment
to come to Kuwait's assistance in the event of war. 

April Glaspie's reassurance to Iraq that the dispute was an 'Arab' matter
and the U.S. would not interfere. 

Even if we suspend judgment and believe that the U.S. neither planned nor
prepared this war, it had no right to initiate war until all means of
negotiation were at an end. The U.S., however, never wanted to negotiate. It
wanted war. According to the New York Times, the U.S. wanted to "block the
diplomatic track because it might defuse the crisis at the cost of a few
token gains for Iraq.''[1] <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#1>  Iraq at
about this time made an offer to negotiate to settle the crisis. It offered
to withdraw from Kuwait for some form of control over two uninhabited
islands that would give it access to the Gulf and control over the Rumaila
oilfield. The offer was, according to the some U.S. officials, "serious and
negotiable." Offers continued until the eve of war and by that time Iraq was
willing to withdraw totally from Kuwait. The U.S. instantly dismissed all
offers to negotiate a settlement and refused to pursue them. "No
negotiations" was the constant theme of U.S. President George Bush.[2]
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#2>  The U.S. and its allies wanted to see
the crisis settled by force. It is the U.S. that chose war and not peace; it
is the U.S. that committed a crime against peace. 

I want to say a word about the UN Resolutions embargoing Iraq and supposedly
authorizing the use of force. All of the UN Resolutions were suspect because
of what Rep. Gonzalez called in his impeachment resolution the "bribing,
intimidating and threatening of others, including members of the UN Security
Council." Gonzalez cites the following outright bribes: 

*	Immediately after the November 29 vote in the UN authorizing force,
the administration unblocked a $140 million loan for the World Bank to China
and agreed to meet with Chinese government officials. 
*	The Soviet Union was promised $7 billion in aid from various
countries and shipments of food from the United States. 
*	Zaire was promised forgiveness of part of its debt as well as
military assistance. 
*	A $7 billion loan to Egypt was forgiven, a loan the President had no
authority to forgive under U.S. law. 
*	Syria was promised that there would be no interference in its
Lebanon actions. 
*	Saudi Arabia was promised $12 billion in arms sales. 
*	The U.S., which owes the most money to the U.N., paid off $187
million of its debt immediately after the vote authorizing the use of force.

*	The administration attempted to coerce Yemen by threatening the
cutoff of U.S. funds.[3] <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#3>  

But even were this not the case, can the UN apply measures of force such as
the embargo, effectively a blockade and an act of war, and authorize all
necessary means - which the U.S. saw as war - without negotiating first? It
cannot do so according to the stipulations of its own Charter. 

Nor was the UN permitted to embargo food and limit the importation of
medicine. Neither the UN nor any country can take measures that
intentionally or knowingly have the effect of starving and harming the
civilian population. This is prohibited by every tenet of international law.
It is well known that Iraq imports 60 to 70 percent of its food. As
testimony presented elsewhere in book and in many reports from fact finding
missions to Iraq since the end of the war, many children died because of the
lack of infant formula and adequate food and medicine. 

And what of this infamous resolution that authorized all necessary means to
remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait? Did this authorize war? Not by its own
terms. The resolution was left specifically vague, stipulating only "all
necessary means." Nowhere did it mention war and certainly many other means
were readily available for achieving the goals of the UN resolutions. All
other means were never exhausted. From the U.S. standpoint, massively
violent war was the first and only option. All other means had to be
precluded at any cost. 

Finally, on the point of the U.S. commission of crimes against peace even if
we get over all of the other illegalities and assume that the UN had the
authority to authorize war and did so in this case, what did it authorize?
It authorized the use of force only to obtain the withdrawal from Kuwait. It
certainly never authorized the incursion into, much less the occupation of,
Iraq and the total subjection of that nation to the dictates of the UN
acting out policies originating in the U.S. government. No one has
authorized the U.S. to have even one soldier in Iraq. This is aggression in
the classic sense. U.S. forces moved in from the north down to the 36th
parallel and have set up camps for displaced Kurds. Nor did the resolution
authorize any bombing of Iraq, certainly not the bombing of Baghdad or Basra
or the near complete destruction of the economic infrastructure. 

The second broad category we are concerned with are what are referred to as
crimes against humanity. By this I mean both crimes against civilians and
combatants. There is a long history of outlawing certain kinds of conduct
once war has begun. The principle is that the means and manner of waging war
are not unlimited. In other words, while it is of primary importance to
prevent war, once war has begun there are limits on the types of targets
that can be attacked and the weapons that can be employed. Central to these
laws of war is the desire to protect civilians, noncombatants, soldiers who
are no longer fighting, and the resources and infrastructure necessary to
their survival. Again, at Nuremberg, the Nazis were tried for crimes against
humanity which included killings of the civilian population and the wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages and devastation not justified by
military necessity. 

These laws are embodied in various treaties, including most importantly the
Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Protocol I
Additional to the Geneva <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm>  Conventions.
They all reflect a similar set of rules, violations of which are war crimes.
They are built around two principles. First, military operations are to be
directed at military objectives - the civilian population and civilian
objects are not to be targets. So, massive bombing, as was engaged in by the
U.S., which kills civilians and destroyed the water supply, is illegal. In
fact, when the dispute was barely a month old, in September, Air Force chief
of staff General Michael J. Duggan was fired for leaking to the press
suggestions that the U.S. was already planning bombing targets which would
include Iraqi power systems, roads railroads, and petroleum plants.[4]
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#4>  

At the height of the war, this sort of bombing campaign was defended by
Pentagon spokespersons in terms reminiscent of the Vietnam War. Many parts
of Iraq became "free fire zones" in which everyone who remains in such a
zone is declared unilaterally by the U.S. as a legitimate target for
destruction. The entire city of Basra, Iraq's second largest, became such a
free fire zone, as described by Brigadier General Richard I. Neal. The
Washington Post story recounts: "In Riyadh, Marine Brig. Gen. Richard I.
Neal gave a detailed explanation of why repeated allied pounding of the
southern Iraqi city of Basra is causing 'collateral damage.' Basra, Neal
said, 'is a military town in the true sense, it is astride a major naval
base and a port facility. The infrastructure, military infrastructure, is
closely interwoven within the city of Basra itself.' The destruction of
targets in and around Basra is part of what Neal described as an
'intensifying' air campaign against all 'echelons of forces, from the front
lines and all the way back ... There is no rest for the weary, for any of
them.... There is no division, no brigade, there is no battalion that really
is spared the attacks from our pilots."'[5]
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#5>  

The second limit international law places on the conduct of war is the
principle of proportionality - you can only use the amount of force against
military targets necessary to achieve your objective. So, for example,
destroying the retreating Iraqi army was disproportional for it was not
necessary to achieve the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The whole conduct of
the war, in fact, violates every conceivable notion of proportionality. 

International law lays down rules for how the civilian population is to be
protected. Obviously civilians cannot be intentionally attacked, but,
indiscriminate attacks are prohibited as well. Such attacks are defined as
those that "employ a method of combat which cannot be directed at specific
military objectives." While the mass media, especially TV news, gave the
impression during the war that the U.S. was using only "smart" bombs that
directly hit their military targets, in fact 93 percent of the bombs used
were "dumb" bombs of which at least 60 to 70 percent missed their
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm>  targets, killing lots of people. Such
bombs cannot be directed exclusively at a military objective and in my view
are illegal. Nor can bombs dropped from a B-52 flying at thirty to forty
thousand feet hit their targets. 

There is a special law protecting objects indispensable to the civilian
population - the infrastructure of a country. This includes prohibitions on
destroying food supplies, water and sewer systems, agriculture, power,
medical services, transportation and similar essentials. These cannot be
attacked even if there is some military goal, if the effect would be to
leave civilians without the essentials for life. In fact, the U.S.
government openly stated its goal of destroying the infrastructure of Iraq
including water, food supplies, the sewer system, electricity and
transportation. The story was not reported in U.S. newspapers until late
June of 1991, but the facts were obvious to even a casual observer.
According to the Washington Post story, U.S. officials admitted that "Some
targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar
leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself....
the intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could
not repair without foreign assistance.[6]
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#6>  A report of the United Nations Mission
to Iraq led by Under Secretary General Martti Ahtisaari said that Iraq had
been bombed into the pre-industrial age.[7]
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm#7>  Thousands of additional people - all
civilians and most children - are dying as a result. 

Attacks are also to be limited to strictly military objectives. These are
defined as those that make an effective contribution to military action and
whose destruction offer a definite military advantage. Civilian objects are
not to be attacked. In case of doubt, such as a school, it should be
presumed that it is not used as a military object. What does this rule say
about bombing of the al-Ameriyah shelter? At least 300 children and parents
were incinerated in a structure that the U.S. knew was built as a shelter
for civilians. Its possible use as a military communications center was only
a matter of speculation and weak supposition. Or, what are we to make of the
destruction of the baby milk factory at the beginning of the bombing
campaign? Again, an American general has admitted that this was a mistake -
a mistake that has cost many, many babies their lives. 

There are also a series of very specific laws: 

1.	The use of asphyxiating gases is prohibited. The U.S. violated this
by its use of fuel-air explosive bombs on Iraqi frontline troops; these
bombs are terror bombs which can burn the oxygen over a surface of one or
two square kilometers, destroying human life by asphyxiation. 
2.	These fuel-air bombs and the U.S. use of napalm are also outlawed by
the Hague and Geneva Conventions <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm> , which
prohibit the use of weapons causing unnecessary harm to combatants. The
level of U.S. evil is demonstrated by the sending to the Gulf of a stingray
blinding laser system which is supposed to knock out optics on enemy
weapons, but has the side effect of blinding soldiers as well who operate
the weapons. 
3.	The bombing of peaceful nuclear power facilities is forbidden and
particularly so because of the dangers of the spread of radioactivity. The
UN International Atomic Energy Agency classified the reactors as peaceful,
yet the U.S. bombed them, not caring about the spread of radioactivity. The
bombing was intentional and planned in advance, clearly in violation of
international law. 
4.	Both the Hague Convention of 1954 and Protocol I to the Geneva
<http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm>  Conventions prohibit attacks against
historic monuments, works of art, places of worship and sites which
constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of a people. Catholic
churches, a 4th century monastery and a Sunni Moslem mosque represent just
some of the massive violations that occurred. [See Fadwa El Guindi's essay
on archaeological destruction, Waging War on Civilization.] 
5.	Protocol <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm>  I of the Geneva
Convention also requires protection of the natural environment against
widespread and severe damage - the U.S. massive bombing, the blowing up of
reactors, the hitting of oil storage facilities all violate this
prohibition. 

What I have tried to outline today is the broad framework in which we can
evaluate the criminal conduct of the United States. I believe that these
hearings will establish beyond doubt the criminal nature of American actions
in this war. I want to close with the words of Bertrand Russell when he
addressed the war crimes that had been revealed at the War Crimes Tribunal
held in 1967 in Stockholm and in 1968 in Copenhagen to judge U.S. actions in
Vietnam: 

It is not enough, however, to identify the criminal. The United States must
be isolated and rendered incapable of further crimes. I hope that America's
remaining allies will be forced to desert the alliances which bind them
together. I hope that the American people will repudiate resolutely the
abject course on which their rulers have embarked. Finally, I hope that the
peoples of the Third World will take heart from the example of the
Vietnamese and join further in dismantling the American empire. It is the
attempt to create empires that produces war crimes because, as the Nazis
also reminded us, empires are founded on a self-righteous and deep-rooted
belief in racial superiority and God-given mission. Once one believes
colonial peoples to be untermenschen - 'gooks' is the American term - one
has destroyed the basis of all civilized codes of conduct. 

Notes

See Appendix A <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-appa.htm>  for relevant selections
from international law. 

1.	New York Times, August 22, 1990. 
2.	Michael Emty, "How the U.S. Avoided the Peace," The Village Voice,
March 5, 1991. 
3.	Congressional Record, January 16, 1991: H520. 
4.	Rick Atkinson, "U.S. to Rely on Air Strikes if War Erupts," New York
Times, September 16, 1990: Al. 
5.	"Ground War Not Imminent, Bush Says: Allies to Rely on Air Sower
'for a While,"' Washington Post, February 12, 1991: A14. 
6.	Washington Post, June 23, 1991: Al. 
7.	Martti Ahtisaari, "Report to the Secretary General on Humanitarian
Needs in Kuwait and Iraq in the Immediate Post-Crisis Environment," United
Nations Report No. S122366, March 20, 1991. 

Michael Ratner is an attorney former director of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, and past president of the National Lawyer's Guild. He
has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Gulf War. This
report was given at the New York Commission Hearing, May 11, 1991. 

  _____  

Index <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm> 
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/wc-ilaw.htm
Copyright C 1992 by The Commission <http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm>  of
Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal 

http://www.unobserv
<http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=4418&blz=1>
er.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=4418&blz=1

  _____  

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>  your homepage.

__._,_.___ 

Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/message/9316;_ylc=X3oDMTM0Nzc0MjJiBF9T
Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BG1zZ0lkAzkzMTYEc2Vj
A2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjAzMzEzMjU4BHRwY0lkAzkzMTY->  in this topic (1)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwN2JkcnNzBF9TAzk3MzU5
NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BG1zZ0lkAzkzMTYEc2VjA2Z0cgRz
bGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjAzMzEzMjU4?act=reply&messageNum=9316> Reply (via web
post) | Start
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNjdzNWFrBF9TAzk3MzU5
NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3Rp
bWUDMTIwMzMxMzI1OA-->  a new topic 

Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJla2dmZzlhBF9TAzk3
MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3ME
c3RpbWUDMTIwMzMxMzI1OA-->  

All statements or articles posted represent the views of their authors and
not necessarily those of PACUSA.

All message are available for members at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA

Write your representative today!:
http://cflweb.org/congress_merge_.htm

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbTZtZTdyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzc3N
zA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjAzMzEzMjU4>
Yahoo! Groups
Change
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcWFnOTNwBF9TAzk3NDc2
NTkwBGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0
aW1lAzEyMDMzMTMyNTg->  settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch
<mailto:PACUSA-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
<mailto:PACUSA-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Forma
t:%20Traditional>  format to Traditional 
Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmlwbHJkBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwB
GdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxM
jAzMzEzMjU4>  Your Group | Yahoo! Groups <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
<mailto:PACUSA-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=>  

Recent Activity

*                                1

New
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmazRpdmhwBF9TAzk3M
zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzB
HN0aW1lAzEyMDMzMTMyNTg->  Members

Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PACUSA;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbTlpNDZwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0B
GdycElkAzc3NzA5MzYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDM
TIwMzMxMzI1OA-->  Your Group 

Search Ads

Get
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o8frbfg/M=493064.12016308.12445700.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705064309:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1203320458/L=/B=lC0gE0Je5FU-/J=1203313258
578644/A=3848641/R=0/SIG=1312g85fq/*http:/searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srch
v2.php?o=US2003&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups2&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50>  new customers.

List your web site

in Yahoo! Search.

Yahoo! Groups

Latest
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13oches1j/M=493064.12016262.12445669.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705064309:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1203320458/L=/B=lS0gE0Je5FU-/J=1203313258
578644/A=5028926/R=0/SIG=11e3tma2a/*http:/new.groups.yahoo.com/moderatorcent
ral>  product news

Join Mod. Central

stay connected.

Yahoo! Groups

Wellness
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13pg3pusi/M=493064.12016299.12445691.11322765/D
=groups/S=1705064309:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1203320458/L=/B=li0gE0Je5FU-/J=120331325
8578644/A=4990215/R=0/SIG=11d53kq3t/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/curv
es/>  Spot

A resource for Curves

and weight loss.

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=7770936/grpspId=1705064309/msgId
=9316/stime=1203313258/nc1=3848641/nc2=5028926/nc3=4990215> 
__,_._,___ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20080218/9082fade/attachment.htm>