Re: [cia-drugs] PAROLE BILL HR3072 TO BE REPRESENTED AT NASCAR
Good to hear from you Kay. You have my undying support. I'll put this on my Blog too. Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net Writing from Stockholm, Sweden -Original Message- From: kaylee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Aug 6, 2006 4:11 AM To: MTWT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [cia-drugs] PAROLE BILL HR3072 TO BE REPRESENTED AT NASCAR If you don't know John Flahive, you should take a moment to say hello. He is a wonderful young man who advocates for George Martorano and others like him. George is the prisoner serving the longest sentence in the American federal prison system to date for a non-violent 1st time marijuana offense. George was unbelievably given life without parole. He has now served more than 23 years of his unfair sentence and needs our support if he is to ever get a second chance at freedom. In Congress there is a Bill numbered HR3072 - A Bill to Revive the System of Parole for Federal Prisoners. If passed, George and many others in his position can go home. The bill is still gaining support and does have a chance when Congress comes back. On AUGUST 23rd in Bristal Tennessee, the NASCAR #54 Carter2 MotorSports Truck has joined with FreeFeds.org to promote HR3072. This will be a big event with over 3 million viewers and 160,000 fans in attendence. BNN (Broadcast News Network) and a show PBS film producer Allan Mason is going up with a crew to do a 6-7 hour shoot with NASCAR driver, Roger Carter, II at Carter 2 Motorsports. The first segment will air on cable to approximately 10-14 million viewers. John has been invited to be a volunteer at the NASCAR track. He's a fine young man who knows this bill and articulates his principles in a manner that could engender a lot of support for HR3072. FedCure has hooked up with NASCAR to arrange the proper credentials for John. Unfortunately, neither John nor FedCURE have the money for this trip. So, on behalf of the justice that HR3072 will afford to prisoners like George, I ask please, if you can support their efforts with a buck, 5 bucks, ANYTHING, together we can open the door to freedom for many people like George, who do deserve a second chance. If you can help John get to NASCAR tp represent HR3072 and all the prisoners and families it will benefit, please contact... John Flahive [EMAIL PROTECTED] WeBelieveGroup [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO BOX 41491 St. Pete, FL 33743 www.webelievegroup.com/ Sign our FREE GEORGE MARTORANO petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/330451772. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ * 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/
[cia-drugs] BOB HERBERT : The Iraq War Enablers More
BOB HERBERT : The Iraq War Enablers More by BOB HERBERT - The New York Times Monday Aug 7th, 2006 5:28 AM Herbert: War Enablers OP-ED COLUMNIST The Iraq War Enablers By BOB HERBERT Published: August 7, 2006 Hillary Rodham Clinton is just one of the many supporters of the war in Iraq who should have known better from the beginning. So there was Hillary Rodham Clinton grandstanding for the television cameras last week, giving Donald Rumsfeld a carefully scripted chewing out for his role in the Bush administrations lunatic war in Iraq. Casual viewers could have been forgiven for not realizing that Senator Clinton has long been a supporter of this war, and that even now, with the number of pointless American deaths moving toward 2,600, her primary goal apparently is not to find an end game, but to figure out the most expedient political position to adopt the one that will do the least damage to her presidential ambitions. Mrs. Clinton is trying to have it both ways. A couple of months ago, she told a gathering in Washington: I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government. She then added, Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. Slick Willie has morphed into Slick Hilly, as the carnival of death in Iraq goes on. Continued: http://mparent.livejournal.com/11044476.html Today's Newswire http://mparent.livejournal.com/2006/08/07/ MARC PARENT CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS http://mparent.livejournal.com/ http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/14409 http://www.dailykos.com/user/ccnwon Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail __._,_.___ Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM SPONSORED LINKS United state bankruptcy court western district of texas United state life insurance United state patent United state patent search United states patent office YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[cia-drugs] Brutal Chain of Command: Harsh light from the Supreme Court on White House war crimes against detainees everywhere
Brutal Chain of CommandHarsh light from the Supreme Court on White House war crimes against detainees everywhere by Nat Hentoff August 6th, 2006 12:18 PM [The detainee] was stripped naked, put in the mud and sprayed . . . with very cold hoses in February. At night it was very cold. . . . He was completely naked in the mud, you know. . . . [Then] he was taken out of the mud and put next to an air conditioner. It was extremely cold, freezing, and he was put back in the mud and sprayed. This happened all night. Everybody knew about it. — An interrogator with the special military and CIA task force at Camp Nama, Baghdad, quoted in a new 53-page Human Rights Watch report, "No Blood, No Foul: Soldiers' Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq From 2003-2005." With war in the Mideast and civil war in Iraq, the June Supreme Court decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld telling the president he does not have the "inherent" constitutional power to make up the law as he goes along with regard to our prisoners has lost traction in the news. But in the weeks and months ahead, you'll be seeing and hearing a lot about a part of the ruling that especially alarmed the president, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the Republican leadership in Congress. In addition to telling George Bush's lawyers that the Guantánamo military commissions they invented outside our laws do not measure up to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized persons," the Supreme Court's most shameful instruction to the administration was that, in the way it treats its prisoners anywhere in the world, the standard must be Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which this country is a signatory. For those not aware of the very specific protections in Article 3 that set a minimal standard for prisoners whether or not they are part of a national armythey mandate that all detainees "in all circumstances be treated humanely." The president, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al. assure the world that we do just that and nobody anywhere believes them. But Article 3 goes much deeper than treating prisoners "humanely," prohibiting "at any time and in any place what- soever . . . violence to life and person [of detainees]in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, [and]outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." (Emphases added.) Moreover, in "No Blood, No Foul"—a report based largely on firsthand accounts by U.S. military personnel in Iraq who, like all our military there, were told by Bush and Rumsfeld the Geneva Conventions did not apply to their prisoners—Human Rights Watch emphasizes that the chain of command, all the way to the top, is accountable for what has been done to detainees because: "Acts of torture and other mistreatment . . . constituted grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The United States is bound to investigate and prosecute grave breaches that are committed by U.S. personnel in Iraq. The Geneva Conventions impose on the United States an obligation to 'search for persons alleged to have committed, or to [have ordered] to be committed, grave breaches and to prosecute them.' " An independent prosecutor—if Congress ever appoints one—won't have any difficulty finding "grave breaches" by the White House, the Justice Department, and the Defense Department, going back to 2002. This so far mythical prosecutor will be relying not only on Article 3 (common to the various Geneva Conventions of 1949) but also on an American law, the War Crimes Act of 1996. That statute forbids any U.S. personnel from committing any of the crimes listed in that statute. One of them is perpetrating "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. If an investigation of the chain of command happens, it would be one hell of a revelation, with reams of documented reports, including testimony by army personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, searches by human rights organizations, complaints by FBI agents on the scene, the many pages of facts on the ground obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act, and testimony by many of the actual survivors of these "grave breaches." In the imminent national midterm political campaigns—and the presidential tournament two years from now—do you think Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the Wizard of Oz money man George Soros, and other chieftains of the Democratic Party will persistently focus on the need for a truly independent inquiry into this administration's routine, systemic violations of Common Article 3? Ask your Democratic representatives in the House and Senate! In the recent, nationally covered Democratic primary in Connecticut, focusing on beleaguered Joe Lieberman—billed as a "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party"—I haven't seen or heard any mention of the torture and other "humiliating and degrading treatment of U.S. prisoners" in Iraq and
[cia-drugs] We don't need no stinkin' recount
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' RECOUNT"
Mexico's Lesson In The Dangers Of The Paper
Ballot
By Greg Palastfor The Guardian, Comment is
FreeMonday August 7, 2006
In the six years since I first began investigating the burglary ring we call
"elections" in America, a new Voting Reform industry has grown up. That's good.
What's worrisome is that most of the effort is focused on preventing the
installation of computer voting machines. Paper ballots, we're told, will save
our democracy.
Well, forget it. Over the weekend, Mexico's ruling party showed how you can
rustle an election even with the entire population using the world's easiest
paper ballot.
On Saturday, Mexico's electoral tribunal, known as the "TRIFE" (say
"tree-fay") ordered a re-count of the ballots from the suspect July 2 vote for
president. Well, not quite a recount as in "count all the ballots" -- but a
review of just 9% of the nation's 130,000 precincts.
The "9% solution" was the TRIFE's ham-fisted attempt to chill out the several
hundred thousand protesting supporters of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador who had
gathered in the capital and blocked its main Avenue. Lopez Obrador, the Leftist
challenger known by his initials AMLO, supposedly lost the presidential vote by
just one half of one percent of the vote.
I say "supposedly" lost because, while George Bush congratulated his buddy
Felipe Calderon on his victory, the evidence I saw on the ground in Mexico City
fairly shrieks that the real winner was challenger AMLO.
President Bush should consider some inconvenient truths about the Mexican
vote count:
First: The exit poll of 80,000 voters by the Instituto de Mercadotecnia y
Opinion showed that AMLO bested Calderon by 35.1% to 34.0%.
Second: The precinct-by-precinct returns were quite otherworldly. I used to
teach statistics and what I saw in Mexico would have stumped my brightest
students.
Here's the conundrum: The nation's tens of thousands of polling stations
report to the capital in random order after the polls close. Therefore,
statistically, you'd expect the results to remain roughly unchanged as vote
totals come in. As expected, AMLO was ahead of the right-wing candidate Calderon
all night by an unchanging margin -- until after midnight. Suddenly, precincts
began reporting wins for Calderon of five to one, the ten to one, then as
polling nearly ended, of one-hundred to one.How odd. I checked my
concerns with Professor Victor Romero of Mexico's National University who
concluded that the reported results must have been a "miracle." As he put it, a
"religious event," but a statistical impossibility. There were two explanations,
said the professor: either the Lord was fixing the outcome or operatives of the
ruling party were cranking in a massive number of ballots when they realized
their man was about to lose.
How could they do it? "Easy pea-sy," as my kids would say. In Mexico, the
choices for president are on their own ballot with no other offices listed.
Those who don't want to vote for President just discard the ballot. There is no
real ballot security. In areas without reliable opposition observers (about a
third of the nation), anyone can stuff ballots into the loosely-guarded
cardboard boxes. (AMLO showed a tape of one of these ballot-stuffing operations
caught in the act.)
It's also absurdly easy to remove paper ballots, disqualify them or simply
mark them "nulo" ("null," unreadable).
The TRIFE, the official electoral centurions, rejected AMLO's request to
review those precincts that reported the miracle numbers. Nor would the tribunal
open and count the nearly one million "null" votes -- allegedly "uncountable"
votes which totaled four times Calderon's putative plurality.
Mexico's paper ballot, I would note, is the model of clarity -- with large
images of each party which need only be crossed through. The ruling party would
have us believe that a million voters waited in line, took a ballot, made no
mark, then deliberately folded the ballot and placed it in the ballot box,
pretending they'd voted. Maybe, as in Florida in 2000, those "unreadable"
ballots were quite readable. Indeed, the few boxes re-counted showed the "null"
ballots marked for AMLO. The Tribunal chose to check no further.
The only precincts the TRIFE ordered re-counted are those where the tally
sheets literally don't tally -- precincts in which the arithmetic is off. They
refuse even to investigate those precincts where ballot boxes were found in city
dumps.
There are other "miracles" which the TRIFE chose to ignore: a weirdly low
turnout of only 44% in the state where Lopez Obrador is most popular, Guerrero
(Acapulco), compared to turnouts of over 60% elsewhere. The votes didn't vanish,
the ruling party explained, rather the challenger's supporters, confident of
victory, did not bother to vote. Confident ... in Mexico?
In other words, despite the right to paper ballots, the election was fiddled,
finagled and
[cia-drugs] The best thing in the world for Big Oil
August 3, 2006 "THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD FOR BIG OIL" Bobby Kennedy and Palast on why Saddam had to go. "This war in Iraq has been the best thing in the world for Big Oil and OPEC. They've made the largest profits in the history of the world. The interesting thing about your book is you show how it was all planned from the beginning. The story is like a spy thriller." -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Listen to RFK and Greg Palast on Iraq, a 20-minute conversation about blood and oil, the podcast of 'Ring of Fire' from Air America. The following is part of the story referenced in their discussion: THE JERK: WHY SADDAM HAD TO GOby Greg PalastExcerpt from 'Armed Madhouse' The 323-page multi-volume "Options for Iraqi Oil" begins with the expected dungeons-and-dragons warning: The report is submitted on the understanding that [theState Department] will maintain the contents confidential. For two years, the State Department (and Defense and the White House) denied there were secret plans for Iraq's oil. They told us so in writing. That was the first indication the plan existed. Proving that, and getting a copy, became the near-to-pathologic obsession of our team. Our big break came when James Baker's factotum, Amy Jaffe, first reached on her cell in Amsterdam, then at Baker's operation in Houston, convinced herself that I had the right to know about the plan. I saw no reason to correct her impression. To get the plan's title I used a truly dumb trick, asking if her copy's headings matched mine. She read it to me and listed its true authors from the industry. The plan carries the State Department logo on the cover, Washington DC. But it was crafted in Houston, under the tutelage of the oil industry -- including, we discovered, Donald Hertzmark, an advisor to the Indonesia state oil company, and Garfield Miller of Aegis Energy, advisors to Solomon Smith Barney, all hosted by the James A. Baker III Institute. After a year of schmoozing, Jaffe invited me to the Baker lair in Houston. The James A. Baker III Institute is constructed a bit like a church or mosque, with a large echoing rotunda under a dome at its center, encircled by memorabilia and photos of the Great Man himself with the world's leaders, about evenly split between dictators and democrats. And there is the obligatory shot of a smiling Nelson Mandela shaking Baker III's hand. (Mandela is not so impolite as to remind Jim that he was Reagan's Chief of Staff when Reagan coddled the regime that kept Mandela imprisoned.) For tax purposes, it's an educational institute, and looking through the alarm-protected display cases along the wall was unquestionably an education. You could virtually write the recommendations of the 'Options for Iraqi Oil' report by a careful inspection of the trinkets of Baker's travels among the powerful. There is the golden royal robe given Baker by Kazakh strongman Nazerbaev, the one who shared in the $51 million payment from ExxonMobil -- a James A. Baker client -- and alongside it a jeweled sword with a note from Nazerbaev, "Jim, there will always be a slice for you." (I made that up.) Who is this James A. Baker III that he rates a whole institute, and one that will tell Iraq its oil future? Once Secretary of State to Bush Sr., Baker was now promoted to consigliere to ExxonMobil, the Republican National Committee and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Houston, I found in Jaffe a preppy, talky Jewish girl with a Bronx accent like a dentist's drill who, stranded in a cowboy world, poignantly wanted to be one of The Boys. She thinks she can accomplish this through fashion accoutrements -- she showed me her alligator cowboy boots and rolled her eyes -- "for Rodeo Day!" Lucky for me and my (hidden) recorder, she did not learn from Baker and the boys' Rule #1 for rulers: shut up. So while Amy was in the mood to say too much, and before I got into the details of Big Oil's plan for Iraq, I needed Amy's help in finding the answer to the question that was just driving me crazy: why did Saddam have to go? Why did the oil industry promote an invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam? The question is basic but the answer is not at all obvious. We know the neo-cons' answer: Their ultimate target of the invasion was Saudi Arabia, which would be cut low by a Free Iraq's busting the OPEC oil cartel. But Big Oil wouldn't let that happen. The neo-cons' scheme ended up an unnoted smear underAmy's alligator boot heels. And we can rule out Big Oil's desire for Iraq's oil as the decisive motive to invade. The last thing the oil industry wanted from Iraq in 2001 was a lot more oil. Neither Saddam's affection for euro currency nor panic over oil supply 'peaking' ruffled the international oil industry. What, then, made Saddam, so easy to hug in the 1980s, unbearable in the 1990s? Saddam had to go, but why? Amy told me they held meetings about it. Beginning just after Bush's Florida 'victory'
