Activists Protest Guantanamo and 9/11 Report

Activists Protest Guantanamo and 9/11 Report
VT 9/11 TRUTH GROUP (06.28.06)

BURLINGTON — Last Sunday afternoon, a perfect 80-degree day brought crowds to the Church Street Marketplace in search, perhaps, of sun, sustenance and sales. Some of those shoppers and cafe people-watchers were treated to an unexpected, confrontational bit of street theater. Nine men wearing black hoods and orange jumpsuits, meant to represent Guantanamo Bay prison detainees, made their way down Church Street, hands held — though not cuffed — behind them. Two in front carried an upside-down American flag; two at the rear carried a large white sign with the message: "Arrest the U.S. government — 9/11 was a U.S. military attack." These strong words met with derision and anger from some; others applauded. "Only in Burlington . . .," opined one onlooker.

The group stopped in each block for a protest/performance: The "prisoners" kneeled on the ground with heads bowed. An accompanying "narrator," wearing a striped shirt and cargo shorts, read brief biographical statements on their behalf, standing next to each in turn. "My name is Jamil al-Banna," the narrator declaimed. "I have been imprisoned for 4 1/2 years without being charged with a crime. I have not been allowed legal counsel. I have three sons ages 6, 8 and 9. My oldest prays every day that I am not being tortured . . ." At the end of each bio, the narrator shouted, "Only 9/11 truth can set me free."

The participants this street-theater protest are members of the Vermont 9/11 Truth Group. According to them, the human-rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons, secret "extraordinary renditions" (i.e., torture outsourcing), the U.S. Patriot Act and the military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan all stem from the events of September 11, 2001. A volunteer manned a table set up on the Marketplace block between Bank and College streets offering books, pamphlets, buttons and other resources that question the identity of the perpetrator of those terrorist acts.

At an organizational meeting prior to their demonstration, Shelburne resident Pete Garritano, 50, explained that he and other members of the local Truth Group don't know whether any of the controversial 9/11 conspiracy theories are true, but they are certain the official 9/11 Commission Report doesn't add up.

Garritano pointed out that the Bush administration delayed the start of an investigation for 441 days after the attacks, and then created a commission composed of Bush loyalists. Burlington Truth Group member Frank Haddleton, 43, said their immediate goal is a city council resolution calling for a new 9/11 investigation. Thirty-seven-year-old Greg Nixon, also of Burlington, put it this way: "The burden of proof is on the government to tell us what really happened."

"We believe that the more people actually take the time to examine the facts," added Garritano, "the more people will realize that the government's story is like Swiss cheese."

The Vermont 9/11 Truth Group is not alone in its skepticism. There are corollary activists in New York, Chicago, Boston and many other cities. There is a British 9/11 Truth Group, and even a Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth. According to Garritano, these are not chapters of a national organization; rather, they are all grassroots groups that have cropped up independently and now exchange ideas and information — see www.vt911.org for links. Nixon explained that the Vermont group launched after David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, came to speak at Burlington's Unitarian Church last fall. His book was one of the offerings at the information table during Sunday's demonstration.

Garritano believes the Guantanamo protest had, and will continue to have, an impact because of growing public awareness that the prison is a "horrible thing," he said. He further suggested that an increasing number of Americans are tired of the Bush administration using 9/11 to trump opposition to its policies and actions. "We all don't think this is what our country is supposed to be about," Garritano declared. "For many people it is a sensitive subject, but we feel that it is 'our duty as Americans to be vigilant to protect our liberty,' as Thomas Jefferson once said."

Muslim, Jewish, Christian Alliance For 9/11 Truth

Not sure if I have ever posted this website before.<--click link The following is a letter sent by the founder of mujca.com in response to an op-ed that was printed in the Washington Post. <--click link

emailed to rperle@aei.org
June 26th, 2006

Dear Richard Perle,

I understand that you encourage your friends to call you by your nickname "the Prince of Darkness." After reading your Washington Post op-ed railing at Bush and Condi for beating an "ignominious retreat" by "blinking on Iran" I am wondering why. You seem like such a sweet, innocent guy! How could a nice man like yourself, who is only concerned with "the struggle for freedom in Iran" and "support for democracy and human rights in Iran" revel in such a Satanic sobriquet?

My dear "Prince," I am writing to warn you that by dubbing yourself “The Prince of Darkness" you are encouraging your enemies to spread terrible rumors about you. For example, on WORT radio here in Madison, Wisconsin, Ashcroft-gagged FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds recently confirmed what she had already indirectly conveyed through an article in Vanity Fair: She says she saw FBI intercepts showing that you and Douglas Feith had arranged the financing for 9/11!

O poor defamed and denigrated Prince, it is my sad duty to inform you that Ms. Edmonds is not the only one who is saying such things. Vile rumor-mongers are claiming that the American Turkish Council (ATC) and American-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (AACC), upon whose boards you and Mr. Feith so innocently sit, are fronts for drug-smuggling, money-laundering, and false-flag terrorism, and prime sponsors of the 9/11 crimes against humanity. These same back-stabbers and chatterers are claiming that Valerie Plame was outed to stop her surveillance of the ATC, which some wags have been calling the American Terrorism Council. These slanderous, conspiracy-crazed moonbats are raising the alarm that ATC and AATC, major players in the nuclear black market, may launch another 9/11-style false-flag terror event to trigger a US attack on Iran. By calling yourself "the Prince of Darkness," you only encourage such speculation.

O purehearted princely master of Machievellian mendacity, these horrific vilifications and disparagements of your royal honor will undoubtedly continue as long as you go around calling yourself "the Prince of Darkness." If you want to avoid the hangman's noose, and continue your idealistic volunteer work for freedom and democracy, I urge you to publicly repudiate your nickname "the Prince of Darkness" and make it clear that henceforth you will be addressed as "the Prince of Sweetness and Light." That way, when you write editorials urging Americans to risk World War III by turning Iran into an irradiated charnel house, people will believe that you are motivated by a saintly, unsullied love of freedom, democracy, and the Good.

Your humble & unworthy servant,

Kevin Barrett Coordinator,
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

Senate Holds Hearings on Bush's Use of Signing Statements

June 27, 2006
Senate Holds Hearings on Bush's Use of Signing Statements
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:06 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's frequent use of special statements that claim authority to limit the effects of bills he signs, saying the statements help him uphold the Constitution and defend national security.

Senators weren't so sure.

''It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution,'' said Arlen Specter, a Republican whose Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings on the issue. ''There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview.''

At the White House, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, ''There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.''

The bill-signing statements say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds. Some 110 statements have challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Snow said presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton have issued such statements.

''The president has done the same thing that his predecessors have,'' he told reporters. ''Presidents generally had the same concerns about defending the presidential prerogatives when it comes to national security.''

In addition to Specter's objections, Democrats called the signing statements an example of the administration trying to expand executive power.

''I believe that this new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law,'' said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. ''If the president is going to have the power to nullify all or part of a statute, it should only be through veto authority that the president has authorized and can reject -- rather than through a unilateral action taken outside the structures of our democracy.''

Defending Bush, a Justice Department lawyer said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had made it prudent for the president to protect his powers with signing statements more than did his predecessors.

''Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events,'' said lawyer Michelle Boardman. ''The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11.''

''Congress has been more active, the president has been more active,'' she added. ''The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.''

The exchange came during a midterm election year in which Specter, some fellow Republicans and many Democrats are highlighting concerns about the administration's use of executive power. Specter's personal list includes Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, the administration's checking of phone records and the sending of officials to hearings but saying they cannot answer lawmakers' questions on national security grounds.

The session also was aimed at countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.

''The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is,'' he said. ''I don't know why the issue of presidents issuing signing statements is controversial at all.''

Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is trying an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto, which could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.

''The president is not required to,'' Boardman said.

''Of course he's not if he signs the bill,'' Specter snapped back.

Other presidents have used signing statements for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.




Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

An Open Letter to the 9/11 Commission

Contact: Ed Haas - office (843) 278-5021 mobile (843) 327-7598
efhaas@comcast.net
http://www.teamliberty.net/

May 29, 2006

An Open Letter to the 9/11 Commission

Dear 9/11 Commissioners,

Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand." The United States is now divided on what it believes about September 11, 2001. A CNN poll conducted on March 25, 2006 revealed that 84% of the 52 thousand people polled now believe that the U.S. government has not thoroughly answered 9/11 questions. 84 percent!

Between May 12, 2006 and May 16, 2006, Zogby International conducted a nationwide poll pertaining to the government’s account of 9/11. Here are the results:

Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks 44%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42%
9/11 should be reinvestigated 45%

I believe this government, our country, cannot endure permanently with tens of millions believing that the government is involved in a cover-up regarding September 11th 2001. The United States of America is divided. The division is so great that resolution must now be found. In my opinion, re-opening 9/11 is a matter of national defense. “Debate” is the answer. The National 9/11 Debate will be an outward sign of an inward desire to resolve the unanswered and persistent questions that remain about what really happened in the United States on September 11, 2001.

So what should patriotic Americans do with our grievances? We have called for a debate. Not just a few Americans want this debate – Tens of millions of Americans are demanding answers to be derived from a public – people’s forum. It is the enormity of those that oppose the government’s account of 9/11 that has prompted me to draw the line in the sand, to pick a date, time, and location to have a public debate on 9/11. I then sought out the most reputable and credentialed experts from the 9/11 Truth Movement to debate members of the 9/11 Commission and the NIST scientists.

The seven-member debate team that will dispute the government account of 9/11 is as follows:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire is a Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and the attorney for plaintiffs in 9-11 RICO Suit vs. Bush. His web site, 911forthetruth.com covers the RICO lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, and 53 other defendants in Federal Court.

James H. Fetzer a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, the author or editor of 27 books, and founder and co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

David Ray Griffin is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Theology at the Claremont Graduate School, where he taught for over 30 years, retiring in 2004. He has authored or edited over thirty books, including "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11”.

Steven E. Jones is the co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, an expert in cold fusion and solar energy who earned his Ph.D. at Vanderbilt, and who has authored an influential study of the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2).

George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (retired) is a trained aircraft accident investigator who served as an Aircraft Maintenance Manager for more than 30 years and who was assigned additional duties as a member of aircraft accident investigation teams for the United States Air Force.

Morgan Reynolds is a Professor Emeritus of Economics at Texas A&M. He is the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush. He is also the former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. In June 2005, Lew Rockwell published Reynolds’ article: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

Judy D. Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Professor Wood teaches courses in the areas of engineering mechanics and experimental stress analysis.

If your initial reaction regarding The National 9/11 Debate was negative - to not participate, I ask you to please reconsider for the sake of the nation. I recognize that such a debate could put the government in a vulnerable position, but based on the polls, to ignore the fact that nearly half your countrymen are not satisfied with what the government has reported on 9/11 will only deepen the division that is destroying the United States of America. It is my belief that the lack of support for the War in Iraq is rooted in the fact that nearly half the nation doesn’t believe the 9/11 Commission Report. After all, if you believe that the World Trade Center Building Seven collapsed as the result of controlled demolition – which it did, then it is easier to believe that the twin towers were also brought down with the aid of pre-planted explosives. With such a belief intact, how can an American support the so-called global war on terrorism and the war in Iraq?

The problem can no longer be ignored. Please take a lead role in assembling a seven-member government debate team that will debate the aforementioned seven-member civilian debate team in Charleston, SC on September 16, 2006. This event will confirm truths, uncover truths, and beg for truths, and while it will not possibly be able to satisfy all people, it will go a long way to heal some open wounds of a troubled nation.

The National 9/11 Debate will receive national media attention. Don’t let there be seven empty seats with the names of the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists pasted on them for the world to see. Let’s do this debate. Let’s get it done.


Yours in Liberty,

E.F. Haas

ACTION ALERT: Please write your own letters to the 9/11 Commissioners and encourage their participation in The National 9/11 Debate.

Thomas Kean – Chairman
The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036

Lee H. Hamilton
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20004-3027

Slade Gorton
Preston Gates & Ellis LLP
1735 New York Ave. NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-5221
Bob Kerrey
The New School in NYC
66 W. 12th St. Rm. 800
NY, NY 10011

James R. Thompson
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601–9703

Jamie Gorelick
WilmerHale
1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006

Richard Ben-Veniste
Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw
1909 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Timothy J. Roemer
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 333
Washington, DC 20001

Fred F. Fielding
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
1776 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006

John F. Lehman
J.F. Lehman & Co.
2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 607
Arlington, VA 22202

Journal of 9/11 Studies

Check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies. After, please register for this forum and join the debate. All are welcome. These are issues that need to be discussed and there is much to be learned from each other. Take the time to educate yourself...or to educate others.

FRONTLINE: The Dark Side

FRONTLINE: The Dark Side

A historical look at the people running the country and deciding policy. George W. Bush who?

Robert Novak archive, 9/11 -- simultaneous hijacking of 4 jetliners was an "inside job"

Never forget what happened to us on 9/11, but do forget certain stories that come out suggesting something other than just terrorists harboring hatred for our freedom had anything to do with 9/11. This does seem to be the official government position on the questions we have pertaining to that day. Good thing there are patriots out there who archive this stuff.~~~Antagonist

Crime & Corruption
See other Crime & Corruption Articles

Title: Robert Novak archive, 9/11 -- simultaneous hijacking of 4 jetliners was an "inside job"
Source: Town Hall
URL Source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20010913.shtml
Published: Sep 13, 2001
Author: Robert Novak
Post Date: 2004-09-16 13:54:27 by palo verde

September 13, 2001

This is no pearl harbor

WASHINGTON -- Security experts and airline officials agree privately that the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners was an "inside job," probably indicating complicity beyond malfeasance. This makes all the more ominous Tuesday's national catastrophe and its dismal consequences.

Nobody was more vigorous Tuesday in demanding tough military reprisal against the terrorists than former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. However, he was virtually alone in directing his rage not only at the assassins but also at security arrangements. "I thought we had solved that problem (of air skyjackings)," he said. He pointed out that effective airport security would have prevented the disaster that may exceed the 2,403 deaths in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The analogy with the Japanese surprise attack was drawn endlessly by political leaders and journalists. Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with a keen sense of history, disagreed: "This, after all, was not Pearl Harbor. We have not lost the Pacific fleet." Unlike Dec. 7, 1941, the second day of infamy was not perpetrated by an enemy that at that time was militarily superior and seemed to put this nation's very existence in question.

In the rage and mourning following Tuesday's disaster, few officials wanted to dwell on how a 10-year hiatus of airline hijackings in this country could be followed by four in one hour. At a minimum, the blame can be put on ill-trained, incompetent personnel performing the screening of passengers. At the worst, security experts fear collusion with the terrorists, possibly even extending to the cockpit. This is a subject that the airlines are loathe to discuss.

The immediate consequence, widely predicted by members of Congress, will be tighter security making life more difficult for airline travelers and other Americans. The instant security measures taken in Washington and around the country came after the greatest terrorist success in world history had run its course and would not have been effective in preventing disaster had it been put in place.

Of greater interest to members of congressional intelligence committees is the surprise element of the attacks. The CIA and FBI are internally at a low point of effectiveness. "Human intelligence" (spying) has been in decline for decades. No amount of security harassment of airline passengers will substitute for effective intelligence. Like Pearl Harbor, the lack of warning Sept. 11 will be investigated.

Unlike Pearl Harbor, however, there is no clear foe. While secret briefings of members of Congress point to Osama bin Laden as the source of the attacks, President Bush's Tuesday night address to the nation named no names. The government, at this writing, actually is not sure. Private sources indicate that the terrorists could be a splinter group of Osama, its identity and whereabouts as yet unknown.

An attack on Afghanistan for sheltering Osama's terrorists will put the United States in danger of being perceived, however incorrectly, as launching a holy war against Islam. There is strong sentiment in Congress for hitting somebody, somewhere who has unsavory terrorist credentials even if not connected with Tuesday's attack.
With a crippled CIA unable to target the assassins, the Bush administration seems headed to deliver the same kind of hammer blows that the Clinton administration used in the Kosovo war rather than surgical strikes aimed at the assassins.

Perhaps the biggest difference with Pearl Harbor is the cause of the conflict. Bush's eloquent call for unity talked of the need to "defend freedom." Unlike Nazi Germany's and Imperial Japan's drive for a new world order, however, the hatred toward the U.S. by the terrorists is an extension of its hatred of Israel rather than world dominion. Secretary of State Colin Powell's laudable efforts at being an even-handed peacemaker makes no difference to terrorists.

Stratfor.com, the private intelligence company, reported Tuesday: "The big winner today, intentionally or not, is the state of Israel." Whatever distance Bush wanted between U.S. and Israeli policy, it was eliminated by terror. The spectacle on television of Palestinian youths and mothers dancing in the streets of East Jerusalem over the slaughter of Americans will not soon be forgotten. The United States and Israel are brought ever closer in a way that cannot improve long-term U.S. policy objectives.

FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyPost.org may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

See also TIME article entitled: TIME Exclusive: An Inside Job? <--click link to article written on September 22, 2001.

Going out on a limb...

Interesting to note that the secret Operation Northwoods document was declassified in 1997 through the JFK Records Collection Act of 1992. I know it sounds crazy and all conspiracy theorist, but I'm becoming convinced that the JFK assassination is connected to the same people who are running the show now.

Quote:

The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 created the Assassination Records Review Board as an independent agency to re-examine for release the assassination-related records that federal agencies still regarded as too sensitive to open to the public. The Board finished its work on September 30, 1998, issued a final report, and transferred all of its records to the National Archives and Records Administration. link

Perhaps people working behind the scenes (whistleblowers) have been trying to come out with information for years to warn us about the people we are dealing with? I imagine having any part of this information would make anybody more than a little nervous about stepping into the light.

JFK's assassination has never been solved to everyone's satisfaction and now there's about 80+% who believe there needs to be a new investigation into his murder. I think that 9/11 as well as JFK's assassination were all part of the same plan...to change the world and JFK's vision was a threat.

Watch this video

Was it an inside job?

I don't know, but I do know that we are in trouble as we were not only witness to 9/11's destruction and loss of life, we are also seeing a lot of what it all meant. Those who are truly trying to understand the magnitude of the issue do consider all sides. We do not want to be exposed for the monstrous tactics which got us to this point. To be defined in such vile terms is heart-wrenching. We desperately want to be told something that we can believe. Does it matter if it hurts us terribly to find out? Not if it's the truth. Think about the division we are experiencing as humanity is forced into this predicament.

Muslim terrorism has been created and perpetuated by the foreign policy of the USA. It's disheartening to see so much ignorance in this country, but it's rather calming to confront the tyranny and prepare for consequences as I continue to at least hold onto the right of free speech and can decry the oppression.

Activists who stand with me are not going to go away and we'll grow in numbers as more and more intelligent, compassionate people learn exactly what's been done in our name. The government or elements therein are not this country and they deserve no respect or consideration for the terrible deeds they do under the banner of so-called national security.

Are Muslims the real danger to our existence or is it something else? Have we created the monster they are holding up in a terrorist enemy? The biggest threat to this country is the tyranny by which we are ruled.

Checks and balances have gone out the door and we have in its place an executive branch run amok. Signing statements allow for legitimate laws to be broken by certain people while others become the victims of these broken laws. People are being spirited away, held in confinement with little access to courts and possibly even to family members. They are tortured and humiliated then sent back to their country of origin to incite more of the hatred that exacerbates the problem.

The Constitution provides a remedy--impeachment. The time is now, not after elections that may make it an impossible endeavor if they are again hijacked.

Like those who accuse conspiracy theorists of only researching those areas that support their position, so too have those when it comes to researching and trying to understand near eastern religious dogma. This is why we have fearful people out there screaming that all Muslims and Arabs are a threat and we should deal with them as a whole. It's judging the group for the actions of the few. It's refusing to acknowledge individuality.

As one who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, one who has educated herself by considering all sides, i've found that there is definitely something wrong especially when our foreign policy breeds such hatred and ignorance when it comes to those they've labeled our enemies.

The system is broken...the country is bankrupt and we are witnessing the decline of the American Empire.

What are you going to do when the war comes to America? Are you going to kill all the Muslims as well as all the other people who stand with them and support their right to exist in this country?

We're on the verge of catastrophe and the ignorance that’s been thusly exhibited is going to hasten the inevitable.

One has to wonder how the military feels about current events when things are seemingly so fubar. The way we're going about combating terrorism has turned it into a bigger threat than ever before in our existence. You can't fight terrorism like that. With every operation ordered by the civilian leadership and executed by our troops we are creating 10x the problem. They told them they were fighting for freedom but as freedom gets taken away, that lie is exposed, so what are we really fighting for?

Terrorism is merely a symptom of our own foreign policy. Does that make me anti-American? Hell no, it makes me anti-fascist or something which is what we are resembling with the propaganda machine churning out movies like United 93 and World Trade Center. Our media is censored and pseudo-patriots shout down the more sensible minority who question motives.

It's time the people organize and educate others who are being blinded by an illusion cobbled together by some talented magicians in the state department. The time to take action was yesterday.

Doesn't anybody even understand what is happening?

We must impeach these people, call for a cease fire...bring home the troops and face the consequences of the bankruptcy and specious foreign policy that got us here.

JFK Secret Society Speech

Record this...remember it...spread it around.

JFK Secret Society Speech

Explosive. As I get more information about this speech, such as where and when it was made, I will update this post.

Hunter S. Thompson

Hunter S. Thompson

The godfather of gonzo says 9/11 caused a "nationwide nervous breakdown" -- and let the Bush crowd loot the country and savage American democracy.

By John Glassie

Pages 1 2 3

February 3, 2003

He calls himself "an elderly dope fiend living out in the wilderness," but will also be found this week on the New York Times bestseller list with a new memoir, "Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century."

Listening to his ragged voice, there is some sense that Thompson, now 65, has reined in his outlaw ways, gotten a little softer, perhaps a little more gracious now that he's reached retirement age. "I've found you can deal with the system a lot easier if you use their rules," he says. "I talk to a lot of lawyers."

But do not be deceived. In "Kingdom of Fear" and in a telephone interview with Salon from his compound in Aspen, Colo., Thompson did what he's always done: speak the truth about American society as he sees it, without worrying much about decorum.

"Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads?" he writes, referring to the people currently occupying the White House. "They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis."

That's his enduring attitude in this new age of darkness: a lot more loathing than fear.

The godfather of gonzo believes America has suffered a "nationwide nervous breakdown" since 9/11, and as a result is compromising civil liberties for what he calls "the illusion of security." The compromise, he says, is "a disaster of unthinkable proportions" and "part of the downward spiral of dumbness" he believes is plaguing the country.

While the country's spinning out of control, Thompson says his own lifestyle has been a model of consistency. He still does whatever the hell he wants. In fact, his new book was supposed to be a "definitive memoir of his life," a long look back by the man who rode with the Hell's Angels, who experienced the riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention, and who has smoked more cigarettes, driven more fast cars, fired more weapons and done more drugs than most living people, let alone most living authors. But the book is much more than memoir.

Thompson has long been an outspoken and vigorous champion of civil liberties, at least since a well-publicized 1990 case in which he was charged with sexual and physical assault and possession of illegal drugs -- charges that were ultimately dropped due to an illegal search and seizure.

Of course, the writer has distrusted power all his life, and it may come as no surprise that he now believes the administration is "manufacturing" the Iraqi threat for its own political gain and the economic gain of the "oligarchy" (read: the military-industrial complex).

Perhaps Thompson's most disturbing charge is aimed at the American people -- only half of whom exercise their right to vote. "The oligarchy doesn't need an educated public. And maybe the nation does prefer tyranny," he says. "I think that's what worries me."

In the end, however, Thompson is not and has never been that easy to pigeonhole. He's friends with Pat Buchanan and has a lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association. In his own mind, if not in others', he is "one of the most patriotic people I've ever encountered in America."

Your new book, "Kingdom of Fear," is being called a definitive memoir -- although almost all of your books seem to be autobiographical in one way or another. What's the difference between the written accounts -- of drug use, run-ins with the law, sex, fast cars, guns and explosives -- and real-life events?

I don't really see any difference. Telling the truth is the easiest way; it saves a lot of time. I've found that the truth is weirder than any fiction I've seen. There was a girl that worked for me a long time ago, who graduated third in her class from Georgetown Law School, and was from some kind of uptown family in Chicago, and instead of going to work for some big-time firm, she came to Aspen and ends up working for me out here in the wilderness. A year or so later her mother or father were coming out to visit. I've had some understandable issues with parents -- really all my life. And I'd be worried about my daughter, too, if she'd run off with some widely known infamous monster. And so I asked her -- just so I could get braced for this situation, meeting the parents and having them come to the house: "Given what you know about me and what you hear about me, which is worse?" She finally came out and said there was no question in her mind that the reality was heavier and crazier and more dangerous. Having to deal with the reality is no doubt a little more traumatic.

Indeed, your author blurb says you live in "a fortified compound near Aspen, Colorado." In what sense is it fortified and why does it need to be?

Actually, I live in an extremely pastoral setting in an old log house. It's a farm really. I moved here 30 years ago. I think the only fortification might be my reputation. If people believe they're going to be shot, they might stay away.

Yes, I understand you're a gun enthusiast, to put it euphemistically. But do you support more restrictive gun laws? Do you support a ban on assault weapons?

I have one or two of those, but I got them before they were illegal. In that case, if I were sure that any tragedies and mass murders would be prevented, I'd give up my assault rifle. But I don't really believe that. Do I have any illegal weapons? No. I have a .454 magnum revolver, which is huge, and it's absolutely legal. One day I was wild-eyed out here with Johnny Depp, and we both ordered these guns from Freedom, Wyo., and got them the next day through FedEx. Mainly, I have rifles, pistols, shotguns; I have a lot of those. But everything I have is top quality; I don't have any junk weapons. I wouldn't have any military weapon around here, except as an artifact of some kind. Given Ashcroft and the clear blueprint of this administration to make everything illegal and everything suspicious -- how about suspicion of being a terrorist sympathizer? Goddamn, talk about filling up your concentration camps. But, yeah, my police record is clean. This is not a fortified compound.

So, just to clarify, how do your views stack up with the NRA's?

I think I'm still a life member of the NRA. I formed a gun club out here, an official sporting club, and I got charter from the NRA. That made it legal to have guns here, to bring guns here, to have ammunition sent here, that sort of thing. I've found you can deal with the system a lot easier if you use their rules -- by understanding their rules, by using their rules against them. I talk to a lot of lawyers. You know, I consider Pat Buchanan a friend. I don't agree with him on many things. Personally, I enjoy him. I just like him. And I learn from Pat. One of the things I'm most proud of is that I never had anybody busted, arrested, jailed for my writing about them. I never had any -- what's that? -- collateral damage.

Next page: "These are not philosopher-kings we're talking about"
Pages 1 2 3
This article was originally published in a different format. You may be able to view the original format on this page.

In case the article disappears or the links don't work, the text for page 2 and 3 follows:~~Antagonist


Hunter S. Thompson
Pages 1 2 3

But speaking of rules, you've been arrested dozens of times in your life. Specific incidents aside, what's common to these run-ins? Where do you stand vis--vis the law?

Goddammit. Yeah, I have. First, there's a huge difference between being arrested and being guilty. Second, see, the law changes and I don't. How I stand vis--vis the law at any given moment depends on the law. The law can change from state to state, from nation to nation, from city to city. I guess I have to go by a higher law. How's that? Yeah, I consider myself a road man for the lords of karma.

In 1990, you were put on trial for what you call "sex, drugs, dynamite and violence." Charges were eventually dropped. Since then, you've been outspoken on Fourth Amendment issues: search and seizure, the right to privacy. I assume you've taken a side in the civil liberties debate that's come up in the aftermath of 9/11?

It's a disaster of unthinkable proportions -- part of the downward spiral of dumbness. Civil liberties are black and white issues. I don't think people think far enough to see the ramifications. The PATRIOT Act was a dagger in the heart, really, of even the concept of a democratic government that is free, equal and just. There are a lot more concentration camps right now than Guantanamo Bay. But they're not marked. Now, every jail, every bush-league cop can run a concentration camp. It amounts to a military and police takeover, I think.

Well, as some have pointed out, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Is some suspension of civil liberties ever appropriate or justified in a time of war?

If there's a visible, obvious threat like Hitler, but in my mind the administration is using these bogeymen for their own purposes. This military law is nothing like the Constitution. They're exploiting the formula here: The people are afraid of something and you offer a solution, however drastic, and they go along with it. For a while, yeah. My suspicions are more justified every day with this manufacturing of dangerous killer villains. The rest of the world does not perceive, I don't think, that some tin-horn dictator in the Middle East is more of a danger to the world than the U.S. is. This country depends on war as a primary industry. The White House has pumped up the danger factor because it's to their advantage. It's to John Ashcroft's advantage. There have always been pros and cons about the righteousness of life in America but this just seems planned, it seems consistent, and it seems traditional.

What do they get out of it?

They get control of the U.S. economy, their friends get rich. These are not philosopher-kings we're talking about. These are politicians. It's a very sleazy way of using the system. One of the problems today is that what's going on today is not as complex as it seems. The Pentagon just asked for another $14 billion more in the budget, and it's already $28 billion. [Defense spending in the 2003 budget rose $19.4 billion, to $364.6 billion]. That's one sector of the economy that's not down the tubes. So, some people are getting rich off of this. It's the oligarchy. I believe the Republicans have never thought that democracy was anything but a tribal myth. The GOP is the party of capital. It's pretty basic. And it may have something to do with the deterioration of educational system in this country. I don't think Bush has the slightest intention or concern about educating the public.

Many people would say you're un-American and unpatriotic.

I think I'm one of the most patriotic people that I've ever encountered in America. I consider myself a bedrock patriot. I participate very actively in local politics, because my voice might be worthwhile. I participate in a meaningful way -- not by donations, I work at it.

Well, what do you prescribe? What do you advocate?

All the blood is drained out of democracy -- it dies -- when only half the population votes. I would use the vote. It would seem to me that people who have been made afraid, if you don't like what's happening, if you don't want to go to war, if you don't want to be broke, well for God's sake don't go out and vote for the very bastards who are putting you there. That's a pillar of any democratic future in this country. The party of capital is not interested in having every black person in Louisiana having access to the Ivy League. They don't need an educated public.

So what took place during this past election?

I believe the Republicans have seen what they've believed all along, which is that this democracy stuff is bull, and that people don't want to be burdened by political affairs. That people would rather just be taken care of. The oligarchy doesn't need an educated public. And maybe the nation does prefer tyranny. I think that's what worries me. It goes back to Fourth Amendment issues. How much do you value your freedom? Would you trade your freedom for some illusion of security? Freedom is something that dies unless it's used.

This is coming from someone who's described himself as "an elderly dope fiend who lives out in the wilderness" and also as a "drunken screwball."

A dangerous drunken screwball.

Next page: "Not everybody is made for this life"


Pages 1 2 3

This article was originally published in a different format. You may be able to view the original format on this page.

Hunter S. Thompson
Pages 1 2 3

Right. Sorry. So why would anybody listen to you?

I don't have to apologize for any political judgments I've made. The stuff I wrote in the '60s and '70s was astonishingly accurate. I may have been a little rough on Nixon, but he was rough. You had to do it with him. What you believe has to be worth something. I've never given it a lot of thought: I've never hired people to figure out what I should do about my image. I always work the same way, and talk the same way, and I've been right enough that I stand by my record.

But is there a sense in which your views are, by definition, going to be seen as fringe views -- views that can just be discarded?

That is a problem and I guess "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" might have colored the way people perceive me. But I haven't worried that people see me as "dope fiend," I'd rather get rid of the "elderly" rather than the "dope fiend."

What's the best example of something you were right about?

Christ, the Hell's Angels certainly. Police agencies regarded that book as a major primary resource on motorcycle gangs. I started covering presidential politics after I realized how easy it was to manipulate the political machinery in this county -- or almost officially doing it -- by running for sheriff. I saw that there might be some serious fun in politics. I covered Goldwater's convention in 1964. And I went from Nixon to Kennedy to Nixon. I wanted to have some say in events, just for my own safety.

You have famously attached yourself to the word "fear" since you wrote "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Now you've written "Kingdom of Fear." Will you explain?

This country has been having a nationwide nervous breakdown since 9/11. A nation of people suddenly broke, the market economy goes to shit, and they're threatened on every side by an unknown, sinister enemy. But I don't think fear is a very effective way of dealing with things -- of responding to reality. Fear is just another word for ignorance.

You write in "Kingdom of Fear" about the passing of the American century --

That's official, by the way. The American century was the 20th, so sayeth Henry Luce. And when it ends, Christ, you can't avoid thinking: "Ye Gods!"

To whom or what is the 21st century going to belong?

That's something I have not divined yet. Goddammit, I couldn't have told you in 1960 what 1980 was going to be like.

You've also referred to your beat as the "Death of the American Dream." That was the ostensible "subject" of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Has it just sort of been on its deathbed since 1968?

I think that's right.

A lot of people would argue with you about that anyway, and believe that the American Dream is alive and well.

They need to take a better look around.

But in a way, haven't you lived the American Dream?

Goddammit! [pause] I haven't thought about it that way. I suppose you could say that in a certain way I have.

You said back in 1991 that you were "as astounded as anybody" that you were still alive. Still drinking, smoking and doing drugs?

I guess I'd have to say I haven't changed. Why should I, really? I'm the most stable neighbor on the road here. I'm an honest person. I don't regret being honest. I did give up petty crime when I turned 18, after I got a look at jail -- I went in there for shoplifting -- because I just saw that this stuff doesn't work. There's a line: "I do not advocate the use of dangerous drugs, wild amounts of alcohol and violence and weirdness -- but they've always worked for me." I think I said that at a speech at Stanford. I've always been a little worried about advocating my way of life, or gauging my success by having other people take up my way of life, like Tim Leary did. I always quarreled with Leary about that. I could have started a religion a long time ago. It would not have a majority of people in it, but there would be a lot of them. But I don't know how wise I am. I don't know what kind of a role model I am. And not everybody is made for this life.

In fact, you've experienced more than your share of dangerous situations. You've been beaten by the Hell's Angels. You were in the middle of the 1968 Democratic Convention riots. You've been shot at. What's going on with that?

By any widely accepted standard, I have had more than nine lives. I counted them up once and there were 13 times that I almost and maybe should have died -- from emergencies with fires to violence, drowning, bombs. I guess I am an action junkie, yeah. There may be some genetic imperative that caused me to get into certain situations. It's curiosity, I guess. As long as I'm learning something I figure I'm OK -- it's a decent day.

Is there anything you regret?

That goes to the question of would you do it again. If you can't say you'd do it again, it means that time was wasted -- useless. The regrets I have are so minor. You know, would I leave my Keith Richards hat, with the silver skull on it, on the stool at the coffee shop at LaGuardia? I wouldn't do that again. But overall, no, I don't have any regrets.

Pages 1 2 3
This article was originally published in a different format. You may be able to view the original format on this page.

Know thine enemy

I’ve been participating on a forum that has been created to discuss the movie World Trade Center. One of the threads asked a simple question--Are Muslims and Arabs horrible bad people? It was written by a young Bosnian Muslim girl who experienced prejudice by her peers after 9/11. The thread grew to include about a 50/50 split amongst those responding. Fifty percent felt that Muslims should be dealt with harshly just because of their religious beliefs. Keep in mind that this forum attracts a worldwide audience, but it’s probably safe to say that many of those responding negatively were probably Americans. The following is an essay I put together from some of my responses during the debate. I thought I would post it here to preserve the sentiment.

Muslim terrorism has been created and perpetuated by the foreign policy of the USA. It's disheartening to see so much ignorance in this country, but it's rather calming to confront the tyranny and prepare for consequences as I continue to at least hold onto the right of free speech and can decry the oppression on my lonely little blog in cyberspace.

Activists who stand with me are not going to go away and we'll grow in numbers as more and more intelligent, compassionate people learn exactly what's been done in our name. The government or elements therein are not this country and they deserve no respect or consideration for the terrible deeds they do under the banner of so-called national security.

Are Muslims the real danger to our existence or is it something else? Have we created the monster they are holding up in a terrorist enemy? The biggest threat to this country is the tyranny by which we are ruled.

Checks and balances have gone out the door and we have in its place an executive branch run amok. The Constitution provides a remedy--impeachment. The time is now, not after elections that may make it an impossible endeavor if they are again hijacked.

Like those who accuse conspiracy theorists of only researching those areas that support their position, so too have those when it comes to researching and trying to understand middle eastern religious dogma. This is why we have fearful people out there screaming that all Muslims and Arabs are a threat and we should deal with them as a whole. It’s enough to make a person pull their hair out in exasperation.

As one who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, one who has educated herself by considering all sides, there is definitely something wrong when our foreign policy breeds such hatred and ignorance as it comes to who they've labeled our enemies.

The system is broken...the country is bankrupt and we are witnessing the decline of the American Empire.

What are you going to do when the war comes to America? Are you going to kill all the Muslims as well as all the other people who stand with them and support their right to exist in this country?

We're on the verge of catastrophe and the ignorance that’s been thusly exhibited is going to hasten the inevitable.

I often wonder how the military feels about current events when things are seemingly so fubar. The way we're going about combating terrorism has turned it into a bigger threat than ever before in our existence. You can't fight terrorism like that. With every operation ordered by the civilian leadership and executed by our troops we are creating 10x the problem.

I’ll say it again, terrorism is merely a symptom of our own foreign policy. Does that make me anti-American? Hell no, it makes me anti-fascist which is what we are becoming with the propaganda machine churning out movies like United 93 and World Trade Center. Our media is censored and pseudo-patriots shout down the more sensible minority who question motives.

It's time the people organize and educate others who are being blinded by an illusion cobbled together by some talented magicians in the state department. The time to take action was yesterday.

Doesn't anybody even understand what is happening? Fascism oppresses the people who turn into such sissies that they propose walls along their borders because they are living in fear. Would Ronald Reagan have approved of such a wall?

We must impeach these people, call for a cease fire...bring home the troops and face the consequences of the bankruptcy and specious foreign policy that got us here.

Letter to Senator Chuck Hagel

How can you go about doing the business of the people when we are being ruled by a tyrant? Do you condone tyrannical deeds?

Our system of checks and balances has gone out the door and still you just sit and formulate ideas to enable our march to fascism. Didn't our forefathers provide for a solution to the dilemma we find ourselves in? Impeachment is the answer. Not just the President, but the entire executive branch must be eradicated. Drastic measures must be taken. We are surely on our way to something that is less free than we have enjoyed in our past. You must realize this, unless you are a part of the machinery that got us to this point.

Transparency in government is needed for the people to play their part in being informed enough to cast their ballots. Those of us who have taken the time to educate ourselves have come to some awful conclusions about where we've been, who we are now and where we are headed. Declassified government documents released to the public and pointed to by whistleblowers have awakened a sleeping giant in the people who put you in office. Notice that legislature has been suggested to re-classify many of those documents, in which case we the people will lose out on being included in the process. We will remain ignorant. Is this how we want to be defined?

Do something before it's too late. Sign onto Senator Feingold's measure to censure and call for impeachment proceedings to commence in the house. You know it's the right thing to do.

The Zarqawi Invitation

Unreported: The Zarqawi Invitation
By Greg Palast
t r u t h o u t Report

Friday 09 June 2006

They got him - the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi - who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.

The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack - you're fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" - and Iraq, that's just about everything - "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements - copyright and tax code changes - was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)

But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."

Seizing title and ownership of Iraq's oil fields was not on Garner's must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people." He added, "It's their country, their oil."

Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections - within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.

But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days - at least 9 months.

Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a "Big Tent" meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other's throats.

But a quick election would mean the end of the state-asset sell-off plan: An Iraqi-controlled government would never go along with what would certainly amount to foreign corporations swallowing their entire economy. Especially the oil. Garner had spent years in Iraq, in charge of the Northern Kurdish zone and knew Iraqis well. He was certain that an asset-and-oil grab, "privatizations," would cause a sensitive population to take up the gun. "That's just one fight you don't want to take on right now."

But that's just the fight the neo-cons at Defense wanted. And in Rumsfeld's replacement for Garner, they had a man itching for the fight. Paul Bremer III had no experience on the ground in Iraq, but he had one unbeatable credential that Garner lacked: Bremer had served as Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates.

In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.

The insurgency had begun. But Bremer's job was hardly over. There were Sunnis to go after. He issued "Order Number One: De-Ba'athification." In effect, this became "De-Sunni-fication."

Saddam's generals, mostly Sunnis, who had, we learned, secretly collaborated with the US invasion and now expected their reward found themselves hunted and arrested. Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born US resident who helped with the pre-invasion brokering, told me, "U.S. forces imprisoned all those we named as political leaders," who stopped Iraq's army from firing on U.S. troops.

Aljibury's main concern was that busting Iraqi collaborators and Ba'athist big shots was a gift "to the Wahabis," by which he meant the foreign insurgents, who now gained experienced military commanders, Sunnis, who now had no choice but to fight the US-installed regime or face arrest, ruin or death. They would soon link up with the Sunni-defending Wahabi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was committed to destroying "Shia snakes."

And the oil fields? It was, Aljibury noted, when word got out about the plans to sell off the oil fields (thanks to loose lips of the US-appointed oil minister) that pipelines began to blow. Although he had been at the center of planning for invasion, Aljibury now saw the greed-crazed grab for the oil fields as the fuel for a civil war that would rip his country to pieces:

"Insurgents," he said, "and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, 'Look, you're losing your country. You're losing your leadership. You're losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.' And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on - built on the premise that privatization [of oil] is coming."

General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority's provocations, told me, in his understated manner, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."

But you can't have a war president without a war. And you can't have a war without enemies. "Bring 'em on," our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.

--------

Greg Palast is the author of Armed Madhouse out this week from Penguin Dutton, from which this is adapted. Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War. Order it now.

Take a stand, Impeachment is the only answer

Those of us who are connected to the truth movement are soldiers in a war. What we have to do is find common ground. Basically, we want to preserve this Republic.

This is not America...this is what our forefathers warned us about with too much power concentrated in too few hands. Impeachment is the only answer--it doesn't matter who we elect in November, Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, Greens, whoever. It is the right thing to do. We must demand transparency. We must demand special counsel to undertake investigating this administration and the misdeeds they have done...and there are many aside from 9/11.

We cannot wait for elections because people worldwide are in danger. Those connected to this movement have been threatened and bribed to force them into silence. Luckily, those who they've tried to intimidate have not kept quiet.

The powers that be understand keeping up with the Joneses and our own incomparable Dr. Steven Jones and the firey, preacher-like Alex Jones are not going away quietly, thank goodness. Those for the opposition are going to have to put up or shut up...and don't try putting up the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report because they do not address many of our concerns.

A new, impartial investigation must be conducted using the evidence gathered since 9/11...videos, eyewitness accounts, any materials that should be available to ongoing criminal cases connected to 9/11, historical information should be made available to the public. (Operation Northwoods, nazi connection, federal reserve, bankruptcy of the nation, etc.) Dr. Jones' research must be vigorously reviewed and seriously considered.

It's past time to take a stand and do what's right for the planet. I wish we could stop being arrogant about how we define ourselves. We are and always have been a melting pot represented by all nations. It's time to start acting like it.

Constitutional Showdown?

Could we possibly be finally getting to some accountability with our Legislature? <--Click for article

Specter warns of 'confrontation' over NSA hearings

Chairman scolds Cheney, still seeks White House cooperation

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Senate committee
chairman warned of a "constitutional confrontation" with the Bush administration Wednesday over its domestic surveillance program, threatening to subpoena administration officials or phone company executives in a congressional review.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter publicly complained about the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with his panel Tuesday and sent a stinging letter to Vice President Dick Cheney after learning Cheney had lobbied other Republicans on his committee without his knowledge.

"I'm not looking for courtesy," the Pennsylvania Republican told CNN. "What I'm looking for is judicial review of wiretaps, which is the tradition in America." (Watch Specter detail reasons for feud -- 7:22)

9/11 Widows respond to Coulter's poison pen

The following is a statement made by five 9/11 widows in answer to Ann Coulter's attacks on them in her most recent book. Coulter represents much of what is wrong with American society. Her insensitive attacks on people are not funny (as she apparently thinks) and do nothing but divide us and perpetuate her ignorance through those who share her twisted views. Shame on her and everybody who buys this book. Widows statement:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

-- September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Officer Refuses Orders to Fight in Iraq

Officer refuses orders to fight in Iraq <--click for Seattle Times article

"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order—including the order to go to war."

From ABC news <--click for link to article

"It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices." said 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a member of the Stryker unit, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. "My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders. It is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but a horrible breach of American law."

If all of our officers acted on their patriotic duty they would be refusing these illegal orders, honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and call into question the imbalance in Washington D.C. to confront our real reasons for fighting these Middle Eastern wars.

A New World Order may indeed be something that is needed to address the planet's problems, however forcing it at gunpoint is just plain ignorant, incompassionate, hateful and wrong. Foreign policy is conducted with little regard to anything except the preservation of concentrated wealth. The federal reserve is in private hands. When's the last time there was a true accounting done at Fort Knox? I'm just sayin....

The Bankruptcy of the United States

Perhaps a clue as to why some feel the need to go to war. Follow the money. What or who are we really fighting for?

FBI: No Hard Evidence Linking bin Laden to 9/11

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitate to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]
[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]
[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

The Blame Game

If the official version of 9/11 is untrue, complicity in the deed would encompass many people from many walks of life. It doesn't do anybody any good to perpetuate hate. I will never point fingers at any one nation as many would need to be complicit in the execution and cover-up.

Look at the persecution ordinary Muslims are going through because so many blame the religion of these people to justify oppressing and attacking them. Granted, women are really treated as second-class citizens for many who practice this dogma, but is it for us to decide how people interpret moral code?

As long as this planet harbors selfish evil people, we will never enjoy peace and harmony. Every nation and every race of people has their own good and bad. Humanity seems to be devolving when it comes to accepting each other as equals. It's sad to witness hatred and mistrust being perpetuated by so many.

We come from different nations, our colors vary, we are different in many ways but we are alike in so many others. We have to concentrate on our commonality rather than our differences. We've been lamenting this from our earliest beginnings. It's time to come together or we will surely destroy ourselves.

Reasonable Doubt

People know something isn't right but the massive scale of it guarantees that nobody will ever have 100% positive proof. We definitely have reasonable doubt as to the guilt of those who the government has named. Usama bin Laden initially declined to take credit for the event, although it did please him, as well as it did most Muslims. Many also say that they believe 100% that 19 hijacked 4 planes on orders from 1 residing in a cave in Afghanistan, hit 3 out of 4 of their targets which totally destroyed 3 steel framed buildings (although that has never happened before), inflicted massive damages on 4 other buildings in the WTC which were also essentially destroyed, heavily damaged the Pentagon, murdered over 200 firefighters and police, and over 2000 innocent civilians and completely confounded our multi-trillion dollar defense and intelligence systems.

On the other hand...those who know bad things have been suggested in the past because we felt threatened by the spread of communision (Operation Northwoods) feel that another such operation has been suggested in recent history but this time acted upon. What happened to us on 9/11 could have only been executed by those with access to large amounts of money and many people whose soul had a price. What keeps them quiet you say? Lack of conscience for going along with it in the first place, the threat of prosecution and a twisted sense of some greater good as they cling to an ideology about a New World Order with America taking on the role of new Roman Empire.

All it takes is common sense to figure out what's happening on this planet which has always imitated art or vice versa, in this case...we are living a Lord of the Flies kind of existence. Call it paranoia if you will, I call it self-preservation. I hope you all are still exercising your right to keep and bear arms because the movement which is afoot calling for transparency may uncover a lot of corruption that involves a ton of people who are going to have a lot to lose.

Impeach

The Constitution provides a remedy for the power being concentrated in the Executive Branch of our tripartite system. Please organize in your area and do what is right. We cannot allow this to continue because it will be to the detriment of our country as well as this planet.

Be It Resolved: You Can Impeach the President

Official State Impeachment Text

Impeachment Text for Cities & Towns

Impeachment Text for County Democratic Committees

Impeachment Text for State Assemblies and/or Legislatures

Jefferson's Manual, Section LIII, 603

You Can Impeach the President

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT TEXT

WHEREAS, Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603, states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1001 and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the State of ___________ and of the United States.

Be it resolved that George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) This ending is for use by Cities and Towns.

WHEREAS, it is the uniform practice of the US House of Representative to receive petitions or resolutions from primary assemblies of the people;

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further by the City of _________ , That our senators and representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the President George W. Bush, to the end that he may be impeached and removed from such office.

Be it resolved further, That the Clerk of the City of _________ be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, under the seal of the City of _____________, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the City of _________, and that this resolution be entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the authorizing signature of the _________.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) This ending is for use by County Democratic Committees.

WHEREAS, Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603, states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State;

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further that the _______ County Democratic Committee requests that the State Legislature submit these charges to the U.S. House of Representatives under Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603 as grounds for impeachment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) This ending is for use by State Legislatures. Please make appropriate changes for your state, which may have an Assembly instead of a House of Representatives.

WHEREAS, Jefferson's Manual section LIII, 603, states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State;

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further by the House of Representatives of the State of _________ (the senate concurring), That our senators and representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the President George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from such office.

Be it resolved further, That the Secretary of State of the State of ________ be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to each Senator and Representative in the Congress of the United States, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, under the great seal of the State of _____________, a copy of this resolution and its unanimous adoption by the legislature of the State of _____________, and that this resolution be entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the authorizing signature of the Secretary of State.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Can Impeach the President
By Dan DeWalt

In mid January of this year, in a moment of quixotic zeal, I wrote a five point resolution calling for the impeachment of G W Bush. With 5% of the towns registered voters signing on, it went to the selectboard and was included in the warning for Newfane Town Meeting on March 7.

By the end of Town Meeting day, five towns across Vermont had overwhelmingly adopted this resolution. My phone started ringing within an hour or two, and a day and a half later, I had given more than 30 interviews to media outlets, from FOX and CNN radio to several Boston and local Vermont radio stations, from a Massachusetts ABC-affiliate to Bloomberg News, the Washington Times (snake in the grass), Boston Globe and Reuters.

I soon found out that Vermonters had already been hard at work drafting the “Rutland Resolution," which is an impeachment resolution to be passed by the state legislature, and forces the federal House of Representatives to forward it to the Judiciary Committee. We are continuing our efforts and are making headway, with over half of the state's Democratic County Committees passing it. The state Democratic Committee will be considering this on April 10. Several legislators have expressed a willingness to go along, if not to lead.

I also discovered that all across the country, this call for accountability is being received with welcome and relief. People who have identified themselves as Republicans, evangelicals, many veterans, many elder Americans, contacted me or Newfane to say that they are supporting us and appreciate our speaking out.

Those who support this effort can bring it to their home towns. Whether you have Town Meeting, town council, county supervisors, or any other local political structure, you can petition them to adopt a resolution. Gathering signatures to persuade them may be easier than you would imagine. Support for this president’s actions is very thin. As more revelations dribble out from the mainstream press, more Americans are willing to reconsider their willingness to be unquestionably led by this malignant administration.

Already efforts are underway in California, Hawaii, Indiana, Arizona, Utah, as well as more in VT, just to name some locations where initiatives have sprung up in response to our Town Meeting actions.

If you want to read a concise primer on how to take on an initiative in your town, go here.

Dan DeWalt is a woodworker and selectboard member in the town of Newfane, Vermont, and the author of a successful town resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.