Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
police state
#1
Hmm2

Bend Over!
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/damned.gif" alt="Damned" title="damned" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#2
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 18/1351245

Quote:Monday, September 18th, 2006
EXCLUSIVE... Army Investigation into Sexual Harassment Charges by Specialist Suzanne Swift Ended in July, Attorney Says Military "Did Not Do Diligent Investigation"

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Democracy Now! exclusive, Army Specialist Suzanne Swift speaks out in her first national broadcast interview. After serving in Iraq, Swift was arrested and confined to base for going AWOL. She says she was sexually harassed and abused by her commanders in Iraq and at home. In the interview, Swift reveals for the first time that an Army investigation concluded in July that they could not substantiate her claims. Swift says, "For women considering going into [the military]: Don't." Her attorney, Keith Scherer, says, "It's pretty clear from the language in the report that they didn't do a diligent investigation." [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, a Democracy Now exclusive. For the past several months, we have been covering the case of Suzanne Swift - she is the Army Specialist who was arrested and confined to base for going AWOL after her charges of sexual harassment and assault went un-addressed by the military.
Suzanne served in Iraq for a year but decided she could not return and went AWOL. She said she was sexually harassed both in Iraq and at her base in Fort Lewis, Washington. In June, the police arrested Suzanne in Eugene, Oregon and took her to the county jail. She was then transferred to Fort Lewis where she was confined to her base for 2 months.

Last week the Army completed its investigation into Swift's charges. Today, for the first time, Suzanne speaks to us _live - She's on the phone from Eugene Oregon. Also on the line are Suzanne's attorney, Keith Scherer and her mother, Sara Rich.


Suzanne Swift, she went AWOL in January of 2006. She alleges she was sexually harassed repeatedly by her superiors in the Army.
Keith Scherer, military defense attorney. We are also joined by Suzanne's attorney, Keith Scherer. He is a partner at Gagne, Scherer & Associates.
Sara Rich, mother of Suzanne Swift.

More information at SuzanneSwift.org. Email Suzanne Swift's mother, Sara Rich, at formydaughtersuzanne@yahoo.com. And the website is suzanneswift.org.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you all for being with us: Suzanne Swift, speaking out in this national broadcast for the first time; Keith Scherer, military defense attorney; and Sara Rich, the mother of Suzanne Swift. We will continue to follow your case.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

Everbody bend over!
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whip.gif" alt="Whip" title="whip" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#3
Quote:Sources: August terror plot is a 'fiction' underscoring police failures

Nafeez Ahmed
Published: Monday September 18, 2006


Print This Email This


British Army expert casts doubt on 'liquid explosives' threat, Al Qaeda network in UK Identified

Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer, has suggested that the police and government story about the "terror plot" revealed on 10th August was part of a "pattern of lies and deceit."

British and American government officials have described the operation which resulting in the arrest of 24 mostly British Muslim suspects, as a resounding success. Thirteen of the suspects have been charged, and two released without charges.

According to security sources, the terror suspects were planning to board up to ten civilian airliners and detonate highly volatile liquid explosives on the planes in a spectacular terrorist operation. The liquid explosives -- either TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide), DADP (diacetone diperoxide) or the less sensitive HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) -- were reportedly to be made on board the planes by mixing sports drinks with a peroxide-based household gel and then be detonated using an MP3 player or mobile phone.

But Lt. Col. Wylde, who was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his command of the Belfast Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 1974, described this scenario as a "fiction." Creating liquid explosives is a "highly dangerous and sophisticated task," he states, one that requires not only significant chemical expertise but also appropriate equipment.

Terror plot scenario "untenable"

"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst.

After working as a bomb defuser in Northern Ireland, Lt. Col. Wylde became a senior officer in British Army Intelligence in 1977. During the Cold War, he collected intelligence as part of an undercover East German "liaison unit," then went on to work in the Ministry of Defense to review its communications systems.

"So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure," Wylde stated.

"This story has been blown out of all proportion. The liquids would need to be carefully distilled at freezing temperatures to extract the required chemicals, which are very difficult to obtain in the purities needed."

Once the fluids have been extracted, the process of mixing them produces significant amounts of heat and vile fumes. "The resulting liquid then needs some hours at room temperature for the white crystals that are the explosive to develop." The whole process, which can take between 12 and 36 hours, is "very dangerous, even in a lab, and can lead to premature detonation," said Lt. Col. Wylde.

If there was a conspiracy, he added, "it did not involve manufacturing the explosives in the loo," as this simply "could not have worked." The process would be quickly and easily detected. The fumes of the chemicals in the toilet "would be smelt by anybody in the area." They would also inevitably "cause the alarms in the toilet and in the air change system in the aircraft to be triggered. The pilot has the ability to dump all the air from an aircraft as a fire-fighting measure, leaving people to use oxygen masks. All this means the planned attack would be detected long before the queues outside the loo had grown to enormous lengths."

Government silent on detonators

Even if it was possible for the explosive to have been made on the aircraft, a detonator, probably made from TATP, would be needed to set it off. "It is very dangerous and risky to the individual," Wylde said. "As the quantity involved would be small this would injure the would-be suicide bomber but not endanger the aircraft, thus defeating the object of bringing down an aircraft."

Despite the implausibility of this scenario, it has been used to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act of 1998. "Why were the public delicately informed of an alleged conspiracy which the authorities knew, or should have known, could not have worked?" asked Lt. Col. Wylde.

"This is not a new problem," he added, noting that 'shoe-bomber' Richard Reid had attempted to use this type of explosive on a plane in December 2001. "If this threat is real, what has been done to develop explosive test kits capable of detecting peroxide based explosives?" asked Wylde. "These are the real issues about protecting the public that have not been publicised. Instead we are going to get demands for more internment without trial."

Lt. Col. Wylde also raised questions about the criminal investigation into the 7th July terrorist attacks in London last year. He noted that police and government sources have maintained "total silence" about the detonation devices used in the bombs on the London Underground and the bus at Tavistock Square. "Whatever the nature of the primary explosive materials, even if it was home-made TATP, the detonator that must be used to trigger an explosion is an extremely dangerous device to make, requiring a high level of expertise that cannot be simply self-taught or picked-up over the internet," Wylde stated.

The government's silence on the detonation device used in the attacks is "disturbing," he said, as the creation of the devices requires the involvement of trained explosives experts. Wylde speculated that such individuals would have to be present either inside the country or outside, perhaps in Eastern Europe, where they would be active participants in an international supply-chain to UK operatives. "In either case, we are talking about something far more dangerous than home-grown radicals here."

Spy slams police inaction against terrorists

Wylde's concerns are echoed by others familiar with British terrorism-related intelligence operations, such as Glen Jenvey, who is profiled in the bestselling book, The Terror Tracker, by terrorism investigator Neil Doyle. Jenvey worked for several military attaches monitoring terrorist groups in London and obtained crucial video and surveillance evidence used by British police to arrest radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was convicted last February.

"I've been closely monitoring the internet communications of extremist Muslim groups inside the UK both before and after 7/7, and they are intimately interconnected," said Jenvey, who is affiliated with the London-based terror watch group VIGIL. "We've identified a coordinated leadership of at least 20 and up to 60 people, extremist preachers with blatant international al-Qaeda terrorist connections."

Jenvey noted that even though they are known to the authorities and are monitored while breaking the law with impunity, particularly in their private sermons, the police have failed to take appropriate action against them. "The police don't need to round up and detain thousands of British Muslims. If they only arrested, charged and prosecuted these 20 key terrorist leaders, they will have a struck a fatal blow against the epicentres of al-Qaeda extremism in the UK. But they're sitting on this."

Jenvey points to Omar Bakri Mohammed, a colleague of convicted terrorist Abu Hamza who headed the now-banned Islamist group al-Muhajiroun in the United Kingdom. Despite being exiled to Lebanon, Omar Bakri continues to communicate with UK-based extremist groups which are believed to be successors of al-Muhajiroun operating under new names, including the Saved Sect and al-Ghurabaa. British security sources have confirmed that the 7/7 bombers were associates of Omar Bakri's network, and Bakri himself publicly boasted a year before the London bombings that an al-Qaeda cell in London was planning a terrorist strike.

An investigation by the counterterrorism unit in the New York Police Department found that Bakri's al-Muhajiroun had formed 81 front groups and support networks in six countries, most of them based in London, the home counties bordering London, the Midlands, Lancashire and West Yorkshire. By the time Home Secretary Dr. John Reid moved in July to proscribe the latest incarnation of al-Muhajiroun, al-Ghurabaa, this sprawling interconnected network was fully functioning and continues to operate namelessly, despite proscription. Bakri's network has recently adopted the name "Al Sabiqoon Al-Awwaloon".

Jenvey complains that, despite the arrest in early September of radical cleric Abu Abdullah, convicted terrorist Abu Hamza's successor at the Finsbury Park Mosque, a "hardcore group of 20 or more extremists operating around Omar Bakri" remains at large. "The police have every reason to act, and they know who these people are. Their failure to do so has only exacerbated unjustified demonization of Muslims. These extremists are not Muslims in any meaningful sense, they are simply terrorists obsessed with violence."

MI5, MI6 recruiting extremists?

Even the arrest of Abu Abdullah only occurred after his support for terrorism was widely reported in the British and American media in late August. On 23rd August, he justified the killing of Westerners and told CNN correspondent Dan Rivers that Tony Blair is a "legitimate target" of jihad. The Sunday Times remarked that he "is apparently being allowed to operate unchecked by the authorities five months after a law was passed making it a criminal offence to glorify terrorism."

Torture may have been used to extract evidence for the weekend police raids which resulted in the arrest of 14 British Muslims, including Abdullah. Sources confirm that information came from detainees at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo, where interrogation techniques classified as torture under international law are routinely used.

The reluctance to take decisive action against the leadership of the extremist network in the UK has a long history. According to John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor, Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza, as well as the suspected mastermind of the London bombings Haroon Aswat, were all recruited by MI6 in the mid-1990s to draft up British Muslims to fight in Kosovo. American and French security sources corroborate the revelation. The MI6 connection raises questions about Bakri's relationship with British authorities today. Exiled to Lebanon and outside British jurisdiction, he is effectively immune to prosecution.

Other London-based radical clerics with terrorist connections also had a relationship to the security services. Abu Qatada, described as al-Qaeda's European ambassador, was, according to French sources a long-time MI5 informant. Pakistani government insiders similarly believe that Ahmed Omar Sheikh Saeed, the British al-Qaeda finance chief from Forest Gate, not only worked with the ISI, Pakistani's military intelligence service, but was also recruited by the CIA as an informant. Saeed, who reportedly wired several hundred thousand dollars to alleged chief 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, is currently in Pakistani custody for the murder of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.

Omar Bakri regularly uses the internet to communicate from Lebanon with his followers in Britain. On Sunday evening, 3rd September, Omar Bakri told participants in an online chat forum that he had been pulled in by the Lebanese authorities at the request of the US and British governments and questioned in relation to the "terror plot". Although he denied involvement in the plot, he claimed that some of the 24 British Muslim suspects were known to him. When asked to confirm or deny whether Bakri had indeed been arrested at the request of the British, the Foreign Office had no comment. Bakri said that he was regularly questioned by Lebanese officials on behalf of the British government.

The official reluctance to act against Bakri and his active associates in the UK does not match the government's willingness to act pre-emptively to foil a plot of doubtful reality. Official reluctance to acknowledge the significance of the detonators used in the 7/7 terrorist operation suggests that the threat is far more sophisticated than authorities have admitted, and that emphasis on home-grown amateurs is mistaken. Lt. Col. Wylde's observations would seem to indicate that the terror-threat narrative is being manipulated for reasons of political expediency.

#
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Graham Ennis, Nigel Wylde and Glen Jenvey for their research assistance and contribution to this story. They bear no responsibility for any errors therein. An abridged version of this story will be printed in The Muslim News, UK on 29th September 2006.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is the author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth, £9:99) and The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Arris, £12:99). He testified in the US Congress about his research on international terrorism in July 2005. He teaches International Relations at the University of Sussex, Brighton.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sourc ... _0918.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#4
Quote:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?s...18/1351245

[quote]
SUZANNE SWIFT: For the women who are considering going into it, don't. And for the women who are already in the military or in similar situations, write it down, report it, contact your congressman, be as loud as possible. And I know it's scary, but don't let them do it.
Everbody bend over!
Lmao Lmao
She should have shot the bastard and said the enemy did it.
Reply
#5
Updated: 07:36 AM EDT
IM This E-mail This

Innocent Man Sent to Syria and Tortured, Probe Finds
Canadian Report Faults Mounties, U.S. for Deportation
By ROB GILLIES, AP

TORONTO (Sept. 19) - The United States "very likely" sent a Canadian software engineer to Syria, where he was tortured, based on the false accusation by Canadian authorities that he was suspected of links to al-Qaida, according to a new government report.

Syrian-born Maher Arar was exonerated of all suspicion of terrorist activity by the 2 1/2-year commission of inquiry into his case, which urged the Canadian government to offer him financial compensation. Arar is perhaps the world's best-known case of extraordinary rendition -- the U.S. transfer of foreign terror suspects to third countries without court approval.

"I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada," Justice Dennis O'Connor said Monday in a three-volume report on the findings of the inquiry, part of which was made public.

Arar was traveling on a Canadian passport when he was detained at New York's Kennedy Airport on Sept. 26, 2002, on his way home from vacation in Tunisia.

Arar said U.S. authorities sent him to Syria for interrogation as a suspected member of al-Qaida, a link he denied.

He spent nearly a year in prison in Syria and made detailed allegations after his release in 2003 about extensive interrogation, beatings and whippings with electrical cables.

O'Connor criticized the U.S. and recommended that Ottawa file formal protests with both Washington and the Syrian government over Arar's treatment.

"The American authorities who handled Mr. Arar's case treated Mr. Arar in a most regrettable fashion," O'Connor wrote. "They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there. Moreover, they dealt with Canadian officials involved with Mr. Arar's case in a less than forthcoming manner."

The U.S. is already under intense criticism from human rights groups over the practice of sending suspects to countries where they could be tortured.

U.S. and Syrian officials refused to cooperate with the Canadian inquiry.

The commission found the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shared information about Arar with American anti-terrorist agencies both before and after he was detained.

The RCMP asked the U.S. to put Arar on a watch list as an "Islamic extremist individual" suspected of links to the al-Qaida terrorist movement, the report said.

The request was issued after Arar met with another man who was under surveillance, a meeting Arar has said was about how to find inexpensive computer equipment.

"The RCMP had no basis for this description, which had the potential to create serious consequences for Mr. Arar in light of American attitudes and practices," the report said.

The RCMP described Arar as the "target" of a domestic anti-terrorist investigation in Canada when in fact he was a peripheral figure who had come under suspicion only because he had been seen in the company of the man who was under surveillance, the report found.

O'Connor said that much of the material shared with U.S. authorities had not been double-checked to ensure its accuracy and reliability -- a violation of the RCMP's usual rules for divulging information to foreign agencies.

O'Connor concluded that the inaccurate information passed by Canadian police to U.S. authorities "very likely" led to their decision to send Arar to Syria.

"It's quite clear that the RCMP sent inaccurate information to U.S. officials," Arar said at a news conference in Ottawa. "I would have not have even been sent to Syria had this information not been given to them."

"I have waited a long time to have my name cleared. I was tortured and lost a year of my life. I will never be the same," Arar said. "The United States must take responsibility for what it did to me and must stop destroying more innocent lives with its unlawful actions."

The commission concluded there was no evidence Canadian officials participated in or agreed to the decision to send Arar to Syria. But O'Connor recommended that in the future, information should never be provided to a foreign country where there is a credible risk that it will cause or contribute to the use of torture.

Most of the judge's 23 policy recommendations centered on the RCMP and emphasized the need to improve the force's internal policies for national security investigations and the sharing of information with other countries.

Arar's case has been regularly featured on the front pages of Canadian newspapers and public outcry led to the government calling an inquiry. Canada's federal government established the inquiry in 2004 to determine the role Canadian officials played.

O'Connor also found "troubling questions" about the role played by Canadian officials in the cases of three other Canadians of Arab descent -- Ahmad El Maati, Abdullah Almalki and Muayyed Nureddin. All claim they were tortured in Syria after traveling there on personal business, and all suspect that the RCMP, Canadian intelligence or both collaborated with their captors.

O'Connor said he could not get to the bottom of those cases because of the limited nature of his mandate. But he urged the government to appoint an independent investigator -- something short of a full-fledged public inquiry -- to look into those cases.

O'Connor sifted through thousands of pages of documents and sat through testimony from more than 40 witnesses. He delivered two versions of his report to the government: one classified, the other public. But portions of even the public edition of the long-awaited document were withheld due to security concerns.


9/19/2006 06:23:35
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#6
Quote:[quote author="Wook"]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/1351245

Quote:SUZANNE SWIFT: For the women who are considering going into it, don't. And for the women who are already in the military or in similar situations, write it down, report it, contact your congressman, be as loud as possible. And I know it's scary, but don't let them do it.
Everbody bend over!
Lmao Lmao
She should have shot the bastard and said the enemy did it.


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
????? ????
Reply
#7
Quote:[quote author="Samurai Jane"][quote author="Wook"]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/1351245

Quote:SUZANNE SWIFT: For the women who are considering going into it, don't. And for the women who are already in the military or in similar situations, write it down, report it, contact your congressman, be as loud as possible. And I know it's scary, but don't let them do it.
Everbody bend over!
Lmao Lmao
She should have shot the bastard and said the enemy did it.



<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />[/quote]

Like how they did Pat Tillman.

The Army~it's an Equal Opportunity Abusive Situation~
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
#8
Seeing how much of the military is more and more hispanic, they should call it ... An Army 0f Juan.
????? ????
Reply
#9
Quote:September 20, 2006Blown Gaskets and “Tola Tari Tal Tarians”
Filed under: Uncategorized — whyzayker @ 3:06 pm
By W. David Jenkins III

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Jan. 1933

“It’s a dangerous world…Time is running out….The enemy wants to attack us again.” - George W. Bush 9/15/06

“This war will be difficult, this war will be long, and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and the tola tari tari to tal tarians –( totalitarians), and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty.”- Bush in Salt Lake City 8/31/06

I think Bush is scared out of what’s left of his mind. I hear the pundits going on about how assertive and forceful the President is in this last push to make his case to the American people regarding the Geneva Convention, but all I see is a law breaker who is desperate to change the laws that he broke. Time is running out all right, but the ticking clock is more of a threat to Bush and his minions. They have become so disassociated from reality that they are incapable of recognizing how irrational they come across to others.


This country and the rest of the world are witnessing a President and a Vice President lobbying Congress to legalize torture – plain and simple and despicable. Their actions are not based on any altruistic goal to protect the people of this country from terrorists, but represent an attempt to legalize what has been illegal for almost sixty years. They broke international laws and they know it and now they need to have those laws “amended” - retroactively mind you – or they could face big trouble.

One of the obvious ways in which Bush goes about this is by transferring his own fears onto the public in the form of a “renewed interest” in the dangers of terrorism. For the past three to four years, this Administration has given little more than lip service to the likes of bin Laden and his followers. In late 2002, a little over a year after 9/11, Bush remarked that he “really didn’t think about him [bin Laden] that much.”

Now, with a midterm election drawing near and the distinct possibility that Republicans could lose at least one of the two legislative branches in Congress, Bush and his cabinet members are having psychological breakdowns in front of the TV cameras. Bush has become a cross between Chicken Little and that guy on the street corner who wears one of those “The End is Near” signs. His speech pattern has become more disconnected (see above) and his obvious irritability when he is confronted is quite clear - as we all saw that Friday (9/15/06) in the Rose Garden.

Bush continues to rattle on about the CIA and the military needing “clarity” when it comes to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention in order to pursue what he calls “the program,” which is his code word for torture. Well sorry, George, but that’s a crock. CIA and military personnel are well aware of the meaning of Article 3. They have been for decades and don’t require any “clarity.” You on the other hand……….

This is just more of the same crap Bush pulls when he gets backed into a corner. In a pathetic attempt to protect himself and his reprehensible actions, Bush surrounds himself with people who are not culpable. For instance, let’s go back to September 15 in the Rose Garden.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy?

BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

This is classic Bush. The reporter asks Bush if he thinks he is following a flawed strategy in light of the fact that his former Secretary of State questions his policies of torture. Bush, in turn, surrounds himself with “the American people” in his response, chastising anyone who would compare the “compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists.” Somebody needs to tell George that the American people have nothing to do with his flawed strategy of torture. Bush is the one debasing America’s reputation and moral standing, not the American people.

The same goes for his “reasoning” for wanting to “clarify” Article 3 in order to protect those on the front line in the war on terror. He is not out to protect the CIA or military personnel, he is trying to protect himself and his circle of bumblers for allowing and encouraging torture and acts of degradation against terrorist suspects – some who were later found to be innocent of any offense. The fact remains that Bush is scared to death that for the first time in his pathetic life, he might have to assume responsibility for his actions. And even worse, his party faithful are screwing things up badly enough that all the Diebold voting machines in America may not work for him this time.

Senate incumbents George Allen and Rick Santorum are behaving like complete fools on the campaign trail while McCain, Graham and Warner are taking the heat off Democrats in the fight to preserve what’s left of America’s reputation. Republican Bob Ney is off to jail for his transgressions in the Abramhoff fiasco– and we can only hope Lady Justice will see fit to allow Tom DeLay to be his bunk buddy. Meanwhile, “Sure Shot” Cheney is out raising campaign funds for a fellow shotgun fan, Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY) - of course Kuhl had confused his ex-wife with a pheasant back in 1994 (Yup, he pulled a gun on her – twice). Most Democrats in heated races are ahead of the Republicans, who are trying to find a way to distance themselves from the losers in the White House while not contributing to Bush Co.’s obvious rage at the real “awakening” that’s taking place across the country. Things are simply not looking good for our petulant child who calls himself the President.

When America faced an actual World War, Roosevelt told this country that we had nothing to fear except our own apprehension. Now we are faced with a fraudulent war on an ideology– a war designed to stuff the pockets of the likes of KBR, The Carlyle Group, Blackstone, Halliburton and a host of others. We are involved in a botched and bloody invasion of another nation– an invasion that is based upon nothing but lies. Sadly, it is likely that none of this would have happened without the horrific attack on our own soil. Sadder still is the fact that all warnings of a pending 9/11 were ignored and then subsequently hidden away from any investigation.

And, while Bush was stoking our fears and lying to our faces, he was also scooping up people, some guilty and some innocent, and torturing them in our name. He may not have known it was wrong then, but he knows now. And he knows time is running out. And he’s scared out of his mind that he will be another “tola tari tari to tal tarian” who won’t get away with his crimes.

We can only hope.
http://poac.wordpress.com/2006/09/20/bl ... %e2%80%9d/
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#10
More about torturing American protestors. Please visit the site, because there are embedded links throughout the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/ ... 29911.html

Quote:Remember this story from last week? "The Air Force secretary says nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before they are used on the battlefield." It's worse than we heard ... much worse. These weapons, which cause "intolerable pain" and have been condemned by scientists as mass torture devices, may be coming soon to a demonstration near you. And there are stranger and more lethal weapons where these came from.

The Secretary, Michael Wynne, is a longtime exec at defense contractor General Dynamics - a fox now in charge of the henhouse. The weapon he was describing is "intended to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds," as described in this Australian newspaper account.

And guess which company is one of the world's leaders in military microwave technology? General Dynamics. So you can rest assured that Wynne's very knowledgeable about this technology's intended use here and abroad, both by the military and other agencies.

Microwave beam devices are just one of a number of new weapons under development that could be used against US crowds. This article in Defense Update magazine describes the variety of anti-personnel energy weapons being developed by the Department of Defense. These include the Laser Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) pictured above, which can "work like 'artificial lightning' to disable human targets" and "can be adjusted for non-lethal or lethal use."

Other weapons being developed include the "Pulsed Energy Projectile" (PEP) device which, as New Scientist explains, "delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away." New Scientist observes that "pain researchers are furious that (medical research) aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon," adding that "they fear that the technology will be used for torture."

The Wynne story came and went so quickly that radio journalist Charles Goyette from KFNX in Phoenix tried to follow up. An interview was scheduled with the Air Force Secretary's spokesman, USAF Major Aaron Burgstein, to get elaboration on the Secretary's remarks. But Burgstein cancelled at the last minute without explanation.

Burgstein's email to Goyette added that "SECAR (Wynne) is not advocating using non-lethal weapons on the American public," just that they be "fully tested first before they're employed overseas" because our enemy "uses any and all opportunities to wage a propaganda war."

Sounds benign enough. Unfortunately, it directly contradicts what Wynne actually said. "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens," said Wynne, "then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation."

"If they are used in the US," Burgstein wrote Goyette, "it would be by the police, not the military." Burgstein equates these energy beams to tasers, perhaps unaware of the controversy surrounding a number of taser injuries and deaths.

Wynne, a major defense contractor turned Pentagon insider, tipped his hand. Pentagon planners intend to use high-tech weapons on Americans before turning them on Iraqis, either directly or by making the technology available to police and other agencies. And that's not a new story, either. ABC News reported in 2004 that there were active discussions to use sonic weaponry against demonstrators during the Republican National Convention in New York. When in "weapon" mode, the "LRAD" (long range acoustic device) "blasts a tightly controlled stream of caustic sound that can be turned up to high enough levels to trigger nausea or possibly fainting."

Sounds like waterboarding, doesn't it? It too would pass the Gonzales test of not "duplicating the pain associated with major organ failure" (assuming anyone has done a study comparing the two levels of pain.) As it turned out, there were no reports of LRADs being used against demonstrators in 2004, although many citizens were illegally detained during a temporary suspension of civil liberties on the streets of New York. (The city was eventually fined for mass violations of due process.)

As for the microwave beam, New Scientist reported that when it was tested, "experimenters banned glasses and contact lenses to prevent possible eye damage to the subjects, and in the second and third tests removed any metallic objects such as coins and keys to stop hot spots being created on the skin. They also checked the volunteers' clothes for certain seams, buttons and zips which might also cause hot spots."

In other words, this beam doesn't only inflict agony on its targets. If you can't move out of the way quickly enough it can cause serious burns and potentially even fuse contact lenses onto their wearers' eyeballs.

Goyette stayed on this story long enough for me to realize that I had missed its real significance. He's understandably struck by how quickly the Secretary's remarks seem to have been forgotten. I am, too, but I think I understand. This government is dismantling the world as we know it at an unprecendented rate. The suspension of civil liberties and the codifying of torture into law are only two examples. It's becoming increasingly difficult for many people to keep up with the pace of change while its happening, either psychologically or cognitively.

These revelations about mass "torture technology," and the Secretary's remarks, need to be viewed in the context of our collective "future shock." This Administration - which illegally uses the military to spy on Quaker peace demonstrators, violates laws and the Constitution with impunity, and degrades its country through torture - is literally capable of anything.

The idea of subjecting demonstrating Americans to group torture may seem unthinkable today. Yet a few years ago we couldn't have imagined that our government woul ban public demonstrations by forcing protesters into "Free Speech Zones" behind fences, miles away from other Americans. The unimaginable has now become real. This is only the next logical step, and it could happen soon.

Welcome to the Brave New America. Be careful out there.
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#11
US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigable waters

By IBI Magazine

In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.

In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.

"Even though this action seems like a horrible pre-April fools joke, it is very serious," said Phil Keeter, MRAA president, in a statement. "Because essentially all the waters and waterways of our country are considered navigable in the US law, this ruling declares recreational boating, water skiing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, and fishing tournaments to be illegal and the public subject to jail sentences for recreating with their families."

Last month, James rejected the findings of the Magistrate judge who found earlier that the American public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish, and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi river up to the normal high water line of the river. Judge James Kirk relied on the long established federal principles of navigation that recognized the public navigational rights "…entitles the public to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating, sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of watercraft the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common."

"MRAA is working with the Coast Guard, state boating law administrators, and NMMA to fight this onerous ruling," said Glen Mazzella, MRAA chairman, in the statement.


(14 September 2006)
http://www.ybw.com/ibinews/newsdesk/200 ... inews.html
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#12
Quote:US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigable waters
F-ck the 'judge"
:scream:
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm
[Image: _42115048_torture203.jpg]
Allegations of severe torture have regularly emerged from Iraq

Quote:Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'
Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.
Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.

Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.

The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.

He told journalists at a briefing in Geneva that he had yet to visit Iraq, but he was able to base his information on autopsies and interviews with Iraqis in neighbouring Jordan.

"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," the Austrian law professor said.

"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," he added.

Brutal methods

The UN report says detainees' bodies often show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in heads and genitals, broken legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.

Bodies found at the Baghdad mortuary "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances".

Many bodies have missing skin, broken bones, back, hands and legs, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails, the UN report says.

Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.

The most brutal torture methods were employed by private militias, Mr Nowak told journalists.

The report also says the frequency of sectarian bloodletting means bodies are often found which "bear signs indicating that the victims have been brutally tortured before their extra-judicial execution".

It concludes that torture threatens "the very fabric of the country" as victims exact their own revenge and fuel further violence.

Mr Nowak said he would like to visit Iraq in person, but the current situation would not allow him to prepare an accurate report, because it would not be safe to leave Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone where the Iraqi government and US leadership are situated.









Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/m ... 368360.stm

Published: 2006/09/21 16:27:31 GMT

© BBC MMVI
:scream:
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#14
They hate us for our freedoms! :Whatever:
????? ????
Reply
#15
http://www.alternet.org/story/36553/

Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State


By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast. Posted May 26, 2006.


From secret detention centers to warrantless wiretapping, Bush and Co. give free rein to their totalitarian impulses. Tools

Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it may well be the case.

1. The Internet Clampdown

One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in the sky.

Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an "Information Operations Roadmap" in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child pornography and "internet predators," which will surely lead to legislation that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.

2. "The Long War"

This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, "get used to it. Things aren't going to change any time soon."

3. The USA PATRIOT Act

Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections. Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause for purposes of prosecution. No, they're not going to take it back, ever.

4. Prison Camps

This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified "new programs." Of course, the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding up Muslims or political dissenters -- I mean, obviously detention facilities are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but it's, you know... secret.

5. Touchscreen Voting Machines

Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.

In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn't. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it will resume servicing the county.

Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an interesting test of the public's continuing gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don't win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is kosher.

Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We really need to fix this problem soon.

6. Signing Statements

Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe:


--Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.


Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.


--Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."


Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.


--Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.


Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don't see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a veto, and can't be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It's also totally absurd.

7. Warrantless Wiretapping

Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think that's okay? Come on -- if you know anything about history, you know that no government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day they're listening for Osama, and the next they're listening in on Howard Dean.

Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn't they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour Hersh, to figure out who's spilling the beans? It's a no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on them. They don't care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.

8. Free Speech Zones

I know it's old news, but... come on, are they fucking serious?

9. High-ranking Whistleblowers

Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds. Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn't you listen?

10. The CIA Shakeup

Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they wouldn't be nominated if they weren't on board all the way. Goss was probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some hookers.

If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for "intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White House's analysis of Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.

Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the next time they lie about an "imminent threat" nobody's going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a "necessary reform."

Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?
Reply
#16
Excellent summation <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
Reply
#17
It's all over but the cryin'. House passed it and Senate's a done deal.

WASHINGTON // A little- noticed provision in President Bush's proposal for the treatment of suspected terrorists would for the first time legally endorse the fight against terrorism as equivalent to war, lawmakers and national security lawyers say.

For five years, Washington lawmakers have clashed over whether the U.S. effort to combat terrorism should be considered an armed conflict. The White House has said repeatedly that the anti-terrorism effort should be considered a war.

Critics of the provision, such as former CIA counsel Suzanne Spaulding, said it could amount to a back-door endorsement of the disputed wartime presidential powers that Bush has asserted, potentially strengthening his hand in court battles over the National Security Agency's warrantless spying and permitting defense and intelligence agencies to launch operations in the United States.

"Does it allow the president to basically define the war on terrorism as broadly or as narrowly as he wants?" said Rep. Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat. "The answer is yes."

Critics compare the provision to a resolution passed by Congress in September 2001 that authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush has used the resolution as the legal basis for a wide range of initiatives, including warrantless domestic eavesdropping and the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, without conferring with Congress or the courts.

Some in Congress have said that the 2001 resolution was never intended to give the president such broad authority and express concerns that the new provision on enemy combatants could be used in a similar way.

The "aggressive" interpretation of the 2001 resolution, which carried no explicit authorization of measures such as the NSA program, suggests that the Bush administration might interpret the new language even more broadly, Schiff said.

Congressional aides who have pored over the complex measure express concerns that lawmakers might approve it without fully considering its potential impact.

"It's not like there's a big neon light around it, saying, 'This is really important,' when it is," said a Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to be quoted by name. "This is the kind of thing that we're going to be talking much more about a month from now, or six months from now, saying, 'Oh, shoot.'"

The proposal now before Congress would recognize and define "unlawful enemy combatant" for the first time. That would give the fight against terrorism the legal status of an armed conflict, because it is impossible to have an illegal combatant without a conflict, lawmakers and security lawyers say.

Critics say the measure could open the way to a range of unpredictable and unintended consequences.

"There is a concern that [the Bush administration] will rely on that language about enemy combatants in wartime and use it to convince the courts that they should stay out of a whole range of policies that the president is pursuing," said Elisa Massimino, who heads the Washington office of Human Rights First.

Not all national security lawyers agree that the measure would legally recognize the fight against terrorism as a war.

"I don't necessarily see it as legitimizing the war on terrorism," said Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney. He said Bush's proposal is focused narrowly on military commissions and interrogation policy.

Bush allies see it as a logical extension of the position the president has taken all along.

"Why is that surprising? The president thinks it's a real war," said David Rivkin, a national security lawyer who served in the Reagan administration and that of Bush's father.

Glenn Sulmasy, a law professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, said the measure provides an important tool with which to fight terrorism.

It "confirms that this is a war, and that we have to have some way to define who is in the fight against international terrorism," Sulmasy said.

Frances Fragos Townsend, the president's anti-terrorism adviser, declined in a brief interview to comment on the provision.

Bush's proposal, expected to be acted on by Congress today, defines "unlawful enemy combatant" as anyone "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its allies.

Coming up with ways to describe the fight against terrorism has been a tense topic, even within the Bush administration. Last year, officials briefly toyed with new phrasing to eliminate the term war.

In May 2005, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld began talking about "a global struggle against violent extremism." In July 2005, Gen. Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he objected to the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," because "if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution. And it's more than terrorism." He added, "Violent extremists [are] the real enemy here, and terror is the method they use."

But a month later, the Bush administration readopted the term "war on terror," which has remained the preferred phraseology.


http://tinyurl.com/zls93
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#18
Bastards!

Quote:The bill was expected to be swiftly approved in the Senate on Thursday after an agreement early Wednesday between Republican and Democratic senators to allow only five amendments to be proposed.


Quote:The draft law authorizes special military tribunals to prosecute the Guantanamo detainees, allows for secret
CIA-run prisons and forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment of detainees -- without further clarification of what falls in that category.

Detainees would be deprived of all legal recourse to protest the conditions of their detention.

YAHOO
http://tinyurl.com/pljew
Reply
#19
And most important (from their pov) is the cabal won't have to worry about being prosecuted under US law. Gee, thanks, Congress. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whip.gif" alt="Whip" title="whip" />
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#20
20 Damning Facts About
Voting In The USA
By Angry Girl of Nightweed.com
9-27-6


Did you know....

1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/04 ... andes.html

http://en.wikipedia org/wiki/Diebold

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/04 ... andes.html

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/p ... mpany.html

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/04 ... andes.html

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ ... 2436.shtml

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/c ... 3_200.html

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/03 ... rakis.html

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.p ... cle&sid=26

http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx

http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm

http://theindependent.com/stories/05270 ... gel27.html

8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/04 ... andes.html

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm

http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020 ... index.html

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm

http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

11. Diebold is based in Ohio.
http://www.diebold.com/aboutus/ataglance/default.htm

12. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as consultants and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html

http://portland. ndymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

13. Jeff Dean was Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold. Even though he had been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree, Jeff Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold and was largely responsible for programming the optical scanning software now used in most of the United States.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00191.htm
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14. Diebold consultant Jeff Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/1 ... lexoh.html

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, a chimpanzee was able to do it! (See the movie here: http://www.bbvdocs. org/videos/ baxterVPR. mov.)
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

17. 30% of all U.S. votes are carried out on unverifiable touch screen voting machines with no paper trail.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ ... 2436.shtml

18. All -- not some -- but all the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html

http://www.yuricare port.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm

http://www.rise4new s.net/extravotes .html

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?o ... name=News& file=article& sid=950

http://www.scoop. co.nz/mason/ stories/HL0411/ S00227.htm

19. The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the President's brother.
http://www.tallahas see.com/mld/ tallahassee/ news/local/ 7628725.htm

http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/ A10544-2004Oct29 .html

20. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush -- have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.
http://www.yuricare port.com/ ElectionAftermat h04/ThreeResearc hStudiesBushIsOu t.htm

http://www.computer world.com/ governmenttopics /government/ policy/story/ 0,10801,97614, 00.html

http://www.american freepress. net/html/ tens_of_thousand s.html

http://www.commondr eams.org/ headlines04/ 1106-30.htm

http://www.consorti umnews.com/ 2004/110904. html

http://uscountvotes .org/


DECEMBER 2004 GALLUP POLLS
1 in 5 Americans believe the elections were fraudulent.
That's over 41 Million Americans.
You are NOT alone!
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#21
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806.html

U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leahy: ‘We have a profoundly important and dangerous choice to make today’ --

“What has changed in the last five years that our Government is so inept and our people so terrified that we must do what no bomb or attack could ever do by taking away the very freedoms that define America? Why would we allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do, and abandon the principles for which so many Americans today and through our history have fought and sacrificed?”

# # # # #

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Specter-Leahy-Dodd Amendment To Strike Section 7
Of The Military Commission Bill
Senate Floor
September 28, 2006

Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, there are approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people who work for American firms, raise American kids, and pay American taxes. Section 7 of the bill before us represents a choice about how to treat them. This bill could have been restricted to traditional notions of enemy combatants – foreign fighters captured on the battlefield – but the drafters of this bill chose not to do so. So let’s be clear about the choice this bill would make. Let’s be absolutely clear about what this bill says to lawful permanent residents of the United States. And then let’s decide if it’s the right message to send to them, and to the rest of the world.

Imagine that you are a law-abiding, lawful permanent resident. In your spare time, you do charitable fundraising for international relief agencies that lend a hand in disasters. You send money abroad to those in need. You are selective in the charities you support, but you do not discriminate on grounds of religion. Then one day there is a knock on your door. The Government thinks that the Muslim charity you sent money to may be funneling money to terrorists, and it thinks you may be involved. And perhaps an overzealous neighbor who saw a group of Muslims come to your house has reported “suspicious behavior.” You are brought in for questioning.

Initially, you are not too worried. This is America, you are innocent, and you have faith in American justice. You know your rights, and you ask for a lawyer. But no lawyer comes. Once again, since you know your rights, you refuse to answer further questions. Then the interrogators get angry. Then comes solitary confinement, then fierce dogs, then freezing cold that induces hypothermia, then waterboarding, then threats of being sent to a country famous for its torture techniques, then Guantanamo. And then nothing, for years, for decades, for the rest of your life.

That may sound more like an experience from some oppressive and authoritarian regime, something that would have happened under the Taliban, something that Saddam Hussein would have ordered or something out of Kafka. There is a reason why that does not and cannot happen in America. The protection is called habeas corpus or, if you do not like the Latin phrase by which it has been known throughout out history, call it access to the independent federal courts to review the authority and legality by which the Government has taken and is holding someone in custody. It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation.

Proposed Bill Eliminates Freedoms; Casts Wide Net in Defining ‘Enemy Combatants’

Habeas corpus provides a remedy against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one’s innocence. As Justice Scalia stated in the Hamdi case, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” The remedy that secures that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus.

If we pass this bill today, that will all be gone for the 12 million lawful permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome to our shores each year. That will be gone for another estimated 11 million immigrants that the Senate has been working to bring out of the shadows with comprehensive immigration reform.

The bill before us would not merely suspend the writ of habeas corpus; it would eliminate it permanently. It would cut off all habeas petitions – not just those founded on relatively technical claims, but also those founded on claims of complete innocence. It would not be limited to enemy combatants in the traditional sense of foreign fighters captured on the battlefield; it would apply to any alien picked up anywhere in the world and suspected of possibly supporting enemies of the United States. We do not need this bill for those truly captured on the battlefield who had taken up arms against the United States. That is why the definition of “enemy combatant” has been so expansively redefined in the dark of night. This bill is designed instead to sweep others into the net and it would not require even an administrative determination that the Government’s suspicions have a reasonable basis. By its plain language, it would deny all access to the courts of any alien “awaiting” a Government determination as to whether the alien is an enemy combatant, a determination that the Government would be free to delay as long as it liked—for years, for decades, for the length of the conflict which is so undefined and may last for decades or more.

That is not speculation. It is not a critic’s characterization of the bill. It is what the bill plainly says, on its face. It is what the Bush-Cheney Administration is demanding. It is what any member who votes against the Specter-Leahy amendment and for the bill today will be endorsing.

Bill Goes Beyond Detainee Treatment Act

The habeas-stripping provisions in the current bill go far beyond what Congress did in the Detainee Treatment Act in at least three respects. First, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Hamdan, the DTA removed habeas jurisdiction only prospectively for future cases. By contrast, the new bill would strip habeas jurisdiction retroactively even from pending cases. That is an extraordinary action that runs counter to long held U.S. policies disfavoring retroactive legislation. Second, the DTA applied only to detainees at Guantanamo. The new legislation goes far beyond Guantanamo and strips the right to habeas of any alien, even in the United States, if the alien has been determined an enemy combatant or is awaiting a determination whether he is an enemy combatant. That would allow the government to hold even a permanent resident alien forever without the right to habeas while the government decides whether he is an enemy combatant. And third, the impact of those provisions is extended by the new definition of enemy combatant proposed in the current bill. The bill would extend the definition to include persons who supported hostilities against the United States, even if they did not engage in armed conflict against the United States or its allies. That, again, is an extraordinary extension of existing law and of the persons whom the law would authorize the government to detain without any access to the historic writ of habeas corpus.

If we vote today to abolish rights of access to the justice system to any alien detainee who is suspected – not determined, not even charged, but just suspected -- of assisting terrorists, that will do by the back door what cannot be done up front. That will remove the check that our legal system provides against arbitrarily detaining people for life without charge and, for that matter, could make any limits against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment obsolete because they will be unenforceable. We will have removed the mechanism the Constitution provides to check Government overreaching and lawlessness. If this bill became effective, it would make it impossible for aliens ever to challenge and prove such abuses.

This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney Administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check on the Bush-Cheney Administration lawlessness. Certainly the rubberstamp Republican Congress has not done it, or even investigated it. With this bill, the Congress will have completed the job of eviscerating its role as a check and balance on the Administration. The Senate has turned its back on the Warner-Levin bill, a bipartisan bill reported by the Armed Services Committee, to jam through the Bush-Cheney bill. With a few corrections, the Senate committee bill would have done the job. This bill gives up the ghost. This bill is not a check on the Administration but a voucher for future wrongdoing.

Betrayal of Basic Values of Freedoms -
Makes Mockery of Bush Administration’s Claim of ‘Exporting Freedom Across the Globe’

Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands. It makes a mockery of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.

I read yesterday from former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s letter, in which he voiced concern about our moral authority in the war against terrorism. This General and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State was right.

Admiral John Hutson testified before the Judiciary Committee that stripping the courts of habeas jurisdiction was inconsistent with American history and tradition. He concluded, “We don’t need to do this. America is too strong.”

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from more than 60 law school deans and professors. They note: “The Congress would gravely disserve our global reputation as a law-abiding country by enacting bills that seek to combat terrorism by stripping judicial review.”

Kenneth Starr, the former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General to the first President Bush, wrote that the Constitution’s conditions for suspending habeas corpus have not been met, and that doing so would be problematic.

In Wake of 9-11 Congress Provided Executive Authority to Detain Aliens With Appropriate Judicial Check
(Section of the 2001 PATRIOT Act)

The post-9/11 world requires us to make adjustments. In the original PATRIOT Act five years ago, we made adjustments to accommodate the needs of the Executive, and more recently, we sought to fine-tune those adjustments. I think some of those adjustments sacrificed civil liberties unnecessarily, but I also believe that many provisions in the PATRIOT Act were appropriate. I wrote many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and I voted for it.

This bill is of an entirely different nature. Where the PATRIOT Act took a cautious approach to civil liberties, this bill takes an entirely dismissive and cavalier approach to basic human rights and to the Constitution.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Congress provided in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act that an alien may be held without charge if, and only if, the Attorney General certifies that he is a terrorist or that he is engaged in activity that endangers the national security. He may be held for seven days, after which he must be placed in removal proceedings, charged with a crime, or released. There is judicial review through habeas corpus proceedings, with appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Compare that to section 7 of the current bill. The current bill does not provide for judicial review. It would preclude it. It does not require a certification by the Attorney General that the alien is a terrorist. It would apply if the alien was “awaiting” a Government determination whether the alien is an “enemy combatant.” And it is not limited to seven days. It would enable the Government to detain an alien for life without any recourse whatsoever to justice.

An Important And Dangerous Choice With This Bill

What has changed in the past five years that justifies not merely suspending, but abolishing the writ of habeas corpus for a broad category of people who have not been found guilty or even charged with any crime? What has changed in the last five years that our Government is so inept and our people so terrified that we must do what no bomb or attack could ever do by taking away the very freedoms that define America? Why would we allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do and abandon the principles for which so many Americans today and through our history have fought and sacrificed? What has happened that the Senate is willing to turn America from a bastion of freedom into a caldron of suspicion ruled by a Government of unchecked power?

Under the Constitution, a suspension of the writ may only be justified during an invasion or a rebellion, when the public safety demands it. Six weeks after the deadliest attack on American soil in our history, the Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act rightly concluded that a suspension of the writ would not be justified. Yet now, six weeks before a mid-term election, the Bush-Cheney Administration and its supplicants here in Congress deem a complete abolition of the writ the highest priority – a priority so urgent that we are allowed no time to properly review, debate and amend a bill we first saw in its current form less that 72 hours ago. Notwithstanding the harm the Administration has done to national security with its mismanaged misadventure in Iraq, there is no new national security crisis. There is only a Republican political crisis. And that, as we all know, is why this un-American, unconstitutional legislation is before us today.

We have a profoundly important and dangerous choice to make today. The danger is not that we adopt a “pre-9/11 mentality.” We adopted a post-9/11 mentality in the PATRIOT Act when we declined to suspend the writ, and we can do so again today. The danger, as Senator Feingold has stated in a different context, is that we adopt a pre-1776 mentality: one that dismisses the Constitution on which our American freedoms are founded. Actually, it is worse than that. Habeas corpus was the most basic protection of freedom that Englishmen secured from their King in the Magna Carta. The mentality adopted by this bill, in abolishing habeas corpus for a broad swath of people, is a pre-1215 mentality.

Every one of us has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. In order to uphold that oath, I believe we have a duty to vote for this amendment and against this irresponsible and flagrantly unconstitutional bill. That is what I shall do, and I urge all Senators on both sides of the aisle to join me.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#22
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=22247



VERMONTERS PROCEED WITH SECESSION TALKS
Thursday, September 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

Vermont wants to secede from the Union – or at least some are embracing this movement. According to an article in the New York Sun, the First North American Secessionist Convention in Burlington, VT, organized by the pro-secession think tank, the Middlebury Institute is making plans for a November meeting.

The story quotes Kirkpatrick Sale, director of the institute, as saying over a dozen secessionist organizations are due to send representatives to the November 3-4 gathering, and noting Vermont as an appropriate for such discussion, given its history as an independent republic between 1777 and 1791, as well as New England's heritage as both revolution founder and radical hotbed. "Vermont has a very strong self-identity," he reportedly says, and secession is "the only principled, moral way to go," with the goal being not the takeover of any national government but to "simply absent ourselves from it."

The organization's website lists participants as already including those from Hawaii Nation, Alaska Independence Party, League of the South and several of its chapters, Southern National Congress Committee, Southern Caucus, Christian Exodus, New State Movement, Puerto Rico Independence Party, Parti Quebecois, the State of Jefferson, and the Second Vermont Republic. - ST

Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#23
The face of things to come.


Quote:Legal residents' rights curbed in detainee bill

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | September 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being ``enemy combatants."

An earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court. But changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for noncitizens inside the United States to be detained indefinitely, without access to the court system, until the ``war on terror" is over.

It is unclear who initiated the changes...



Quote:Human-rights activists believe the bill would do far more, including give the president greatly expanded powers to hold people indefinitely.

``What if they had this after Sept. 11 [2001] when they picked up all kinds of folks on immigration charges and material-witness charges and tried them in secret immigration proceedings?" said Jumana Musa, a lawyer with Amnesty International. ``Those people were deported. Now [if the bill passes], they could be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants."

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, added that: ``What it means is that certain categories of people are going to be second-raters in our legal system."

``You can't sneeze at the fact that citizenship has got to mean something," Fidell said. ``But if I were a green-card holder, thinking about the other pressures that are being brought to bear on green-card holders, it could make me pretty nervous."

Wartime decisions to hold people perceived as threats have often proved problematic. During World War II, the government held over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans in internment camps. (When they challenged their internment, the Supreme Court twice ruled against them. Decades later, however, the government acknowledged that the internment was unjustified and apologized.)

Jennifer Daskill , US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the provisions in the current bill that would take away access to courts for legal US residents arrested in the United States. Still, she said, it could take years before the court rules on the issue, during which time many people could be imprisoned.

The provision would have an immediate impact on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri , so far the only known ``enemy combatant" held inside the United States.


More at The Boston Globe
Reply
#24
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242


VERMONT

Leahy: ‘We have a profoundly important and dangerous choice to make today’ --

“What has changed in the last five years that our Government is so inept and our people so terrified that we must do what no bomb or attack could ever do by taking away the very freedoms that define America? Why would we allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do, and abandon the principles for which so many Americans today and through our history have fought and sacrificed?”

# # # # #

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Specter-Leahy-Dodd Amendment To Strike Section 7
Of The Military Commission Bill
Senate Floor
September 28, 2006

Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, there are approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people who work for American firms, raise American kids, and pay American taxes. Section 7 of the bill before us represents a choice about how to treat them. This bill could have been restricted to traditional notions of enemy combatants – foreign fighters captured on the battlefield – but the drafters of this bill chose not to do so. So let’s be clear about the choice this bill would make. Let’s be absolutely clear about what this bill says to lawful permanent residents of the United States. And then let’s decide if it’s the right message to send to them, and to the rest of the world.

Imagine that you are a law-abiding, lawful permanent resident. In your spare time, you do charitable fundraising for international relief agencies that lend a hand in disasters. You send money abroad to those in need. You are selective in the charities you support, but you do not discriminate on grounds of religion. Then one day there is a knock on your door. The Government thinks that the Muslim charity you sent money to may be funneling money to terrorists, and it thinks you may be involved. And perhaps an overzealous neighbor who saw a group of Muslims come to your house has reported “suspicious behavior.” You are brought in for questioning.

Initially, you are not too worried. This is America, you are innocent, and you have faith in American justice. You know your rights, and you ask for a lawyer. But no lawyer comes. Once again, since you know your rights, you refuse to answer further questions. Then the interrogators get angry. Then comes solitary confinement, then fierce dogs, then freezing cold that induces hypothermia, then waterboarding, then threats of being sent to a country famous for its torture techniques, then Guantanamo. And then nothing, for years, for decades, for the rest of your life.

That may sound more like an experience from some oppressive and authoritarian regime, something that would have happened under the Taliban, something that Saddam Hussein would have ordered or something out of Kafka. There is a reason why that does not and cannot happen in America. The protection is called habeas corpus or, if you do not like the Latin phrase by which it has been known throughout out history, call it access to the independent federal courts to review the authority and legality by which the Government has taken and is holding someone in custody. It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation.

Proposed Bill Eliminates Freedoms; Casts Wide Net in Defining ‘Enemy Combatants’

Habeas corpus provides a remedy against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one’s innocence. As Justice Scalia stated in the Hamdi case, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” The remedy that secures that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus.

If we pass this bill today, that will all be gone for the 12 million lawful permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome to our shores each year. That will be gone for another estimated 11 million immigrants that the Senate has been working to bring out of the shadows with comprehensive immigration reform.

The bill before us would not merely suspend the writ of habeas corpus; it would eliminate it permanently. It would cut off all habeas petitions – not just those founded on relatively technical claims, but also those founded on claims of complete innocence. It would not be limited to enemy combatants in the traditional sense of foreign fighters captured on the battlefield; it would apply to any alien picked up anywhere in the world and suspected of possibly supporting enemies of the United States. We do not need this bill for those truly captured on the battlefield who had taken up arms against the United States. That is why the definition of “enemy combatant” has been so expansively redefined in the dark of night. This bill is designed instead to sweep others into the net and it would not require even an administrative determination that the Government’s suspicions have a reasonable basis. By its plain language, it would deny all access to the courts of any alien “awaiting” a Government determination as to whether the alien is an enemy combatant, a determination that the Government would be free to delay as long as it liked—for years, for decades, for the length of the conflict which is so undefined and may last for decades or more.

That is not speculation. It is not a critic’s characterization of the bill. It is what the bill plainly says, on its face. It is what the Bush-Cheney Administration is demanding. It is what any member who votes against the Specter-Leahy amendment and for the bill today will be endorsing.

Bill Goes Beyond Detainee Treatment Act

The habeas-stripping provisions in the current bill go far beyond what Congress did in the Detainee Treatment Act in at least three respects. First, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Hamdan, the DTA removed habeas jurisdiction only prospectively for future cases. By contrast, the new bill would strip habeas jurisdiction retroactively even from pending cases. That is an extraordinary action that runs counter to long held U.S. policies disfavoring retroactive legislation. Second, the DTA applied only to detainees at Guantanamo. The new legislation goes far beyond Guantanamo and strips the right to habeas of any alien, even in the United States, if the alien has been determined an enemy combatant or is awaiting a determination whether he is an enemy combatant. That would allow the government to hold even a permanent resident alien forever without the right to habeas while the government decides whether he is an enemy combatant. And third, the impact of those provisions is extended by the new definition of enemy combatant proposed in the current bill. The bill would extend the definition to include persons who supported hostilities against the United States, even if they did not engage in armed conflict against the United States or its allies. That, again, is an extraordinary extension of existing law and of the persons whom the law would authorize the government to detain without any access to the historic writ of habeas corpus.

If we vote today to abolish rights of access to the justice system to any alien detainee who is suspected – not determined, not even charged, but just suspected -- of assisting terrorists, that will do by the back door what cannot be done up front. That will remove the check that our legal system provides against arbitrarily detaining people for life without charge and, for that matter, could make any limits against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment obsolete because they will be unenforceable. We will have removed the mechanism the Constitution provides to check Government overreaching and lawlessness. If this bill became effective, it would make it impossible for aliens ever to challenge and prove such abuses.

This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney Administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check on the Bush-Cheney Administration lawlessness. Certainly the rubberstamp Republican Congress has not done it, or even investigated it. With this bill, the Congress will have completed the job of eviscerating its role as a check and balance on the Administration. The Senate has turned its back on the Warner-Levin bill, a bipartisan bill reported by the Armed Services Committee, to jam through the Bush-Cheney bill. With a few corrections, the Senate committee bill would have done the job. This bill gives up the ghost. This bill is not a check on the Administration but a voucher for future wrongdoing.

Betrayal of Basic Values of Freedoms -
Makes Mockery of Bush Administration’s Claim of ‘Exporting Freedom Across the Globe’

Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands. It makes a mockery of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.

I read yesterday from former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s letter, in which he voiced concern about our moral authority in the war against terrorism. This General and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State was right.

Admiral John Hutson testified before the Judiciary Committee that stripping the courts of habeas jurisdiction was inconsistent with American history and tradition. He concluded, “We don’t need to do this. America is too strong.”

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from more than 60 law school deans and professors. They note: “The Congress would gravely disserve our global reputation as a law-abiding country by enacting bills that seek to combat terrorism by stripping judicial review.”

Kenneth Starr, the former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General to the first President Bush, wrote that the Constitution’s conditions for suspending habeas corpus have not been met, and that doing so would be problematic.

In Wake of 9-11 Congress Provided Executive Authority to Detain Aliens With Appropriate Judicial Check
(Section of the 2001 PATRIOT Act)

The post-9/11 world requires us to make adjustments. In the original PATRIOT Act five years ago, we made adjustments to accommodate the needs of the Executive, and more recently, we sought to fine-tune those adjustments. I think some of those adjustments sacrificed civil liberties unnecessarily, but I also believe that many provisions in the PATRIOT Act were appropriate. I wrote many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and I voted for it.

This bill is of an entirely different nature. Where the PATRIOT Act took a cautious approach to civil liberties, this bill takes an entirely dismissive and cavalier approach to basic human rights and to the Constitution.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Congress provided in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act that an alien may be held without charge if, and only if, the Attorney General certifies that he is a terrorist or that he is engaged in activity that endangers the national security. He may be held for seven days, after which he must be placed in removal proceedings, charged with a crime, or released. There is judicial review through habeas corpus proceedings, with appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Compare that to section 7 of the current bill. The current bill does not provide for judicial review. It would preclude it. It does not require a certification by the Attorney General that the alien is a terrorist. It would apply if the alien was “awaiting” a Government determination whether the alien is an “enemy combatant.” And it is not limited to seven days. It would enable the Government to detain an alien for life without any recourse whatsoever to justice.

An Important And Dangerous Choice With This Bill

What has changed in the past five years that justifies not merely suspending, but abolishing the writ of habeas corpus for a broad category of people who have not been found guilty or even charged with any crime? What has changed in the last five years that our Government is so inept and our people so terrified that we must do what no bomb or attack could ever do by taking away the very freedoms that define America? Why would we allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do and abandon the principles for which so many Americans today and through our history have fought and sacrificed? What has happened that the Senate is willing to turn America from a bastion of freedom into a caldron of suspicion ruled by a Government of unchecked power?

Under the Constitution, a suspension of the writ may only be justified during an invasion or a rebellion, when the public safety demands it. Six weeks after the deadliest attack on American soil in our history, the Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act rightly concluded that a suspension of the writ would not be justified. Yet now, six weeks before a mid-term election, the Bush-Cheney Administration and its supplicants here in Congress deem a complete abolition of the writ the highest priority – a priority so urgent that we are allowed no time to properly review, debate and amend a bill we first saw in its current form less that 72 hours ago. Notwithstanding the harm the Administration has done to national security with its mismanaged misadventure in Iraq, there is no new national security crisis. There is only a Republican political crisis. And that, as we all know, is why this un-American, unconstitutional legislation is before us today.

We have a profoundly important and dangerous choice to make today. The danger is not that we adopt a “pre-9/11 mentality.” We adopted a post-9/11 mentality in the PATRIOT Act when we declined to suspend the writ, and we can do so again today. The danger, as Senator Feingold has stated in a different context, is that we adopt a pre-1776 mentality: one that dismisses the Constitution on which our American freedoms are founded. Actually, it is worse than that. Habeas corpus was the most basic protection of freedom that Englishmen secured from their King in the Magna Carta. The mentality adopted by this bill, in abolishing habeas corpus for a broad swath of people, is a pre-1215 mentality.

Every one of us has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. In order to uphold that oath, I believe we have a duty to vote for this amendment and against this irresponsible and flagrantly unconstitutional bill. That is what I shall do, and I urge all Senators on both sides of the aisle to join me.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806.html
Reply
#25
How did we sink so low in just 6 years?

By Mike Whitney

“This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its freedom.” Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

09/28/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- How did things get this bad? The “Military Commissions Act” which passed the Republican-led Congress yesterday is a bigger blow to the Constitution and our core values than any piece of legislation in our 200 year history. It is 100 times worse than Bin Laden's crimes on 9-11.

In a 253 to 168 “party-line” vote, the congress repealed habeas corpus and approved the torturing of prisoners in American custody. It is breathtaking assault on human rights and personal liberty and puts the United States well-outside the community of civilized nations. It will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to strike down this "affront to democracy" or let the law stand as is.

If the bill passes the Senate, the administration will be able to arrest whomever it chooses and lock them up indefinitely without due process. Suspects in Bush’s war on terror will no longer have the right to challenge the terms of their detention or to even know why they have been incarcerated.

The congressmen who supported this mockery have put their contempt for freedom on full display. They have rescinded the oldest and most treasured principle in American jurisprudence dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta. Habeas corpus is the fundamental protection that the one has from the tyrannical and erratic actions of the state.

The proposed legislation allows the president to apply the moniker of “enemy combatant” to any terror “suspect” taken into US custody and strip him of all his human rights. The president is under no obligation to file charges or provide evidence of guilt. The arrest is completely arbitrary and depends entirely on the discretion (whims?) of the executive. It is a flat rejection of the basic belief that “men are innocent until proven guilty”.

Here’s what Winston Churchill said about habeas corpus, “The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”

The bill is another example of Bush's lawyerly “hairsplitting” which is aimed at gutting the clearly articulated provisions of the Geneva Conventions so that he can carry out his torture-regime with impunity. There is nothing “vague” about “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment. It is a standard that has never been challenged in its 57 year history. Until now.

According to the Washington Post the bill “would give the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations that fall short of ‘grave breaches’ of the conventions.”

Geneva was designed to protect prisoners from physical or psychological harm. It is intentionally broad to prevent any punishment that involves the inflicting of pain on detainees. Bush has turned Geneva on its head in an effort to maximize detainee suffering while complying with the letter of the law. To that end, the administration has said that “the term ‘cruel and inhuman’ should only apply to techniques resulting in ‘severe’ physical or mental pain….The abused detainee’s symptoms would have to include ‘serious and non-transitory mental harm.”’ (Wa Post)

There’s no reason for Bush to pursue this particular track except to expand his personal power and put himself above the law. Injustice only fuels radicalism and undermines the stated goals in the war on terror.

The congress fully understands the implications of their support. They’re giving Bush a free pass to torment and abuse as he sees fit while providing him with the legal cover he needs for his “alternative techniques” (“outrages to human dignity”) Their vote makes them equally complicit in the inevitable hooding, sense deprivation, hypothermia, stress positions, isolation and water-boarding of countless victims of Bush’s deplorable war of terror.

Like Lady Macbeth the Congress’ avers:

“I am in blood

Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,

Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” (Macbeth 3. 4)

The country is in the advanced stages of moral decay. The Military Commissions Act is not a law at all; it is an expression of Congress’ intention to carry out war crimes against defenseless victims in their charge. The men who supported this bill should be held accountable for its inevitable and appalling consequences.

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Comments (159)

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15143.htm
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#26
Most Dems Voting For
Bush Torture Bill Silent
By Bob Geiger
10-1-6


As someone who spends a lot of time on the official web sites of our U.S. Senators, I can tell you without hesitation that if one of them casts a vote they are proud of, a press release will be up faster than George Felix Allen can spit out a racial slur.


Yet the 12 Democrats who checked their consciences at the Senate cloakroom and voted in favor of the Bush Administration's torture bill this week, have almost nothing to say about their votes. In case you haven't seen the roster of who voted with Republicans on this, here they are:

· Thomas Carper (D-DE)

· Tim Johnson (D-SD)

· Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

· Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

· Joe Lieberman (D-CT)

· Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

· Bill Nelson (D-FL)

· Ben Nelson (D-NE)

· Mark Pryor (D-AR)

· Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

· Ken Salazar (D-CO)

· Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)


Of these, only four have issued press releases commenting on their vote and, amazingly, those who are talking spend most of the time sounding apologetic for a vote they obviously know they should not have cast.


"I think there are some unknown constitutional issues and it may take a review by the Supreme Court before we really know whether this approach has towed the line in terms of protecting the civil-liberties of American citizens or whether it has gone over the line," said Tim Johnson (D-SD), in a brief statement that can only leave us wondering why the hell he voted for it then.


Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) expresses a whole bunch of concerns as well and yet voted to make Bush Torturer-in-Chief anyway.


"The bill I voted for today was the best bill we could reasonably expect in this highly charged political environment," said Salazar. "Due to the many controversial and far-reaching implications of this bill, I believe it would be appropriate to force Congressional review of this bill in five years. I have concerns with this bill, but on balance it meets my personal view of what America needs to get the job done."


But some things never change, and here was the biggest DINO (Democrat in name only) in the Senate, Nebraska's Ben Nelson crowing about what a wonderful vote he cast and making this strange statement: "This compromise goes a long way in protecting the principles of the Geneva Conventions and establishes a standard of treatment that the world will follow."


Yeah, I'm sure most other countries are gathering right now to rewrite their laws to follow our sterling example.


Finally, we have Joe Lieberman, who has a press release announcing his vote and setting the bar awfully low for what it takes for him to follow George W. Bush.


"I voted for this bill because I believe it is better than the Administration's original proposal to respond to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision," said Lieberman. "I would have much preferred the bill we reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I supported amendments to this bill because they addressed concerns I had. I regret that they were rejected by the Senate."


But Joe clearly did not regret it enough to vote the right way on the torture bill.


There's currently a big argument going on in the Progressive community on the tension between calling Democrats on stances that are so antithetical to what being a Democrat is supposed to mean and making Republicans positively gleeful by bashing our own side six weeks before a crucial election.


That's a tough call to make. But it seems reasonable to question why, on a vote that is such a bellwether on where American democracy stands in 2006, these 12 Senators cast deciding votes that they were unsure about or that, deep down, they flat-out knew were wrong.


Democratic primary voters will certainly ask that question when these Senators' terms have expired.


About author You can read more from Bob at http://www.BobGeiger.com [1].
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#27
would anyone else like to see these sould soul anti-lifers dogpiled nude and blindfolded as prep to answering a few little questions about their affiliations?

What a blatant sham these players are.

The most obvious thing to do is apply these travesties of justice and the true American way to them and have them hustled off to military courts in strict accordance to all these illegal and immoral laws they are all passing like a bunch of shameless drones.
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
#28
Quote:would anyone else like to see these sould soul anti-lifers dogpiled nude and blindfolded as prep to answering a few little questions about their affiliations?
Nope. Then I'd be just as bad as they are. Even a rabid dog gets it quick and painless with one bullet.
Reply
#29
Quote:[quote author="reverend gard"]would anyone else like to see these sould soul anti-lifers dogpiled nude and blindfolded as prep to answering a few little questions about their affiliations?
Nope. Then I'd be just as bad as they are. Even a rabid dog gets it quick and painless with one bullet.[/quote]

Plus... they'd probably like it.

0ne of them might slip you a Franklin for such a kinky treat.
????? ????
Reply
#30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#31
Bill No.: H.R. 4239

Primary Sponsors: Representative Thomas Petri (WI-6)

ASPCA Position: Oppose

Action Needed: Write to your representative now and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 4239!

H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill that could make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profit—even if the company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The term “animal enterprise” would include manufacturers, distributors and sellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters and the like.

While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism, property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize as “terrorism” otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts often utilized by citizens and organizations to effect change. Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.

The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions—even if done lawfully—would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude “economic damage” that results from the disclosure of information about a company’s treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.

The AETA has already been passed in the Senate, and a vote in the House is expected very soon. It is critical that you contact your representative immediately to show your opposition to H.R. 4239 and urge him or her to protect our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by opposing H.R. 4239.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h109-4239
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Reply
#32
Learning from history: a snippet of prescience


Stalin, as head of the Politburo, consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party, justified as an attempt to expel 'opportunists' and 'counter-revolutionary infiltrators'.

Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps, to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.

The Purges commenced after the assassination of Sergei Kirov, the popular leader of the party in Leningrad. Kirov was very close to Stalin and his assassination sent chills through the Bolshevik party.

Stalin, fearing that he might be next, began tightening security, (and in effect to remove those who might have threatened Stalin's leadership) by seeking out alleged spies and counter-revolutionaries.

Several trials known as the Moscow Trials were held, but the procedures were replicated throughout the country. There were four key trials during this period: the Trial of the Sixteen (August 1936); Trial of the Seventeen (January 1937); the trial of Red Army generals, including Marshal Tukhachevsky (June 1937); and finally the Trial of the Twenty One (including Bukharin) in March 1938.

Most notably in the case of alleged Nazi collaborator Tukhachevsky, many military leaders were convicted of treason. The shakeup in command may have cost the Soviet Union dearly during the German invasion of 22 June 1941, and its aftermath.

The repression of so many formerly high-ranking revolutionaries and party members led Leon Trotsky to claim that a "river of blood" separated Stalin's regime from that of Lenin.

Solzhenitsyn alleges that Stalin drew inspiration from Lenin's regime with the presence of labor camps and the executions of political opponents that occurred during the Russian Civil War.

Trotsky's August 1940 assassination in Mexico, where he had lived in exile since January 1937, eliminated the last of Stalin's opponents among the former Party leadership. Only three members of the "Old Bolsheviks" (Lenin's Politburo) now remained — Stalin himself, "the all-Union Chieftain" (всесоюзный староста) Mikhail Kalinin, and Chairman of Sovnarkom Vyacheslav Molotov.



No segment of society was left untouched during the purges. Article 58 of the legal code, listing prohibited "anti-Soviet activities", was applied in the broadest manner. Initially, the execution lists for the enemies of the people were confirmed by the Politburo.

Over time the procedure was greatly simplified and delegated down the line of command. People would inform on others arbitrarily, to attempt to redeem themselves, or to gain small retributions.

The flimsiest pretexts were often enough to brand someone an "Enemy of the People," starting the cycle of public persecution and abuse, often proceeding to interrogation, torture and deportation, if not death. Nadezhda Mandelstam, the widow of the poet Osip Mandelstam and one of the key memoirists of the Purges, recalls being shouted at by Akhmatova:

"Don't you understand? They are arresting people for nothing now?" The Russian word troika gained a new meaning: a quick, simplified trial by a committee of three subordinated to NKVD.

Towards the end of the purge, the Politburo relieved NKVD head Nikolai Yezhov, from his position for overzealousness. He was subsequently executed. Some historians such as Amy Knight and Robert Conquest postulate that Stalin had Yezhov and his predecessor, Genrikh Yagoda, removed in order to deflect blame from himself.

In parallel with the purges, efforts were made to rewrite the history in Soviet textbooks and other propaganda materials. Notable people executed by NKVD were removed from the texts and photographs as though they never existed.

Gradually, the history of revolution was transformed to a story about just two key characters: Lenin and Stalin.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sta ... portations
Reply
#33
We are sooo fucked by the Stalinozionist misgovernment! Fuck them and their offspring!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)