SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Politics -- Sen. Durbin apologizes for Guantanamo remarks
PBU25
BG: You don't like me.... I want you to really really like me. Coward.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
A senator's shame - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
A senator's shame - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
BG: ok, he was a rascist, next question.
BG: ok, he was a rascist, next question.
THE HANKY-PANKY AROUND THE RECOVERING OF WTC-HARD DRIVES
THE HANKY-PANKY AROUND THE RECOVERING OF WTC-HARD DRIVES: "Moments before the World Trade Towers collapsed, $100 million in credit card transactions were sent through the computers inside the doomed buildings, transactions that should have vanished when the buildings collapsed.
But a German company was able to recover data from the hard drives pointing to WHO, armed with advance knowledge, executed this monstrous fraud. But the company doing the data recovery was bought out, the project halted, while the FBI as usual does not look where it is told not to look.
'PIRMASENS, Germany (Reuters) - German computer experts are working
round the clock to unlock the truth behind an unexplained surge in
financial transactions made just before two hijacked planes crashed
into New York's World Trade Center on September 11.
Were criminals responsible for the sharp rise in credit card
transactions that moved through some computer systems at the WTC
shortly before the planes hit the twin towers?
Or was it coincidence that unusually large sums of money, perhaps
more than $100 million, were rushed through the computers as the
disaster unfolded?
A world leader in retrieving data, German-based firm Convar is trying
to answer those questions and help credit card companies,
telecommunications firms and accountants in New York recover their
records from computer hard drives that have been partially damaged by
fire, water or fine dust... � here
The CONVAR data salvage has made it completely clear that more than $100 million in insider credit card transactions took place in the hours and minutes before the twin towers collapsed. The mainframe computers in the towers processed these transactions; and the credit card data would have been lost forever had it not been for the successful data reconstruction of the CONVAR specialists.
A German company, CONVAR of Pirmasens near the French border, was given more than 400 computer hard drives from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. These are extremely sensitive computer components that went through the collapse of the World Trade Center. Using blue laser technology, CONVAR succeeded in reconstructing all the data from the computer debris. This includes diverse financial data and telecommunication protocols up to a few seconds before the collapse of each tower. (Source: e-mail from CONVAR Germany on October 16, 2003.) The U.S. government’s blatant lie about the allegedly missing black boxes is outright made ludicrous by this fact.
The reconstructed data was given by CONVAR to the FBI. The FBI was held by law to investigate, based on the reconstructed data, who placed the inside transactions.
The FBI is doing no such thing. – here
GFP would like to inform, that in June 2002, Ontrack/Convar was aquired by Kroll Inc. (Kroll O'gara Eisenhardt), which has strong with the US Government. One of their former employees, Jerome Hauer, organised a security job for ex-FBI anti-terror chief John O'Neill in the Twin Towers, where he died on Sep11th.
Kroll O’ Gara Eisenhardt is one of the oldest security companies in the United States and, some say, responsible for every U.S. President since the end of WW2. What does an upstanding, powerful company like Kroll do in its spare time? Why it trains local forces in Saudi Arabia, of course!
One partner of Kroll, Cable & Wireless provides training in Counter-Terrorism and Urban Warfare in Saudi Arabia. In August 2001, former Kroll employee, Jerome Hauer, arranged a security job in the Twin Towers for FBI Agent John O’Neill. At the time, O’Neill had been investigating ENRON’s business deals with the Taliban and was subsequently pulled from that investigation. Neither Kroll nor Hauer was asked to testify about this coincidence. – here Jerry Hauer has been around a bit – Batelle, Dyncorp, SAIC (note DAVID KAY’S (of Iraq WMD fame) MENTION of him) ...
But a German company was able to recover data from the hard drives pointing to WHO, armed with advance knowledge, executed this monstrous fraud. But the company doing the data recovery was bought out, the project halted, while the FBI as usual does not look where it is told not to look.
'PIRMASENS, Germany (Reuters) - German computer experts are working
round the clock to unlock the truth behind an unexplained surge in
financial transactions made just before two hijacked planes crashed
into New York's World Trade Center on September 11.
Were criminals responsible for the sharp rise in credit card
transactions that moved through some computer systems at the WTC
shortly before the planes hit the twin towers?
Or was it coincidence that unusually large sums of money, perhaps
more than $100 million, were rushed through the computers as the
disaster unfolded?
A world leader in retrieving data, German-based firm Convar is trying
to answer those questions and help credit card companies,
telecommunications firms and accountants in New York recover their
records from computer hard drives that have been partially damaged by
fire, water or fine dust... � here
The CONVAR data salvage has made it completely clear that more than $100 million in insider credit card transactions took place in the hours and minutes before the twin towers collapsed. The mainframe computers in the towers processed these transactions; and the credit card data would have been lost forever had it not been for the successful data reconstruction of the CONVAR specialists.
A German company, CONVAR of Pirmasens near the French border, was given more than 400 computer hard drives from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. These are extremely sensitive computer components that went through the collapse of the World Trade Center. Using blue laser technology, CONVAR succeeded in reconstructing all the data from the computer debris. This includes diverse financial data and telecommunication protocols up to a few seconds before the collapse of each tower. (Source: e-mail from CONVAR Germany on October 16, 2003.) The U.S. government’s blatant lie about the allegedly missing black boxes is outright made ludicrous by this fact.
The reconstructed data was given by CONVAR to the FBI. The FBI was held by law to investigate, based on the reconstructed data, who placed the inside transactions.
The FBI is doing no such thing. – here
GFP would like to inform, that in June 2002, Ontrack/Convar was aquired by Kroll Inc. (Kroll O'gara Eisenhardt), which has strong with the US Government. One of their former employees, Jerome Hauer, organised a security job for ex-FBI anti-terror chief John O'Neill in the Twin Towers, where he died on Sep11th.
Kroll O’ Gara Eisenhardt is one of the oldest security companies in the United States and, some say, responsible for every U.S. President since the end of WW2. What does an upstanding, powerful company like Kroll do in its spare time? Why it trains local forces in Saudi Arabia, of course!
One partner of Kroll, Cable & Wireless provides training in Counter-Terrorism and Urban Warfare in Saudi Arabia. In August 2001, former Kroll employee, Jerome Hauer, arranged a security job in the Twin Towers for FBI Agent John O’Neill. At the time, O’Neill had been investigating ENRON’s business deals with the Taliban and was subsequently pulled from that investigation. Neither Kroll nor Hauer was asked to testify about this coincidence. – here Jerry Hauer has been around a bit – Batelle, Dyncorp, SAIC (note DAVID KAY’S (of Iraq WMD fame) MENTION of him) ...
tell the truth
DSM Protest (sorry it's hard to see sign text)
Photo theme today is truth and lies.
PBU25
Photo theme today is truth and lies.
PBU25
Response to Beyond Downing Street by Bud Beck
Response to Beyond Downing Street by Bud Beck: "But the memo being unimportant? No, there I could not disagree with you more. It is as significant as if (hypothetically) a memo was discovered that proved that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, and purposely did nothing (which apparently did not happen) or the equivalent revelation that LBJ knew at the time that the Tonkin Gulf incident never happened, but let Congress go ahead and drive us into the Vietnam War (oops, we know from his tapes that actually was the case!). You see? Our view of history can be sharply altered by having something concrete to resolve forever the belief that the American people were lied to.
Because of this memo I believe this President will be forever remembered as a liar and an ideologue. To me that is a pretty significant thing."
BG: PBU25
BG: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FDR Admin did know about and did purposely do nothing about Pearl Harbor.
Because of this memo I believe this President will be forever remembered as a liar and an ideologue. To me that is a pretty significant thing."
BG: PBU25
BG: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FDR Admin did know about and did purposely do nothing about Pearl Harbor.
Mocking the Downing Street Memo - AfterDowningStreet.org
Mocking the Downing Street Memo - AfterDowningStreet.org
PBU25
Mocking the Downing Street MemoSubmitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2005-06-18 17:27. By Robert Parry
June 18, 2005
If American progressives think they have enough media clout to make a real issue of George W. Bush’s possible impeachment over the Iraq War, they should read the account of Rep. John Conyers’s rump hearing on the Downing Street Memo that appeared in the Washington Post.
The story by political correspondent Dana Milbank drips with a sarcasm that would never be allowed for a report on, say, a conservative gathering or on a topic involving any part of the American political spectrum other than the Left.
“In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe,” Milbank wrote. “They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole think look official.”
And the insults – especially aimed at Rep. Conyers – just kept on coming…
Those of us who have covered Washington for years have seen the pattern before. A group without sufficient inside-the-Beltway clout tries to draw attention to a scandal that the Post and other prestigious news arbiters have missed or gotten wrong. After ignoring the grievances for a while – and sensing that the complainers have no real muscle – the news arbiters start heaping on the abuse…
[I]f Milbank were tempted to write an over-the-top attack on Bush – like he did on Conyers and the Downing Street Memo hearing – he would pay a high price from retaliating conservatives who would accuse him of bias and flood his editors with complaints.
Almost certainly, Milbank would have second thoughts about such an article or his editors would for him. Without doubt, the story would not have appeared in the openly insulting form that it did when Democrats and liberals were the target.
Though no one wants to say it, everyone in mainstream journalism knows intuitively that there is no real risk in ripping liberals. Most often, it’s a win-win. Not only can you write almost whatever you want, but it buys the journalist a measure of protection from conservatives, who have a long record of costing reporters their jobs…
[F]unders on the Left – unlike their counterparts on the Right – have chosen over the past three decades to divert money away from media into other priorities, such as “grassroots organizing” or direct-action projects, such as feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands.
Sometimes this refusal by wealthy liberals to “do media” seems so extreme that one has to wonder whether – except perhaps for some indigenous tribes in the jungles of Borneo – any group on the planet has less a grasp of the importance of information and media than American liberals do.
Even the Arabs – not usually known as information pioneers – have learned how investments in media, such as the satellite news channel al-Jazeera, can change the political dynamic of an entire region.
Though there have been a few positive developments in liberal media – particularly the growth of AM progressive talk radio at Air America and Democracy Radio – Left funders still show few signs of understanding how valuable media could be to a liberal political renaissance.
The latest trend in liberal grant-giving has been for “media reform,” such as trying to “save PBS” even as it adds more and more conservative programs. But the Left funders still shy away from the construction of media outlets and the creation of independent journalistic content.
Without that strong media, liberals can do little more than gnash their teeth when the Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets banish issues like the Iraq War deceptions beyond the bounds of Washington debate. [For more on the Post’s treatment of this issue, see Consortiumnews.com’s “LMSM – the ‘Lying Mainstream Media.”]…
While Web sites and progressive talk radio have helped puncture the image of Bush’s invulnerability, a much broader media infrastructure would be needed if issues, such as the Iraq deceptions, are to be forced consistently into the national debate.
PBU25
Mocking the Downing Street MemoSubmitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2005-06-18 17:27. By Robert Parry
June 18, 2005
If American progressives think they have enough media clout to make a real issue of George W. Bush’s possible impeachment over the Iraq War, they should read the account of Rep. John Conyers’s rump hearing on the Downing Street Memo that appeared in the Washington Post.
The story by political correspondent Dana Milbank drips with a sarcasm that would never be allowed for a report on, say, a conservative gathering or on a topic involving any part of the American political spectrum other than the Left.
“In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe,” Milbank wrote. “They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole think look official.”
And the insults – especially aimed at Rep. Conyers – just kept on coming…
Those of us who have covered Washington for years have seen the pattern before. A group without sufficient inside-the-Beltway clout tries to draw attention to a scandal that the Post and other prestigious news arbiters have missed or gotten wrong. After ignoring the grievances for a while – and sensing that the complainers have no real muscle – the news arbiters start heaping on the abuse…
[I]f Milbank were tempted to write an over-the-top attack on Bush – like he did on Conyers and the Downing Street Memo hearing – he would pay a high price from retaliating conservatives who would accuse him of bias and flood his editors with complaints.
Almost certainly, Milbank would have second thoughts about such an article or his editors would for him. Without doubt, the story would not have appeared in the openly insulting form that it did when Democrats and liberals were the target.
Though no one wants to say it, everyone in mainstream journalism knows intuitively that there is no real risk in ripping liberals. Most often, it’s a win-win. Not only can you write almost whatever you want, but it buys the journalist a measure of protection from conservatives, who have a long record of costing reporters their jobs…
[F]unders on the Left – unlike their counterparts on the Right – have chosen over the past three decades to divert money away from media into other priorities, such as “grassroots organizing” or direct-action projects, such as feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands.
Sometimes this refusal by wealthy liberals to “do media” seems so extreme that one has to wonder whether – except perhaps for some indigenous tribes in the jungles of Borneo – any group on the planet has less a grasp of the importance of information and media than American liberals do.
Even the Arabs – not usually known as information pioneers – have learned how investments in media, such as the satellite news channel al-Jazeera, can change the political dynamic of an entire region.
Though there have been a few positive developments in liberal media – particularly the growth of AM progressive talk radio at Air America and Democracy Radio – Left funders still show few signs of understanding how valuable media could be to a liberal political renaissance.
The latest trend in liberal grant-giving has been for “media reform,” such as trying to “save PBS” even as it adds more and more conservative programs. But the Left funders still shy away from the construction of media outlets and the creation of independent journalistic content.
Without that strong media, liberals can do little more than gnash their teeth when the Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets banish issues like the Iraq War deceptions beyond the bounds of Washington debate. [For more on the Post’s treatment of this issue, see Consortiumnews.com’s “LMSM – the ‘Lying Mainstream Media.”]…
While Web sites and progressive talk radio have helped puncture the image of Bush’s invulnerability, a much broader media infrastructure would be needed if issues, such as the Iraq deceptions, are to be forced consistently into the national debate.
James Wolcott: Manure Spreaders
James Wolcott: Manure SpreadersManure Spreaders
Posted by James Wolcott
Kids dreaming of breaking into the journalism business often ask how I'm able to maintain my healthy cynicism year after year.
Honestly, kids, it's easy. There's no great secret to it.
Simply observe how human beings actually behave without any gauzy preconceptions, ignoring their reputations and judging them by their actions, measuring the invisible distance between they profess to be and what they actually say and do.
It also doesn't hurt to get burned now and then as a reminder of what happens when you let other considerations override your perceptions.
Take Chris Wallace. I actually coughed up some nice words about him at the end of my chapter on Fox News in Attack Poodles. I would quote the passage, but I'm too ashamed. Mind, there were mitigating circumstances. He had just taken over hosting Fox News Sunday from Tony Snow and seemed less political than his predecessor, and, I am ashamed to admit this, I wanted to end my Fox chapter on a slightly up note so that it wouldn't read unremittingly negative. By dabbing on a little praise at the end, I thought it would make my criticisms more credible than an all-out attack would. That's what happens when you let formal considerations smother your intuitions, because I suspected that it was only a matter of time before Wallace rottened to the core like every other egotistical toady on Fox News.
By tacking on that bit of praise for Wallace, I betrayed the very cynicism I hold dear. And when you betray your cynicism, giving credit where no credit is due, it nearly always comes back to mock you.
I look at Chris Wallace now and, apart from wishing I had never written his name except in execration, wonder how Mike Wallace feels about having produced such a blot of a son to carry on the family name in broadcasting. He must wonder where he went wrong, even perhaps in the dark night of the soul wish he had worn a rubber rather than spawn this disgrace to a once-proud profession.
It was bad enough when he was badgering and interrupting the American spokesman of Amnesty International like a road-company Joe McCarthy for comparing Guantanamo to a Soviet gulag, conducting the interview as if it were an inquisition, but via Atrios from the Clever Pleasantry blog, we learn of Wallace's most recent gift to reasoned discourse. A guest on Hugh Hewitt's ham radio show for halfwits, Wallace mused that compared to the inmates of Auschwitiz or Belsen, Gitmo's prisoners would probably be happy to defecate on themselves, if that's as bad as it gets.
This is the new meme among our shit-for-brains neoauthoritarian friends, that the residents of Gitmo should be grateful for their captivity and degradation. The other day on MSNBC, Republican strategist Jack Burkman blithely echoed the idiocy spouted by angry caucasian Congressman Duncan Hunter and proposed that the regular meals the Gitmo guests were getting were probably better than what they had back in their native lands, where "they have to hunt their own animals for food." This rightly the normally Buddhist-calm Ron Reagan, who immediately protested Burkman making such a silly, stupid statement.
But of course in the Fox universe such trash talk is the lingua franca. There's no Ron Reagan or Keith Olbermann around to blow a referee's whistle. This morning on Cashin' In, part of Fox's Saturday morning business/investment block, the first topic was (I kid thee not) "The Prison at Guantanamo Bay: Good for the Stock Market?"
Opening up the mental-midget debate for the panel, host Terry Keenan asked, "If we 'cut and run' from there, isn't it all bets off for the market?"
Yeah, if we close Gitmo, everyone's going to sell Google and into the black hole goes the stock market: real smart thinking there, Terry.
Terry Keenan, to refresh some memories, joined Fox from CNN, where she maintained outward appearance of being a real journalist, a pretense she (like Wallace) can dispense with now that they're in the propaganda business, where the cynicism required to draw the first breath in the morning and show up to work without hating yourself is beyond any cynicism even I can muster
Posted by James Wolcott
Kids dreaming of breaking into the journalism business often ask how I'm able to maintain my healthy cynicism year after year.
Honestly, kids, it's easy. There's no great secret to it.
Simply observe how human beings actually behave without any gauzy preconceptions, ignoring their reputations and judging them by their actions, measuring the invisible distance between they profess to be and what they actually say and do.
It also doesn't hurt to get burned now and then as a reminder of what happens when you let other considerations override your perceptions.
Take Chris Wallace. I actually coughed up some nice words about him at the end of my chapter on Fox News in Attack Poodles. I would quote the passage, but I'm too ashamed. Mind, there were mitigating circumstances. He had just taken over hosting Fox News Sunday from Tony Snow and seemed less political than his predecessor, and, I am ashamed to admit this, I wanted to end my Fox chapter on a slightly up note so that it wouldn't read unremittingly negative. By dabbing on a little praise at the end, I thought it would make my criticisms more credible than an all-out attack would. That's what happens when you let formal considerations smother your intuitions, because I suspected that it was only a matter of time before Wallace rottened to the core like every other egotistical toady on Fox News.
By tacking on that bit of praise for Wallace, I betrayed the very cynicism I hold dear. And when you betray your cynicism, giving credit where no credit is due, it nearly always comes back to mock you.
I look at Chris Wallace now and, apart from wishing I had never written his name except in execration, wonder how Mike Wallace feels about having produced such a blot of a son to carry on the family name in broadcasting. He must wonder where he went wrong, even perhaps in the dark night of the soul wish he had worn a rubber rather than spawn this disgrace to a once-proud profession.
It was bad enough when he was badgering and interrupting the American spokesman of Amnesty International like a road-company Joe McCarthy for comparing Guantanamo to a Soviet gulag, conducting the interview as if it were an inquisition, but via Atrios from the Clever Pleasantry blog, we learn of Wallace's most recent gift to reasoned discourse. A guest on Hugh Hewitt's ham radio show for halfwits, Wallace mused that compared to the inmates of Auschwitiz or Belsen, Gitmo's prisoners would probably be happy to defecate on themselves, if that's as bad as it gets.
This is the new meme among our shit-for-brains neoauthoritarian friends, that the residents of Gitmo should be grateful for their captivity and degradation. The other day on MSNBC, Republican strategist Jack Burkman blithely echoed the idiocy spouted by angry caucasian Congressman Duncan Hunter and proposed that the regular meals the Gitmo guests were getting were probably better than what they had back in their native lands, where "they have to hunt their own animals for food." This rightly the normally Buddhist-calm Ron Reagan, who immediately protested Burkman making such a silly, stupid statement.
But of course in the Fox universe such trash talk is the lingua franca. There's no Ron Reagan or Keith Olbermann around to blow a referee's whistle. This morning on Cashin' In, part of Fox's Saturday morning business/investment block, the first topic was (I kid thee not) "The Prison at Guantanamo Bay: Good for the Stock Market?"
Opening up the mental-midget debate for the panel, host Terry Keenan asked, "If we 'cut and run' from there, isn't it all bets off for the market?"
Yeah, if we close Gitmo, everyone's going to sell Google and into the black hole goes the stock market: real smart thinking there, Terry.
Terry Keenan, to refresh some memories, joined Fox from CNN, where she maintained outward appearance of being a real journalist, a pretense she (like Wallace) can dispense with now that they're in the propaganda business, where the cynicism required to draw the first breath in the morning and show up to work without hating yourself is beyond any cynicism even I can muster
European and Pacific Stars & Stripes
European and Pacific Stars & Stripes: "Several parents of soldiers killed in Iraq visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to ask for congressional hearings on the Downing Street memo, which one mother called President Bush�s �Watergate."
PBU25
PBU25
Mario Profaca: Mario's Cyberspace Station: The Global Intelligence News Portal
Mario Profaca: Mario's Cyberspace Station: The Global Intelligence News Portal
German agents told Die Zeit newspaper that they had warned the Bush administration long before last year that there were "problems" with Curveball's account. "We gave a clear credibility assessment. On our side at least, there were no tricks before Colin Powell's presentation.
PBU25
German agents told Die Zeit newspaper that they had warned the Bush administration long before last year that there were "problems" with Curveball's account. "We gave a clear credibility assessment. On our side at least, there were no tricks before Colin Powell's presentation.
PBU25
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents - New York Times
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents - New York Times
BG: This is almost certainly propaganda based on lies / psyops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2005
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.
The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.
In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.
"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."
From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]
As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.
The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."
Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.
This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.
He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.
The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.
The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.
But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.
The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."
Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.
The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.
When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.
The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.
But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.
The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.
Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.
When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.
He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.
His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.
"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
BG: This is almost certainly propaganda based on lies / psyops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2005
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.
The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.
In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.
"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."
From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]
As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.
The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."
Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.
This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.
He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.
The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.
The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.
But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.
The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."
Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.
The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.
When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.
The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.
But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.
The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.
Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.
When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.
He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.
His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.
"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
DSM, MSM, Wash Post, Conyers
Another Day in the Empire: "Conyers Gives Both Barrels to Milbank, Shoots Himself in the Foot "
PBU25
PBU25
Two Top Guns Shoot Blanks - New York Times
Two Top Guns Shoot Blanks - New York Times: "Nearly seven decades later the mingling of news and fiction has become the default setting of American infotainment, and Americans have become so inured to it that the innocent radio listeners bamboozled by Welles might as well belong to another civilization. "
BG: Mr. Rich is stating that the public sees thru the propaganda ruses. How wrong he is. 911 is working well as the most magic ruse in the history of our planet.
BG: Mr. Rich is stating that the public sees thru the propaganda ruses. How wrong he is. 911 is working well as the most magic ruse in the history of our planet.
Daly Thoughts �� When Does A Problem Become Too Big To Ignore
Daly Thoughts �� When Does A Problem Become Too Big To Ignore: "t Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations ��� that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an ���insider trading scam��� on 9/11 ��� that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."
BG: It's not so Kooky
BG: It's not so Kooky
OpinionJournal - Extra, Barnes and twisted logic
OpinionJournal - Extra: "It's sad but true that our political system, assuming the economy is not in the tank, rewards presidents (and sometimes governors) for doing little. "
BG: Fred Barnes says Bush is unpopular because unlike Reagon,(Mr. Popularity), Mr. Bush is not getting rewarded with high pol numbers "for doing little." How do these people write this stuff and expect to have anyone's respect.
BG: Fred Barnes says Bush is unpopular because unlike Reagon,(Mr. Popularity), Mr. Bush is not getting rewarded with high pol numbers "for doing little." How do these people write this stuff and expect to have anyone's respect.
Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution
Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution: "INVESTIGATING TUCSON�S IRAN POLLING STATION "
Does anybody have thoughts on this. I know this is coming from Iran Regime change advocates, but I believe this would seem to be illegal under current US law. Thoughts?
Does anybody have thoughts on this. I know this is coming from Iran Regime change advocates, but I believe this would seem to be illegal under current US law. Thoughts?
Bashing Dick Durbin
HughHewitt.com
BG: If I believed in Hell, I would believe that there's a special place in Hell for these people.
BG: If I believed in Hell, I would believe that there's a special place in Hell for these people.
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion - International News - MSNBC.com
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion - International News - MSNBC.com
MSNBC.com
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion
'Downing Street' documents renew debate over U.S. motives
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:58 p.m. ET June 18, 2005
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn’t want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about “regime change” in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair’s support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington’s motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
“U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,” Ricketts says in the memo. “For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”
Determined to go to war
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”
Details from Rice’s dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Confirmation of post-invasion investigations
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
“The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity,” Dodge said. “In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war’s legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt.”
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq’s complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.
The British documents confirm, as well, that “soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq,” Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea “an axis of evil.” U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration’s case about Iraq’s weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Firestorm among critics
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.
Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos’ contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
“We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq,” wrote Manning, who’s now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush’s secretary of state.
“It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair’s) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.”
'Practical difficulties, political risks'
Manning said, “Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.” But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: “No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy.”
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must “ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks.”
“In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.”
The British worried that, “Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein’s regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor.”
Convincing the public
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: “We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).”
Blair’s government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes’ notice.
On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq,” Straw wrote. “In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida.”
He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: “We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8270144/
MSNBC.com
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion
'Downing Street' documents renew debate over U.S. motives
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:58 p.m. ET June 18, 2005
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn’t want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about “regime change” in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair’s support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington’s motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
“U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,” Ricketts says in the memo. “For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”
Determined to go to war
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”
Details from Rice’s dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Confirmation of post-invasion investigations
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
“The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity,” Dodge said. “In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war’s legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt.”
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq’s complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.
The British documents confirm, as well, that “soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq,” Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea “an axis of evil.” U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration’s case about Iraq’s weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Firestorm among critics
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.
Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos’ contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
“We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq,” wrote Manning, who’s now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush’s secretary of state.
“It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair’s) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.”
'Practical difficulties, political risks'
Manning said, “Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.” But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: “No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy.”
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must “ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks.”
“In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.”
The British worried that, “Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein’s regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor.”
Convincing the public
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: “We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).”
Blair’s government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes’ notice.
On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq,” Straw wrote. “In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida.”
He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: “We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8270144/
The US are continuing to make a case against Iran, can we expect a new 9/11 soon?
The US are continuing to make a case against Iran, can we expect a new 9/11 soon?: "Al-Qaeda, Iran and the next 9/11
(16.06.2005)"
(16.06.2005)"
Audio: Recording of Rep. C. McKinney questioning Rumsfeld
This audio was taken from question on 4/2004 I think. Issues in the audio are several. Information below only covers first question in audio.
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds: "DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged
Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine
1-29-2
Americans were seen in Bosnia as defenders of the children, as shown here, until U.S. contractors began buying children as personal sex slaves.
Middle-aged men having sex with 12- to 15-year-olds was too much for Ben Johnston, a hulking 6-foot-5-inch Texan, and more than a year ago he blew the whistle on his employer, DynCorp, a U.S. contracting company doing business in Bosnia.
According to the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit filed in Texas on behalf of the former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, 'in the latter part of 1999 Johnston learned that employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and [participating in] other immoral acts. Johnston witnessed coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.'
Rather than acknowledge and reward Johnston's effort to get this behavior stopped, DynCorp fired him, forcing part of its business in Bosnia.
But DynCorp was nervous. For instance, an internal e-mail from DynCorp employee Darrin Mills, who apparently was sent to Bosnia to look into reported problems, said, 'I met with Col. Braun [a base supervisor] yesterday. He is very concerned about the CID investigation; however, he views it mostly as a DynCorp problem. What he wanted to talk about most was how I am going to fix the maintenance problems here and how the ...
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds: "DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged
Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine
1-29-2
Americans were seen in Bosnia as defenders of the children, as shown here, until U.S. contractors began buying children as personal sex slaves.
Middle-aged men having sex with 12- to 15-year-olds was too much for Ben Johnston, a hulking 6-foot-5-inch Texan, and more than a year ago he blew the whistle on his employer, DynCorp, a U.S. contracting company doing business in Bosnia.
According to the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit filed in Texas on behalf of the former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, 'in the latter part of 1999 Johnston learned that employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and [participating in] other immoral acts. Johnston witnessed coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.'
Rather than acknowledge and reward Johnston's effort to get this behavior stopped, DynCorp fired him, forcing part of its business in Bosnia.
But DynCorp was nervous. For instance, an internal e-mail from DynCorp employee Darrin Mills, who apparently was sent to Bosnia to look into reported problems, said, 'I met with Col. Braun [a base supervisor] yesterday. He is very concerned about the CID investigation; however, he views it mostly as a DynCorp problem. What he wanted to talk about most was how I am going to fix the maintenance problems here and how the ...
�The Threat Is Urgent - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
�The Threat Is Urgent� - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
BG: Article follows below... (wish I knew what these jokers are up to).
MSNBC.com
‘The Threat Is Urgent’
Members of the 9/11 Commission reconvene to assess the government’s progress in preventing another terror attack, and find there is much left to do.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek
Updated: 10:32 a.m. ET June 9, 2005
June 8 - It’s been nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission released their final report, in which commissioners spread the blame among the FBI, CIA, Congress and the Bush administration for failing to act in time on intelligence suggesting an imminent Al Qaeda terror attack in 2001. The 567-page report, which became a national best seller, was released after a year of hearings in which some of the country’s highest-ranking officials were called to testify. Commissioners also included several recommendations to boost U.S. defenses against potential attacks—from reorganizing the intelligence community and creating a director of national intelligence, to redistributing terror funds so high-target areas get more money.
Since the report was released, some proposals, like creating a national intelligence director post, have been implemented. But many of the report's other recommendations have not been acted on, including the establishment of unified radio frequencies to facilitate communication between emergency workers nationwide and the appointment of a federal civil-liberties board to prevent abuses by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.
Now the five Democrats and five Republicans who made up the commission have formed a new organization, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which will assess the government’s progress in implementing its original recommendations. The group launched public hearings this week and will release a report of its findings as early as August. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the government’s progress—or lack of—in helping to protect the country against future terror attacks. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: It’s been nearly a year since the commission’s report came out. Why hold new hearings now?
Lee Hamilton: Back when we launched the report, it was discussed and determined that we would issue a report card in roughly a year’s time. As events moved along we [commission members] determined that a lot of things have been happening and we needed to bring ourselves up to date on the issues to produce a more credible report card. We decided to have eight briefings or hearings on several different aspects of the recommendations. We’re reviewing the progress made since 9/11, but particularly since we closed up shop last year, and looking at the capabilities of the CIA and the FBI and how the DNI [Department of National Intelligence] is coming along and the other recommendations.
Has the government done enough since the report came out to prevent another major terrorist attack?
I don’t think I’d be satisfied by saying they have done enough. They have done a lot, but they have a lot more to do. I don’t want to put a letter grade on it now—we’ll do that later. But the performance is a mixed one.
Can you give examples of the progress that has—or hasn’t—been made since last year?
There’s been a good bit of progress and a good bit of lack of progress. On setting up the national intelligence director and National Terror Center, substantial progress has been made. And legislation has been passed, but no legislation is self-executing. We wanted robust oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, but not much has been done there. There’ve been a few modest changes, but none of the fundamental changes we think are necessary. And the distribution of Homeland Security funds is not where we want them to be. Legislation is pending. A bill passed the House [of Representatives] the other day which would distribute funds on the basis of risks and vulnerabilities rather than on a political and general revenue-sharing basis. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was set up, but no appointments have been made and no money allocated. If you look at setting a radio spectrum apart so first responders would communicate, there’s been a lot of agreement and a lot of opposition. There’s nothing imminent, but I’m encouraged that in time they will act on that.
Why?
It’s pretty hard to argue against having interoperable communications among first responders.
What’s the goal of these public hearings and the report card?
We clearly would like to see additional action on the recommendations. We put a lot of effort into that, and we’ve been pleased with the responses made, but we also think a lot more needs to be done. We do want to encourage policy makers to move ahead. An educated public is part of that and the families—they have been important players and very supportive.
How has the public response been so far?
The public followed pretty carefully our hearings, and we were pleased with the amount of interest in this [one on Monday]. I don’t want to overstate the interest. A lot of the issues are quite technical, though important, so the public may not weigh in so heavily. But I still feel a lot of sympathy and support for the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations, and I think politicians and policymakers appreciate that we earned our place at the table, and they will pay attention to what we have to say.
You no longer have authority to force the Bush administration to hand over information or to make witnesses available. How do you plan to get information to make your assessment?
You’re right—we don’t have the power now that we did. Though we didn’t use it much when we had it. The only indication I have is the statement from White House that said they wanted to be cooperative. I accept that. I think we’ll get good cooperation.
When are you planning to release the report card on the government's counterterrorism efforts?
It depends on the progress of the hearings. We’re aiming for sometime around the anniversary of 9/11—late summer, early fall.
Thomas Kean was quoted as saying that "we don't have a lot of time left to act." How imminent is the threat of another attack? Are you worried?
Tom and I—and I think the other commissioners—have always felt the threat is urgent. I certainly continue to think that now. We are worried about complacency. Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on American soil, and that lends a certain support for complacency. But at the same time, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone up pretty substantially.
What do we know now about Al Qaeda and the chances it will strike again on U.S. soil?
Al Qaeda and radical jihadists have the intent to kill us; they want to kill us. The steps we have taken have indeed put them in some disarray. But the threat is still out there. We are confident of the intent—we’re less sure of what their capabilities are now. But one characteristic we found in the investigation is that they are very patient. The 9/11 attacks happened eight years after their first attack on the World Trade Center. They spent three to four years planning for 9/11 itself. We know the enemy is sophisticated, patient, persistent, and knowledgeable. The commission interviewed about 1,200 people, and I don’t think a single one said there is no threat. They all said we would be hit again.
Where would you like to see us a year from now?
I’d like to see all our recommendations adopted by then.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8149051/site/newsweek/
BG: Article follows below... (wish I knew what these jokers are up to).
MSNBC.com
‘The Threat Is Urgent’
Members of the 9/11 Commission reconvene to assess the government’s progress in preventing another terror attack, and find there is much left to do.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek
Updated: 10:32 a.m. ET June 9, 2005
June 8 - It’s been nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission released their final report, in which commissioners spread the blame among the FBI, CIA, Congress and the Bush administration for failing to act in time on intelligence suggesting an imminent Al Qaeda terror attack in 2001. The 567-page report, which became a national best seller, was released after a year of hearings in which some of the country’s highest-ranking officials were called to testify. Commissioners also included several recommendations to boost U.S. defenses against potential attacks—from reorganizing the intelligence community and creating a director of national intelligence, to redistributing terror funds so high-target areas get more money.
Since the report was released, some proposals, like creating a national intelligence director post, have been implemented. But many of the report's other recommendations have not been acted on, including the establishment of unified radio frequencies to facilitate communication between emergency workers nationwide and the appointment of a federal civil-liberties board to prevent abuses by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.
Now the five Democrats and five Republicans who made up the commission have formed a new organization, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which will assess the government’s progress in implementing its original recommendations. The group launched public hearings this week and will release a report of its findings as early as August. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the government’s progress—or lack of—in helping to protect the country against future terror attacks. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: It’s been nearly a year since the commission’s report came out. Why hold new hearings now?
Lee Hamilton: Back when we launched the report, it was discussed and determined that we would issue a report card in roughly a year’s time. As events moved along we [commission members] determined that a lot of things have been happening and we needed to bring ourselves up to date on the issues to produce a more credible report card. We decided to have eight briefings or hearings on several different aspects of the recommendations. We’re reviewing the progress made since 9/11, but particularly since we closed up shop last year, and looking at the capabilities of the CIA and the FBI and how the DNI [Department of National Intelligence] is coming along and the other recommendations.
Has the government done enough since the report came out to prevent another major terrorist attack?
I don’t think I’d be satisfied by saying they have done enough. They have done a lot, but they have a lot more to do. I don’t want to put a letter grade on it now—we’ll do that later. But the performance is a mixed one.
Can you give examples of the progress that has—or hasn’t—been made since last year?
There’s been a good bit of progress and a good bit of lack of progress. On setting up the national intelligence director and National Terror Center, substantial progress has been made. And legislation has been passed, but no legislation is self-executing. We wanted robust oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, but not much has been done there. There’ve been a few modest changes, but none of the fundamental changes we think are necessary. And the distribution of Homeland Security funds is not where we want them to be. Legislation is pending. A bill passed the House [of Representatives] the other day which would distribute funds on the basis of risks and vulnerabilities rather than on a political and general revenue-sharing basis. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was set up, but no appointments have been made and no money allocated. If you look at setting a radio spectrum apart so first responders would communicate, there’s been a lot of agreement and a lot of opposition. There’s nothing imminent, but I’m encouraged that in time they will act on that.
Why?
It’s pretty hard to argue against having interoperable communications among first responders.
What’s the goal of these public hearings and the report card?
We clearly would like to see additional action on the recommendations. We put a lot of effort into that, and we’ve been pleased with the responses made, but we also think a lot more needs to be done. We do want to encourage policy makers to move ahead. An educated public is part of that and the families—they have been important players and very supportive.
How has the public response been so far?
The public followed pretty carefully our hearings, and we were pleased with the amount of interest in this [one on Monday]. I don’t want to overstate the interest. A lot of the issues are quite technical, though important, so the public may not weigh in so heavily. But I still feel a lot of sympathy and support for the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations, and I think politicians and policymakers appreciate that we earned our place at the table, and they will pay attention to what we have to say.
You no longer have authority to force the Bush administration to hand over information or to make witnesses available. How do you plan to get information to make your assessment?
You’re right—we don’t have the power now that we did. Though we didn’t use it much when we had it. The only indication I have is the statement from White House that said they wanted to be cooperative. I accept that. I think we’ll get good cooperation.
When are you planning to release the report card on the government's counterterrorism efforts?
It depends on the progress of the hearings. We’re aiming for sometime around the anniversary of 9/11—late summer, early fall.
Thomas Kean was quoted as saying that "we don't have a lot of time left to act." How imminent is the threat of another attack? Are you worried?
Tom and I—and I think the other commissioners—have always felt the threat is urgent. I certainly continue to think that now. We are worried about complacency. Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on American soil, and that lends a certain support for complacency. But at the same time, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone up pretty substantially.
What do we know now about Al Qaeda and the chances it will strike again on U.S. soil?
Al Qaeda and radical jihadists have the intent to kill us; they want to kill us. The steps we have taken have indeed put them in some disarray. But the threat is still out there. We are confident of the intent—we’re less sure of what their capabilities are now. But one characteristic we found in the investigation is that they are very patient. The 9/11 attacks happened eight years after their first attack on the World Trade Center. They spent three to four years planning for 9/11 itself. We know the enemy is sophisticated, patient, persistent, and knowledgeable. The commission interviewed about 1,200 people, and I don’t think a single one said there is no threat. They all said we would be hit again.
Where would you like to see us a year from now?
I’d like to see all our recommendations adopted by then.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8149051/site/newsweek/
Illuminati News: The Marijuana Conspiracy - The Real Reason Hemp is Illegal
Illuminati News: The Marijuana Conspiracy - The Real Reason Hemp is Illegal
BG: I like to post this kind of article every few months.
BG: I like to post this kind of article every few months.
Dirty Little 9/11 Secrets Exposed.
Dirty Little 9/11 Secrets Exposed.
Nothing new for 911 Researchers here, but anybody who hasn't followed the details since 911, pay attention.
Nothing new for 911 Researchers here, but anybody who hasn't followed the details since 911, pay attention.
Lets Roll! 911 Made Simple :: View topic - Is this the lobby/basement explosion?
Lets Roll! 911 Made Simple :: View topic - Is this the lobby/basement explosion?: "Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape a LARGE WHITE CLOUD BILLWOING OUT NEAR THE BASE OF THE SOUTH TOWER. The newsman commented: �THERE IS AN EXPLOSION AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING...WHITE SMOKE FROM THE BOTTOM....SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING� then, another explosion. Another building in the World Trade Center complex�.� (Marrs 35)
Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to leave the building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people. At the 70th floor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on the public address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had reached the 67th floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later told a reporter what he was able to observe after that: �Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound � he calls it an �exploding sound� � shook the building and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. �In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,� Elliott recounted. Elliott was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science Monitor, September 17, 2001)
At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY. Terry had told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings at around 9 AM. Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind"
Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to leave the building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people. At the 70th floor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on the public address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had reached the 67th floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later told a reporter what he was able to observe after that: �Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound � he calls it an �exploding sound� � shook the building and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell. �In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,� Elliott recounted. Elliott was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science Monitor, September 17, 2001)
At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY. Terry had told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings at around 9 AM. Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind"
9/11 -Blocked by media but never to be forgotten
9/11 -Blocked by media but never to be forgotten
This Title (above) is taken from a post at www.Freerepublic.com. If you want to see a group of people who are dishing the propaganda, or who alternatively, are just consummately propagandized, check out these sad excuses for humans.
This Title (above) is taken from a post at www.Freerepublic.com. If you want to see a group of people who are dishing the propaganda, or who alternatively, are just consummately propagandized, check out these sad excuses for humans.
No Prior Warning At WTC On 911? WTC Corporate Casualties Correction Reopens Question of Conspiracy or Complacency
No Prior Warning At WTC On 911? WTC Corporate Casualties Correction Reopens Question of Conspiracy or Complacency
Another way of looking at occupants / fatalities on 911 at WTC.
Another way of looking at occupants / fatalities on 911 at WTC.
Cursor Link Archives, August 2002 (MBNA)
Cursor Link Archives, August 2002: "The bill will be taken up in September and is almost certain to be sent to President Bush, whose top campaign contributor was MBNA, a major purveyor of credit cards. MBNA was accused of granting a sweetheart loan to Rep. Jim Moran, who raised his profile in the bankruptcy debate four days after his loan was final.
Could a debt-consolidation loan work for the U.S. government?"
Could a debt-consolidation loan work for the U.S. government?"
Majority Report Radio: hour one - Wednesday (Reference to MBNA)
Majority Report Radio: hour one - Wednesday: "Biden's been carrying MBNA's water on this issue for years. In 2000, when the plan was effectively stalled because a real Democrat named Bill Clinton was in the White House, he even tried to attach the bankruptcy changes to a foreign aid bill. Why is Biden such a big fan. Those less cynical than us might argue that, well, MBNA does employ a lot of people in Delaware. True -- but could it also be because MBNA is Biden's biggest contributor -- by a good margin. According to Opensecrets.org, Biden raised some $147,700 in contributions from MBNA employees from 1999-2004, his biggest source of campaign cash.
Who is that in second? A law firm named Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, which gave $127,625 over the same period. And who are they, might one ask? Pachulski Stang is the nation's largest bankruptcy law firm with one of the most highly regarded bankrupty practices in the country. The firm's client list includes some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry as well as many of the most well-known businesses in the world.
The company also has ties to Senator Biden's son, R. Hunter Biden, a lawyer in Washington. Hunter Biden joined MBNA as a management trainee after graduating from Yale Law School and rose to be an executive vice president. Now a partner in Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a lobbying and law firm, he receives a $100,000 annual retainer from MBNA to advise it on 'the Internet and privacy law,' Mr. Freeh said. He added that Hunter Biden was not a registered lobbyist and did not lobby on legislation for the company. "
Who is that in second? A law firm named Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, which gave $127,625 over the same period. And who are they, might one ask? Pachulski Stang is the nation's largest bankruptcy law firm with one of the most highly regarded bankrupty practices in the country. The firm's client list includes some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry as well as many of the most well-known businesses in the world.
The company also has ties to Senator Biden's son, R. Hunter Biden, a lawyer in Washington. Hunter Biden joined MBNA as a management trainee after graduating from Yale Law School and rose to be an executive vice president. Now a partner in Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a lobbying and law firm, he receives a $100,000 annual retainer from MBNA to advise it on 'the Internet and privacy law,' Mr. Freeh said. He added that Hunter Biden was not a registered lobbyist and did not lobby on legislation for the company. "
It's not just MasterCard holders who are affected. MasterCard says its security division detected multiple instances of fraud that tracked back to CardSystems Solutions Incorporated, which processes credit card and other payments for banks and merchants.
The compromised data included names, banks and account numbers, but not addresses or Social Security numbers. Such data could be used to steal funds, but not identities.
CardSystems says it first learned of a potential breach on May 22nd. CardSystems says it was told by the FBI not to release any information to the public. The company says it's surprised by MasterCard's decision to go public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)