 |
Latest | Greatest | Lobby | Journals | Search | Options | Help | Login |
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
|
understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-29-05 06:39 PM Original message |
| Dear Gov. Dean -- Coleen Rowley speaks truth to Bush's liars-for-hire … |
|
30 December 2005 (# 25) We’re reminded yet again today of the effectiveness of Bush and the neoconsters' anti-American propaganda. A new Harris Poll reveals the following: More than four years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, many U.S. adults still believe some of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited, according to a new Harris Poll. For example: -- Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had "strong links to Al Qaeda." -- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11." -- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded." -- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis." Link: http://tinyurl.com/c22h2 We all know the sources of the lies that are persistently used to propagandize our fellow citizens. Their names include Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and all their neoconsters minions, including the pervasive, duplicitous traditional media. So, it is no surprise that neoconster star minions Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt would find the Washington Post more than willing to spill ink on yet another disingenuous attempt to justify the President breaking the law and violating our civil liberties. To wit -- First, the pedantic flourish: A U.S. president has just received word that American counterterrorist operatives have captured a senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Among his possessions are a couple of cell phones -- phones that contain several American phone numbers. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, what's a president to do? If the president were taking the advice offered by some politicians and pundits in recent days, he would order the attorney general to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Next the bunk (aka “Moussaoui Myth”): Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level of probable cause under FISA. And, then the "trust the President - he really, really doesn’t want to be a dictator" baloney: That is why the president uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Implicit in that oath is the Founders' recognition that, no matter how much we might wish it to be case, Congress cannot legislate for every contingency, and judges cannot supervise many national security decisions. This will be especially true in times of war. This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Link: http://tinyurl.com/cjwuw In fact, what Krsitol and Schmitt and their neoconsters buddies are all about is justifying “unfettered executive prerogative,” and the fact that they use the Moussaoui case is evidence of yet another lame effort to vilify “some politicians and pundits” who are actually trying to preserve the Constitution and our Republic from even further damage. We could ask for no better debunker of Kristol and Schmitt’s latest propaganda than Coleen Rowley. Ms. Rowley responds to the neoconsters: This last week, we learned President Bush secretly ordered the National Security Agency to conduct a domestic spy program that entails no judicial oversight. In defense of this controversial program, a number of Republicans rely upon the case of Zacarias Moussaoui as justification for Bush’s attack on our privacy and civil liberties. Moussaoui is the only individual to be charged in connection with the 9-11 attacks and has pled guilty but is fighting the death penalty. He contends that he was not directly involved with the attacks on 9-11, but was instead to participate in a second-wave attack. He awaits a "death penalty phase" hearing. Although detained on immigration charges since August 16, 2001, the FBI failed to sufficiently investigate Moussaoui pre 9-11. If searches of his personal effects and laptop had been authorized, Moussaoui's connections to the 9-11 hijackings may have emerged and it is possible that 9-11 could have been prevented. Republican commentators such as William Kristol and Rush Limbaugh claim FISA procedures, and the legal impediments they impose, prevented FBI agents from acting. Consequently, they maintain President Bush is justified in abrogating FISA law to order the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans. As legal counsel to the Minneapolis FBI Division and witness to the entire Moussaoui case, I can tell you that these assertions are not just factually wrong, they miss the real problems that existed within our intelligence gathering superstructure. Link: http://www.coleenrowley.com/blog/blog.php?id=4 Ms. Rowley continues by addressing three “myths” regarding the Moussaoui case, FISA, and concludes with: But myths aside, Moussaoui did not escape inspection because the FISA law was not permissive enough. And with the further changes wrought by the Patriot Act, bringing down the FISA wall and making the FISA process even more permissive, it is certainly not a good argument for Bush to skirt the law now. Link: ibid Gary Schmitt just couldn’t bring himself to admit that he and Bill Kristol have been exposed by Ms. Rowley, so he proffered even more bunk, today, at Think Progress. As Judd notes: Gary: Thanks for responding but the blog post you reference is just as misleading as your original article. By selectively quoting the Congressional joint inquiry, it pretends that issues raised by FBI agents were genuine hurdles imposed by FISA. In fact, as the same joint inquiry reveals, FISA presented no barriers. It was simply a case of a poorly trained agent: The RFU agent told the Minneapolis agents that they had to connect Moussaoui to al-Qa’ida, which he believed was a “recognized” foreign power. The Minneapolis case agent later testified before the Joint Inquiry that he had had no training in FISA, but that he believed that “we needed to identify a – and the term that was thrown around was ‘recognized foreign power’ and so that was our operational theory.” As the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel would later testify, the agents were incorrect. The FBI can obtain a search warrant under FISA for an agent of any international terrorist group, including Chechen rebels.… The Deputy General Counsel, however, testified before the Joint Committee that “no one in the national security law arena said that Chechens were not a power that . . . could qualify as a foreign power under the FISA statute.” The FBI attorneys also said that, had they had been aware of the July 2001 communication from the Phoenix field office raising concerns about al-Qa’ida flight training in the U.S., they would have forwarded the FISA request to the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. It’s time to start being honest about this. I think a correction to the Post would be a good start. Link: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/29/moussaoui-myth/#comment-355284 Indeed, it is time to start being honest. It is time that every American citizen if asked about Hussein’s links to al-Qa’ida would respond – give it a rest; if asked about “Hussein’s WMD” would respond – he didn’t have any and the President knew it long before March 19, 2003. By electing leaders like Coleen Rowley to the US Congress the likelihood that Americans will be told the truth will significantly improve. But, between now and November 7, 2006, the DNC must vastly improve its messaging and, as a for instance, demand that the Washington Post require Kristol and Schmit apologize to the American people for spreading the "Moussaoui myth" as a defense of a President who violated the law and the Constitution. Thank you for your continued leadership, p.s. Now that Sibel Edmonds has demonstrated, once again, her courageous dedication to our Nation by calling for National Security Officials to Step Forward as Whistleblowers, I hope you and the DNC will do all you can to highlight both her bravery and the necessity for us to support those willing to enable us to know the truth about what Bush, Cheney and their neoconsters minions have been doing: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002211.htm Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| mom cat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-29-05 06:51 PM Response to Original message |
| 1. Good post. Thanks. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-29-05 06:58 PM Response to Original message |
| 2. I'll be proud to cast a vote for her in the coming elections. |
|
:toast: To Coleen!
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-29-05 08:25 PM Response to Original message |
| 3. Cumulative letter index: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-30-05 01:36 AM Response to Reply #3 |
| 6. Link error corrected in index: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-29-05 08:50 PM Response to Original message |
| 4. "Dear Gov. Dean -- The Bush, Blair Confess-or-Boil Policy" |
|
I've been thinking for the past several days what would be a suitable topic for my New Year's letter that would crystallize Bush's debasement of American values.
Today, thanks to the bravery of Craig Murray, the substance of that New Year's letter to Gov. Dean emerged. Obviously, Bush and his neoconster buddies were inspired by the US State Department report on the Human Rights Practices of Uzbekistan: Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights. The Constitution provides for a presidential system with separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; however, in practice, President Islam Karimov and the centralized executive branch that serves him dominated political life and exercised nearly complete control over the other branches. On December 26, elections were held for seats in the lower chamber of the Supreme Assembly (Oliy Majlis) that fell significantly short of international standards for democratic elections. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch heavily influenced the courts and did not ensure due process. That sorta nicely summarizes what Bush and the neoconsters have done to American government in the past five years. According to officials from the MVD Prisons Directorate, authorities dismissed six guards and three prison officers following the 2002 deaths of Mirzakomil Avazov and Khusnuddin Olimov, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir who were tortured to death in Jaslyk Prison in Karakalpakstan. The Karakalpakstan Regional Prosecutor reportedly investigated the deaths, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. The Government maintained that extensive burns on the two men's bodies were the result of a tea fight; however, independent analysis by experts in the United Kingdom of photographs taken shortly after their deaths concluded that the men had likely been suspended in boiling water. And, that sorta summarizes why Bush would feel very comfortable with Uzbekistan as a rendition and interrogation partner. Link: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41717.htm Well, that'll give you the gist of the letter; should have it posted sometime before the 31st. Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-29-05 09:33 PM Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. The Independent (UK): Ex-envoy to Uzbekistan goes public on torture |
|
Ex-envoy to Uzbekistan goes public on torture Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Published: 30 December 2005 Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has defied the Foreign Office by publishing on the internet documents providing evidence that the British Government knowingly received information extracted by torture in the "war on terror". Mr Murray, who publicly raised the issue of the usefulness of information obtained under torture before he was forced to leave his job last year, submitted his forthcoming book, Murder in Samarkand, to the Foreign Office for clearance. But the Foreign Office demanded that he remove references to two sensitive government documents, which undermine official denials, to show that Britain had been aware it was receiving information obtained by the Uzbek authorities through torture. Rather than submit to the gagging order Mr Murray decided to publish the material on the internet. The first document published by Mr Murray contains the text of several telegrams that he sent to London from 2002 to 2004, warning that the information being passed on by the Uzbek security services was torture-tainted, and challenging MI6 claims that the information was nonetheless "useful". The second document is the text of a Foreign Office legal opinion which argues that the use by intelligence services of information extracted through torture is not a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture. Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has defied the Foreign Office by publishing on the internet documents .... Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article335678.ece My fellow DUers, "IT" is definitely going to "hit the fan" .... Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-31-05 06:15 PM Response to Reply #4 |
| 7. Letter of 31 December 2005 (# 26) |
|
31 December 2005 (# 26) Dear Gov. Dean, The Bush, Blair Confess-or-Boil Policy … As I review the topics of the first 25 letters I’ve written to you, Gov. Dean, I am reminded of the thoughts and feelings that I had as I wrote each of them. The pervasive thought has been “How will America ever recover?” and the pervasive feeling has been disgrace. Now, we are two days into the reality of Craig Murray’s experiences in Uzbekistan: Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has defied the Foreign Office by publishing on the internet documents providing evidence that the British Government knowingly received information extracted by torture in the "war on terror". Mr Murray, who publicly raised the issue of the usefulness of information obtained under torture before he was forced to leave his job last year, submitted his forthcoming book, Murder in Samarkand, to the Foreign Office for clearance. But the Foreign Office demanded that he remove references to two sensitive government documents, which undermine official denials, to show that Britain had been aware it was receiving information obtained by the Uzbek authorities through torture. Rather than submit to the gagging order Mr Murray decided to publish the material on the internet. Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article335678.ece How deep the hypocrisy of America? Why would any Nation ever give a moments consideration to anything any American official might say regarding “human rights”? Bush and the neoconsters are nearly finished having America mirror the 2004 US State Department assessment of one of the cruelest regimes on the planet, it’s willing and eager partner in torture – Uzbekistan. Just read: Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights. The Constitution provides for a presidential system with separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; however, in practice, President Islam Karimov and the centralized executive branch that serves him dominated political life and exercised nearly complete control over the other branches. On December 26, elections were held for seats in the lower chamber of the Supreme Assembly (Oliy Majlis) that fell significantly short of international standards for democratic elections. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the executive branch heavily influenced the courts and did not ensure due process. Link: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41717.htm Just what does the US State Department have to say about “human rights” in Uzbekistan? Here’s one example: According to officials from the MVD Prisons Directorate, authorities dismissed six guards and three prison officers following the 2002 deaths of Mirzakomil Avazov and Khusnuddin Olimov, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir who were tortured to death in Jaslyk Prison in Karakalpakstan. The Karakalpakstan Regional Prosecutor reportedly investigated the deaths, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. The Government maintained that extensive burns on the two men's bodies were the result of a tea fight; however, independent analysis by experts in the United Kingdom of photographs taken shortly after their deaths concluded that the men had likely been suspended in boiling water. Link: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41717.htm Craig Murray is explicit in his assessments of the practices of the United States and Britain regarding their criminal and inhumane partnership with Uzbekistan: In March 2003 I was summoned back to London from Tashkent specifically for a meeting at which I was told to stop protesting. I was told specifically that it was perfectly legal for us to obtain and to use intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers. After this meeting Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's legal adviser, wrote to confirm this position. This minute from Michael Wood is perhaps the most important document that has become public about extraordinary rendition. It is irrefutable evidence of the government's use of torture material, and that I was attempting to stop it. It is no wonder that the government is trying to suppress this. Links to the documents are: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/12/damning_documen.html http://www.dailykos.com/special/Torture_memos Uzbekistan is a strategic location in Central Asia. America is building a solid military infrastructure in Uzbekistan from which it can operate as to exert control on supplies of oil and natural gas. It is doing that in partnership with a totalitarian regime only to happy to oblige a bit of torture given that every aspect of human freedom is suppressed by Karimov and his gang. They are perfect neoconster partners, especially when you realize that Karimov’s regime is robustly anti-Islam. So, any pretense America might attempt in its silly little State Department “human rights” assessments are just that – silly, total hypocrisy. And, the whole world knows it. I hope the DNC will be unrelenting in bringing these facts to the attention of every American. It is no wonder the British and US Government want to keep the truth of their crimes hidden while, of course, pursuing the suppression of our civil liberties. Let’s face it, they’ve got Karimov as a role model and friend so their behavior should be of no surprise. Any doubts, well, just look at all the smiles and handshakes: http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm Happy New Year, Peace. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| understandinglife
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-31-05 06:18 PM Response to Reply #7 |
| 8. Updated letter index: |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:51 PM Response to Original message |
| Advertisements [?] |
 |
| Top |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC
