REPOSTS ON: 09-13-AD2005 Archived at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LLNews5
Out:08:03pm
Join and check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/govtwatch4 for the BEST in the
latest headlines and news!
HTML Copies of this newsletter are in LLNews5 and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldcom
To be cut from more mai lings just email me back at this address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since Yahoo ID's are sometimes DELETED, USE ABOVE EMAIL ADDRESS TO CORRESPOND
^ ^ ^
Pentagon Asks Theatre Commanders For Nuclear 'Hit-List'
By: AFP, Yahoo News on: 12.09.2005
A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state
and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass
destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons
effectively."
The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons
to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely and
urges troops to constantly train for nuclear warfare.
Draft US defense paper outlines preventive nuclear strikes
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear
strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from
using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use
nuclear weapons effectively."
The document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and dated March
15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt
current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001,
attacks, said a defense official.
But the official, who spoke to AFP late Saturday on condition of anonymity,
said it has not yet been signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thus
has not been made official policy.
"It's in the process of being considered," the official said.
A copy of the draft obtained by AFP urges US theater force commanders operating
around the world to prepare specific plans for using nuclear weapons in their
regions and outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek
presidential approval for a nuclear strike.
They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction
against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations.
Preventive nuclear strikes could also be employed to destroy a biological
weapons arsenal belonging to an enemy, if there is no possibility to take it
out with conventional weapons and it is determined the enemy is poised for a
biological attack, according to the draft.
They could also be seen as justified to destroy deep, hardened bunkers
containing enemy chemical or biological weapons or the command and control
infrastructure required to execute a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.
However, a number of scenarios allow nuclear strikes without enemy weapons of
mass destruction in the equation.
They could be used, for instance, to counter potentially overwhelming
conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply
"to ensure success of US and multinational operations," the document indicates.
In the context of the US-led "war on terror", the draft explicitly warns that
any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to
militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United
States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.
IC Editors Comment: In the light of US already saying China and Russia are
transporting weapons to Venezuala, this opens the door for attacks against oil
shipments from Venezuala to China and Russia and the return shipping through
the Pacific.
That is what the US want NZ ports for, To Attack certain shipping lanes as I
have been saying.
Regional US commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear "to
respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and
multinational forces or civilian populations," the draft says.
The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons
to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely and
urges troops to constantly train for nuclear warfare.
"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use
nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear
weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use," the document
states.
The doctrine surfaced after the US Congress moved over the past several months
to revive a controversial weapons research program aimed at enabling the US
military to conduct precision nuclear strikes against hardened underground
facilities.
In separate measures, both the Senate and the House of Representatives approved
four million dollars for fiscal 2006 to study the feasibility of the so-called
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, also known as the "bunker-buster" bomb, a
program that was interrupted last year under intense international and domestic
criticism.
Moreover, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States will be able to
retain up to 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads all the
way through 2012.
The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw
condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations
from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."
--
Visit my Website at ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/one_world_government.html
See my "Why Come Out" page here ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/why_come_out.html
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn
the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will
be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for
his blood." - Eze 33:6
To be added to future mailings place "Please add" in the subject line.
To be removed from future mailings place "REMOVE" in the subject line.
and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Freedom America NOW E-List - News and Views >From New Babylon
The beast is loose in Bethlehem and the rats are in the corn.
Look up... for your redemption draweth nigh!
++++++Jesus Christ is the Answer, Check it out.++++++
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that
envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an
attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The
draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy
stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally
approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and
procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy
first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was
outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would
"respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction
against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would
be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders
to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the
Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption
doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton
administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or
specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction
of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is
expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A.
Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a
public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through
final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders,
Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written
statement.
A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the
1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear
weapons use across the range of military operations."
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is
against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or
allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an
"imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from
nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear
initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined
to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of
nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials
without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for "attacks on
adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing
chemical or biological weapons."
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the
bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened,
deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "raises the danger of nuclear
weapons use." It says that there are "about thirty nations with WMD programs"
along with "nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored
by an adversarial state."
To meet that situation, the document says that "responsible security planning
requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely
today."
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the
Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show
determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD
use."
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons,
that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the
ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are
credible and effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has
"repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear
weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee
who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday
the draft was "apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and
they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program." She
added that members "certainly don't want the administration to move forward
with a [nuclear] preemption policy" without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the
draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who
discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it
"emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short
notice including new missions."
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons
research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not
yet appeared.
"This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced
role for nuclear weapons," Kristensen said. "It provides justification for
contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP."
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility
of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with
attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other
specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked
for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research
and not to begin production on any particular warhead. "The only thing we have
is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said. "It seems to me
studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world."
____________________________________________________________
"Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area.
And bureaucracy needs to stand trial before Congress today. So I'm
asking Congress, please investigate this now. Take whatever idiot
they have at the top of whatever agency and give me a better idiot.
Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot.
Just don't give me the same idiot."
...Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, New Orleans
on CBS' "The Early Show."
IDIOT AT THE TOP? Hmmmm
MOLON LABE!
---------------------------------
Background to WWIII due to begin very shortly.
The Iran Trap
By Scott Ritter " The EU-3 countries are uniform in their criticism of
Iran's diplomatic slap in the face, but in fact neither the EU-3 nor the
IAEA have a legal leg to stand on. Iran, as a signatory to the
non-proliferation treaty (NPT), asserts its 'inalienable right' under
Article IV of the NPT to 'develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'
09/11/05 "Aljazeera" -- -- In the complicated world of international
diplomacy surrounding the issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is but
one thing that the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the so-called EU-3 (Germany, France and Great Britain) and Iran
can all agree upon
Iran has resumed operations of facilities designed to convert uranium
into a product usable in enrichment processes. From that point forward
consensus on just about anything begins to fall apart.
Iran's resumption of its uranium conversion program seems to have
brought to an end a negotiating process begun in November 2004 between
the EU-3 and Iran, at which time Iran agreed to freeze its uranium
enrichment-related activities in exchange for the EU-3's agreement to
broker a deal that would provide inducements for Iran to give up its
nuclear enrichment program.
With the EU-3 initiative now dead in the water, it appears that the next
logical step in the diplomatic process is for the IAEA to refer the
matter to the Security Council, where the United States, backed by the
EU-3, have threatened to push for economic sanctions. The IAEA board
meets in Vienna, Austria on 19 September to discuss this matter.
The EU-3 countries are uniform in their criticism of Iran's diplomatic
slap in the face, but in fact neither the EU-3 nor the IAEA have a legal
leg to stand on.
Iran, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), asserts its
'inalienable right' under Article IV of the NPT to 'develop research,
production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'
Such rights are conditional, however, but Iran strongly believes that it
has complied with Articles I and II of the NPT, where it agrees not to
manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons, and Article III, where it
accepts full safeguards, including on-site inspections.
Iran has yet to be declared to be in formal breach of any of these
obligations, which raises the basic question: what is it the EU-3 wish
to accomplish vis-à-vis their diplomatic intervention?
The real purpose of the EU-3 intervention -- to prevent the United
States from using Iran's nuclear ambition as an excuse for military
intervention -- is never discussed in public.
The EU-3 would rather continue to participate in fraudulent diplomacy
rather than confront the hard truth -- that it is the United States, and
not Iran, that is operating outside international law when it comes to
the issue of Iran's nuclear program.
In doing so, the EU-3, and to a lesser extent the IAEA, have fallen into
a trap deliberately set by the Bush administration designed to use the
EU-3 diplomatic initiative as a springboard for war with Iran.
The heart of the EU-3's position regarding Iran's nuclear program is the
matter of nuclear enrichment, which the EU-3 outright oppose. This, of
course, is an extension of the American position (as well as that of
America's shadow ally, Israel).
Legally, this is an unsupportable position under the NPT, but one which
has been pursued based upon two fundamental points.
The first is Iran's history of deception regarding its nuclear program,
in which Iran hid critical aspects of this effort from the international
community. Iran now claims to have come into compliance with its NPT
obligations, by having declared the totality of its efforts, something
neither the EU-3 and the IAEA, nor the United States and Israel can
refute factually.
Indeed, the recent disclosure by the IAEA that the hard 'evidence' it
possessed to sustain the charge that Iran was pursuing a covert nuclear
weapons program (the existence of traces of highly enriched uranium on
Iranian centrifuges) was flawed.
The fact that the uranium came from Pakistan, not Iran, has undercut any
case the EU-3 might have had in pursuing its confrontational stance with
Iran.
In the face of this development, the EU-3 -- Britain, Germany and France
-- need to ask themselves a very fundamental question: what is their
true policy objective being pursued vis-à-vis Iran?
The answer appears to be little more than serving as a front for
American complaints against the Iranian nuclear program. Given this, the
EU-3 must next confront the real policy of the United States when it
comes to Iran -- regime change. As was the case with Iraq, Europe has
failed to confront the Bush administration's policy of regime change.
Instead, the EU-3 has allowed their seemingly unified European foreign
policy position regarding Iran to be hijacked by a neoconservative cabal
in Washington, DC as a stepping stone to war.
Europe would like to believe that the diplomatic initiative undertaken
by the EU-3 last November represents a nominal 'Plan A', which avoids
direct confrontation between the United States and Iran through use of
the European intermediary.
The EU-3 comfort themselves with the knowledge that any failure of their
initiative pushes the world not to the brink of war, but rather toward a
'Plan B', intervention by the Security Council of the United Nations,
which would seek to compel Iran back into line with the threat of
economic sanctions.
A failure by the Security Council to achieve change on the part of Iran
would then, and only then, pave the way for 'Plan C', American military
intervention.
European diplomats concede that there is little likelihood that the
Security Council will impose sanctions on Iran, given the intransigence
on the part of Russia and China.
However, they have lulled themselves into a false sense of complacency
by noting that given the situation in Iraq, and now in the United States
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the US military is so
overstretched that any talk of the Bush administration implementing a
'Plan C' is out of the question.
What the Europeans -- and the member nations of the EU-3 in particular
-- fail to recognize is that the Bush administration's plan for Iran
does not consist of three separate plans, but rather one plan composed
of three phases leading to the inevitability of armed conflict with Iran
and the termination of the theocratic regime of the Mullahs currently
residing in Tehran.
These three phases -- the collapse of the EU-3 intervention leading to a
referral of the Iran matter to the Security Council, the inability of
the Security Council to agree upon the imposition of economic sanctions
against Iran, and the US confronting the Security Council over its
alleged inability to protect American national security interests - lead
inevitably toward military confrontation.
As with Iraq earlier, the United States has embraced a position which
requires Iran to prove the negative (i.e., demonstrate that it does not
have a nuclear weapons program) as opposed to the US and the IAEA
proving that one does in fact exist.
The criteria put forward by the Bush administration for Iran to comply
-- no-notice inspections of any site at any time -- are an affront to a
sovereign nation that has yet to be shown to be in violation of any of
its legal obligations.
The fact that the United States used a similar program of no-notice
weapons inspections as a front for espionage against Iraq in support of
its regime-change policy against Saddam Hussein has not escaped the
attention of the Iranians, who have flat-out rejected any such
extra-legal requirements on its part.
The United States, and to a lesser extent the IAEA and the EU-3, have
taken Iran's intransigence as a clear sign that Iran has something to
hide.
Once again, as was the case with Iraq, the United States has put process
over substance, and unless the EU-3 block, the American effort to have
the Iranian case transferred to the Security Council, the end result
will be war.
The Iran trap has been well baited by the Bush administration, so much
so that a Europe already burned once by American duplicity regarding
Iraq, and a war weary American public, fail to recognize what is
actually transpiring. The bait for this trap is, of course, diplomacy,
first in the form of the EU-3 intervention, and that having failed, in
the form of Security Council actions.
Polls taken in April 2005 showed that most Americans (63% to 37%)
believed the Bush administration should take military action to stop
Iran from developing or trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.
It is completely irrelevant that Iran has yet to be shown to have a
nuclear weapons program (in fact the overwhelming amount of data
available points to the exact opposite conclusion).
Today, in September 2005, many Americans might be loath to immediately
embrace a direct path towards war with Iran. However, according to
recent polls, most Americans support referring the matter of Iran to the
Security Council for the purpose of imposing sanctions.
If the Security Council, because of Russian and Chinese opposition,
refuses to support sanctions, the American people will be confronted by
the Bush administration with the choice to either appear weak before the
United Nations, or to take matters into our own hands (i.e., unilateral
military action) in the name of national defence. The outcome in this
case is certain -- war.
Since the result of any referral of the Iran issue to the Security
Council is all but guaranteed, the push by the EU-3 to have the IAEA
refer Iran to the Security Council, while rooted in the language of
diplomacy, is really nothing less than an act of war.
The only chance the world has of avoiding a second disastrous US
military adventure in the Middle East is for the EU-3 to step back from
its policy of doing the bidding of the US, and to confront not only Iran
on the matter of its nuclear program, but also the larger issue of
American policies of regional transformation that represent the greatest
threat to Middle East security and stability today.
Scott Ritter is former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 Author of
'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence
Conspiracy', published by I.B. Tauris (London) and Nation Books (US) in
October 2005.
--
Visit my Website at ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/one_world_government.html
See my "Why Come Out" page here ...
http://iron-clay.cloudnine.net.nz/why_come_out.html
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet
to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of
them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold
the watchman accountable for his blood." - Eze 33:6
To be added to future mailings place "Please add" in the subject line.
To be removed from future mailings place "REMOVE" in the subject line.
and email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:20 AM
Subject: Engineers questioning why the flood walls broke
This is so Dejavu! I remember an article in the NY Times just after the 9-11
towers collapsed and engineers where questioning that right away and calling
for an investigation. Remember? That was when they found out all the scrap
metal that would be needed for study was being shipped out to scrap metal ships
to be reprocessed overseas immediately when they began recovery. This is
beginning to look like a bit of the same thing here. Pay attention to the last
two paragraphs and also remember the breaking news on some debri sent to a lab
that had black residue on it. That story is still unfolding. Will report
when I get more information. P
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_13.html#079207
Mystery surrounds floodwall breaches
Could a structural flaw be to blame?
By John McQuaid
Staff writer
One of the central mysteries emerging in the Hurricane Katrina disaster is why
concrete floodwalls in three canals breached during the storm, causing much of
the catastrophic flooding, while earthen hurricane levees surrounding the city
remained intact.
It probably will take months to investigate and make a conclusive determination
about what happened, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. But two
Louisiana State University scientists who have examined the breaches suggest
that a structural flaw in the floodwalls might be to blame.
"Why did we have no hurricane levee failures but five separate places with
floodwall failures?" asked Joseph Suhayda, a retired LSU coastal engineer who
examined the breaches last week. "That suggests there may be something about
floodwalls that makes them more susceptible to failure. Did (the storm) exceed
design conditions? What were the conditions? What about the construction?"
Ivor Van Heerden, who uses computer models to study storm-surge dynamics for
the LSU Hurricane Center, has said that fragmentary initial data indicate that
Katrina's storm-surge heights in Lake Pontchartrain would not have been high
enough to top the canal walls and that a "catastrophic structural failure"
occurred in the floodwalls.
Corps project manager Al Naomi said that the Corps' working theory is that the
floodwalls were well-constructed, but once topped they gave way after water
scoured their interior sides, wearing away their earth-packed bases. But he
said some other problem could have caused the breaches.
"They could have been overtopped. There could have been some structural
failure. They could have been impacted by some type of debris," Naomi said. "I
don't think it's right to make some type of judgment now. It's like presuming
the reason for a plane crash without recovering the black box."
Officials long had warned about the danger of levees being topped by high water
from a storm surge. Absent topping, floodwalls are supposed to remain intact.
The floodwalls lining New Orleans canals consist of concrete sections attached
to steel sheet pile drilled deep into the earth, fortified by a concrete and
earthen base. The sections are joined with a flexible, waterproof substance.
Floodwalls were breached in the 17th Street Canal, at two places in the London
Avenue Canal, and at two places in the Industrial Canal, Suhayda said. Naomi
said last week that one of the Industrial Canal breaches likely was caused by a
loose barge that broke through it.
Suhayda said that his inspection of the debris from the 17th Street Canal
breach suggests the wall simply gave way. "It looks to have been laterally
pushed, not scoured in back with dirt being removed in pieces," he said. "You
can see levee material, some distance pushed inside the floodwall area, like a
bulldozer pushed it."
He suggested that because the walls failed in a few spots, the flaw may not be
in the design but in the construction or materials.
"Those sections in the rest of the wall should have been subjected to the same
forces as that section that failed," he said. "Why did one side fail, not the
other side?"
Drainage canals typically are lined with floodwalls instead of the wider
earthen levees that protect the lakefront because of a lack of space, engineers
say.
"It's a right-of-way issue," Naomi said. "Usually, there are homes right up
against the canal. You have to relocate five miles of homes (to build a levee),
or you can build a floodwall."
Constructing a more expensive earthen levee also would require building farther
out into the canal itself, reducing the size of the canal - and the volume of
water it could handle.
Naomi said that an earthen levee also could have been breached if the surge had
pushed water over the top. "A levee failure might be more gradual than with a
floodwall," he said. "It means you may have flooded a little slower."
The central question for engineers investigating the breaches will be whether
the floodwalls were topped - and that's still unclear.
The levee system, floodwalls included, is designed to protect against an
average storm surge of 11.5 feet above sea level. The Corps adds several more
feet of "freeboard" to account for waves and other dynamics.
Naomi said the Industrial Canal floodwalls were topped by water coming in from
the east. But scientists don't yet know exactly whether Katrina's Lake
Pontchartrain surge was high enough to go over the wall in the two other canals.
Many storm surge gauges stopped functioning during the storm, LSU climatologist
Barry Keim, though initial data point to a mi-lake height of eight or nine
feet. Heights typically are higher at the Lakefront area because wind pushes
water higher against the levees.
Suhayda said the debris line on the lakefront levee adjacent to the canal was
"several feet" below the top. The levees are 17 or 18 feet high in that area.
The canal levees, however, average only 14 feet. Storm surges have waves and
other dynamics that push water still higher than the average height.
"There are big implications for as little as a one-foot change in elevation" of
the storm surge, Suhayda said.
If the water did not top the levees, the breaches could prove more mysterious.
Typically, the pounding of wave action would be the most likely way to cause a
breach, scientists say. But there isn't much wave action in canals.
"Waves constantly breaking on the structure start to erode it and make it
become unstable," said LSU coastal geologist Greg Stone, who studies
storm-surge dynamics. "But I don't think that was a major factor in the canals.
You just don't have the (open area) to allow wave growth to occur."
---------------------------------
Pam Schuffert
Eyes of AMERICA'S MILITIAS Focused on AFTERMATH OF KATRINA
Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:56
207.200.116.199
EYES OF AMERICA'S MILITIAS FOCUSED ON THE AFTERMATH OF HURRICANE KATRINA
by Pam Schuffert
www.AmericanHolocaust.homestead.com
********************************************************
On the evening of Saturday, September 10th, at 9 PM CST, I was interviewed for
one hour by radio on the subject of COMING MARTIAL LAW/POLICE STATE USA by
radio talk show host DANIEL OTT of www.theedgeam.com.
We discussed how the tragedy of HURRICANE KATRINA was now evidently being used
by our government to hasten the appearance of POLICE STATE USA. And how even
now, jack- booted thusg were invading people's homes, arresting those who
refused to leave, and seizing their weapons.
In fact, I have been warning my fellow Americans for ten years now that this
would be THE FUTURE SCENARIO OF AMERICA: NO FOOD ON GROCERY STORE SHELVES, NO
WATER, NO ELECTRICITY, FOREIGN TROOPS PATROLLING OUR STREETS, FORCIBLE SEIZURE
OF ALL WEAPONS, HOMES BEING SEIZED AND BROKEN INTO BY JACK-BOOTED THUGS,
innocent victims taken away to FEMA/MILITARY DETENTION CAMPS, and MARTIAL LAW
BEING DECLARED ON THE HEELS OF A GOVERNMENT/MILITARY-CREATED DISASTER, etc.
In fact, America's valid, Constitutionally-based MILITIAS have been warning
Americans of THE SAME THING!
During last night's broadcast, I had to ask the question:
WHO ARE THEY ARRESTING ON THE STREETS OF NEW ORLEANS NOW???
WHO ARE THEY TAKING AWAY TO SECRETIVE FEMA/MILITARY DETENTION CAMP LOCATIONS
OMINOUSLY SURROUNDED WITH BARBED WIRE???
WHY are more and MORE reports coming to us from across this nation, describing
the places of hurricane victims' detainment appearing as "CONCENTRATION
CAMPS???"
And what is the fate of the LOUISIANA MILITIAS, which declared they would then
coming out to help patrol the streets of New Orleans and to help restore law
and order and stop looting???
Will THEY be persuaded to turn in THEIR weapons to Federal authorities who are
now taking over New Orleans, jack-booted Nazi style???
Will THEY be persuaded to meekly be detained and marched off to planes to be
flown to unknown locations of FEMA/MILITARY CONCENTRATION CAMPS UNDER MARTIAL
LAW???
The answer clearly is HECK, NO!!! "You can pry my gun out of my cold dead
fingers!" This would be the typical miltia reponse to unConstitutional
government seizure of their firearms...bless their little hearts!
America's militias meekly SURRENDERING under MARTIAL LAW???
NOT when they realize by now that, IN A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW, people in
AMERICA'S MILITIAS are among the MAJOR TARGETS for FEMA/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
"RED/BLUE" LIST targeting, arrest and ultimately TERMINATION IN THE DETENTION
CAMPS as "RESISTERS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER"... even as they have been warned
repeatedly by government/military insiders blowing the whistle.
During the live broadcast in which I was interviewed by Daniel Ott regarding
all this, a listener called in from California.
Declaring that he was a member of a California militia, he stated, "The
MILITIAS OF AMERICA ARE KEEPING THEIR EYES ON WHAT IS UNFOLDING IN NEW
ORLEANS...we are WATCHING CAREFULLY TO SEE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO
NEXT..."
Of COURSE America's militias are watching this test case, to see how GUN
CONFISCATION will take place...to see if indeed people are being taken away to
detention camps...to be RELEASED EVENTUALLY or to simply DISAPPEAR.
America's Constituional militias have also sworn to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and to stand against MARTIAL LAW TYRANNY and
the jack-booted thugs of the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda who intend to carry this
NWO agenda out...from the White House down.
AS an honest journalist who has majored on this subject of MARTIAL LAW
intensely for ten years now, I predict the following:
Public tensions and anger at the US government is only going to escalate, as
more and more Americans read the writing on the wall that:
-the hurricane was artificially enhanced and created in part by deliberate
military weather engineering (PROJECT HAARP and other tools of weather
altering),
-the levees WERE in fact destroyed by DELIBERATE EXPLOSIONS,
-innocent people are indeed being taken away to FEMA/MILITARY DETENTION CAMPS (
and the fate of many remains unknown, as well as their whereabouts)
-and NOW with MARTIAL LAW BEING REGIONALLY DECLARED, the WEAPONS
CONFISCATION/HOUSE SEIZURE HAS BEGUN.
-Sightings of armed Mexican military convoys are now taking place, as well as
other specialized armed groups patrolling the streets of "AMERIKA" in the
affected regions.
-the TRUE NATURE OF FEMA FINALLY BEING EXPOSED ONCE AND FOR ALL, as reports
come forth issuing damning evidence that FEMA IS NOT HERE TO HELP THE VICTIMS,
BUT TO HINDER RESCUEand AID EFFORTS TO VICTIMS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
In the aftermath of HURRICANE KATRINA, the "writing on the wall" regarding the
NEW WORLD ORDER'S MARTIAL LAW AGENDA FOR AMERICA is becoming unmistakable to so
many watchdog groups and individuals throughout the nation.
Public awareness of the government's HIDDEN AGENDA in all these "disasters" is
growing daily as the evidence of government manufacturing of "disasters"
proliferates and spreads nationwide and worldwide.
And I predict that the US government/military will feel pressured to MOVE
QUICKLY AS A RESULT OF INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND REACTION TO THE TRUTH,
to attempt to rapidly BRING FORTH THEIR MANY OTHER PRE-PLANNED DISASTERS ACROSS
THIS NATION.
They must move rapdily to bring about the total collapse of AMERICA AS WE KNEW
HER, and to impose full blown MARTIAL LAW/PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS on a
NATIONAL SCALE, before the angry people of this nation RISE UP IN A PEOPLES'
INSURRECTION AND MOVE TO OVERTHROW THE PEOPLE BEHIND THIS GENOCIDAL NWO AGENDA
FOR "AMERIKA."
I therefore predict that, in the near future, America will experience:
-MAJOR EARTHQUAKES (of course triggered by PROJECT HAARP and related military
technology),
-MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES (suitcase nukes, etc.),
-MISSILE STRIKES ON AMERICA SOIL AGAINST MANY CITIES (MANY missiles coming from
OUR OWN MILITARY BASES NOW AIMED AT INTERNAL TARGETS, as military insiders have
warned me),
-and even NUCLEAR STRIKES ON AMERICAN SOIL.
(INSIDE MILITARY SOURCES HAVE BEEN WARNING US OF THIS REPEATEDLY. WHY do you
think CHENEY had a NUCLEAR FALLOUT SHELTER built on his ranch at JACKSON HOLE
recently???)
Also, don't forget, the future release of DEADLY PESTILENCES such as ANTHRAX,
and many other srtificially engineered/enhanced biological warfare agents...ALL
TO BE FALSELY BLAMED ON "foreign agents" or "terrorists" or perhaps even, once
again, America's MILITIAS.
Former microbiologists working for the CIA have warned us from the inside that
such a deadly future awaits the unsuspecting American public.
But as Americans are slowly discovering through artificially created
"disasters" such as OKC BOMBING, "9/11," and now HURRICANE KATRINA, perhaps the
GREATEST TERRORISTS that this nation will ever know...are the ones who sit in
the WHITE HOUSE and the PENTAGON and CAPITOL HILL.
Obviously.
Because REMEMBER: ONLY THEY HAVE THE POWER AND FINANCES NECESSARY to bring
these kinds of massive and costly "black ops" to come to pass across America.
God bless the UNITED STATES MILITIAS in this desperate hour of America's
imperiled destiny!
And God have mercy on all the REST of us "little people" across this endangered
nation as well.
Pam Schuffert
http://www.americanholocaust.homestead.com/
---------------------------------
Don Nash, Unknown News
RE: Refugees from New Orleans behind barbed wire in Utah
Sat Sep 10, 2005 20:24
64.140.159.57
Interview about restrictions on New Orleans detainees ends abruptly
http://www.unknownnews.org/0509090908isitKiguchi.html
Sept. 8, 2005 [Day 11]
At exactly 14:55 hours Mountain Daylight Time, and that would be post meridian,
I received the call that I had been waiting on all day. The Office of Governor
Super Jon Huntsman of Prison State Utah returned my call.
I would be allowed to have my highly anticipated questions and answer session
with Super Jons official spokesperson and bon vivant, one Tami Kiguchi.
(Is that accurate enough for you, Democratic Underground? Im referring to the
actual time and exact name of Super Jon's spokesperson. I admit that I might
not have the spelling for Kiguchi exactly correct. The reasons for this
oversight should become apparent shortly.)
Ms. Kiguchi informed me that Governor Super Jon and Prison State Utah did not
appreciate me referring to the internees at Internment Camp Utah as insurgents,
or detainees.
I asked Ms. Kiguchi how one might go about getting access to the detainees --
sorry, internees at Internment Camp Utah.
No chance according to Ms. Kiguchi. If and when the internees are out and
about in the community, one can have access to them then.
Ms. Kiguchi further informed me that the internees are allowed out of
Internment Camp Utah once a day, but she would not offer any suggestions as to
how and when the internees would be allowed out. One would have to guess, I
suppose.
Now, I explained my visit to Detainment Camp Utah from Tuesday, and Ms. Kiguchi
got a little pissed. They are not detainees!
According to Ms. Kiguchi, the poor souls that are being kept in containment by
Prison State Utah are sorely stressed and in need of Prison State Utah's care.
They do NOT need to be bothered by the likes of me. Okey-dokey! Prison State
Utah is actively pursuing a policy of containment with the New Orleans
internees and Prison State Utah doesnt want them being bothered by... me.
As I tried to ask how might I get the proper credentials to get into Internment
Camp Utah, Ms. Kiguchi reinforced my initial, rather unpleasant experience at
Detainment Camp Utah by informing me that should I set one foot on the military
property, I would be summarily arrested.
The internees are being held by Prison State Utah and they will not be
bothered. Prison State Utah, the military, and mainstream media have access to
the internees, but regular human type folk do not have such access, and
especially me, I will not be allowed access. But, if one can somehow hook up
with the internees when they are on the outs if you will, well then a grand
time is guaranteed to be had by all.
Heres the tricky part. The New Orleans internees do not know Utah and
especially Salt Lake County or Utah County. They didn't even know they were
being brought here, until they got here. The internees certainly do not know a
soul here, except for Prison State Utah officials, the military who guard them,
and the mainstream media-types who are allowed to chat with them. Contact with
any regular type humans, let alone the likes of me, would and possibly could be
highly un-reassuring, so Prison State Utah is going to a huge expense to keep
the internees world controlled and comfortable for them.
Prison State Utah does not want the internees to have to experience anything
except for what Prison State Utah wants them to experience.
If Im not mistaken, this is still America. The land of the free and the home
of the brave and all manner of hyper-jingoistic spew like that. But not for the
internees at Internment Camp Utah.
These poor souls from New Orleans are being kept close to incommunicado by
Prison State Utah. Are they allowed one phone call? Are they undergoing some
kind of mystical rehabilitation and Prison State Utah and the military doesnt
want them bothered or questioned or asked about their experiences?
Its more than a little obvious to me that there is something going on here
that doesnt quite meet the usual democratic standards. Usually, when Americans
are rescued from dire circumstances, they're free to go. Are these people free
to go?
Maybe the usual democratic standards are gone by the wayside, and this is an
experiment in the wholesale detainment of Americans. That would figure, and
that would answer many questions. There aren't thousands of internees behind
the barbed wire and guards here in Utah, but are the other internees from New
Orleans being kept incommunicado by the Prison States they are being kept in?
So many questions and so few answers. But you will find a growing number of
really pissy Prison State Utah officials that are so pissed off at me, I just
might be a dead man by weeks' end. I am certain that would please the
Democratic Underground immensely. It would please Tami Kiguchi and it surely
would please Prison State Utahs Governor Super Jon Huntsman.
So in conclusion, as I badgered Tami Kiguchi about why Prison State Utah is
keeping the internees out of sight and out of mind, but in complete control by
Prison State Utah, she slammed her phone down and that was the end of my
official question and answer session with Prison State Utah. Tami can slam that
phone really hard too. It was loud and Ill bet that phone will be left with a
mark for quite a while.
So I didnt get to confirm the correct spelling of her name, and Democratic
Underground may just get the last laugh on that one.
=========================
Refugees from New Orleans behind barbed wire in Utah
http://www.unknownnews.org/0509090906CampWilliams.html
==============
ALSO SEE: AMERCIAN CAMPS: HTTP://WWW.APFN.ORG/APFN/CAMPS.HTM
---------------------------------
Patricia Johnson-Holm
RE: Refugees from New Orleans behind barbed wire in Utah
Sat Sep 10, 2005 22:48
67.160.81.87
Do we have any way to verify the people taken to UTAH? Do we have backgrounds
or any reason why they would be detained?
Let's take a good look at this. Obviously if some are being detained there are
more.
There is definite reason why the 650 Million payout in TEXAS should be
questioned at this point.
We know that Technology exists to cause Katrina. This same Tech explains why
the strange behavior of Katrina prior to land fall. It also explains why the
Ophalia is doing what it is.
Evidence has now surfaced about the testing positive for explosives being used
on 17th street Levee (BTW 17 is code for we are all ONE-obviously the message
is shattering the idea of 'we are all one.'). Why the London Levee name was
rearly if ever used on National News(one guess what message is and the next)?
Why the Industrial Boulevard was the third Levee to go?
FEMA long list of:
FEMA Stopping people from leaving or going into the City.
FEMA SAID it was surprised by the Levee breaking?
FEMA turned away water/ 3 WalMart Trucks
FEMA blocked access to fuel/diesel (1000 gallons)
FEMA according to Sheriff Lee cut phone lines
FEMA according to Sheriff Lee cut emergencylines
FEMA according to Sheriff Lee had to be stopped at gunpoint
from doing it again even after repairs were done.
FEMA blocked 500 experienced boaters and boats from rescue.
FEMA made rule that only 16' or smaller boats could rescue.
FEMA stopped trained workers from helping
FEMA stopped experienced FireFighters
FEMA wouldn't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations
FEMA prevented Coast Guard from helping
FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans
FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600 bed hospital
FEMA told Chicago 'Send just one truck'
FEMA turns away generators
FEMA told First Responders "Not to Respond"
Report is that 43,000 body bags have already been used as of 9/6/05. 25,000
more were ordered on 9/8/05. Yet we are supposed to think that only 250 deaths
so far?
We even have troups of 'other origins' showing up fully armed etc.? What we
need to do is call a spade a spade. Who are all of these FEMA/troups and so on
answering to?
Take a look not only at NATO but the Jesuit connection to the whole scene.
Trace who is giving what order to whom!
So Kolvenbach would like us to think, we are supposed to see this is Standard
Operating Procedure and just put this aside?
If you want a true definition of a terrorist look to the ones giving the orders
to do the above 'tactics'!!!
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
