[cia-drugs] The Enemy Within
The Enemy Within Journalists, under fire today by the Bush White House, have been the enemy before by Nat Hentoff January 21st, 2007 3:06 PM I can say, as a matter of first principle, that unauthorized disclosure of classified information [by the press] has actually led to the death of individuals [who would not have been killed] had this information not been inappropriately put into the public domain. Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, New York Daily News, December 1, 2006 What we're really looking at is the criminalization of investigative reporting in this country, and we're on a very slippery slope that we're already starting to slide down. Brian Ross, investigative reporter, ABC News, PEN Press Freedom Petition to Congress, National Press Club, September 28, 2006 The Government's power to censor the press was abolished . . . by the Founding Fathers . . . so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, New York Times Company v. United States (1971), Pentagon Papers case. In the more than half a century I've been a reporter, there has never been as systematic an operation to intimidate and then silence the press as is now taking place under the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales administration. Along with a sharp increase in subpoenas for reporters' notes and telephone records, there are threats of prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917 for reporting such classified information as the president's secret authorization of the National Security Agency's warrantless secret authorization of the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping on us. Adding to the shroud of secrecy, Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department has convinced a number of judges to close down cases before they're heard in a courtroom, lest state secrets concerning national security be revealed by the press to the public. Paul McMasters, the First Amendment Center's ombudsman, makes the necessary point that while the First Amendment protects the press from overt government censorship, it can't fully protect the press from full-time government hostility or part-time citizen apathy. Nor can the First Amendment prevent certain corporate owners of newspapers, radio and television networks, and other media from ordering reporters and editors to give up the information the government wants. Those who refuse are left to find other legal aid, and possibly other jobs. A number of us staunchly pledge that we'll go to prison rather than betray our sources and become agents for the government, but there are always—as some reporters have found out—enough cells to accommodate principled followers of James Madison. It is time to remind the citizenry and Congress—and the press—of a crucial Supreme Court case, decided in wartime, that makes unmistakably clear how and why the First Amendment to the Constitution mandates that there shall [be] no law . . . abridging freedom of speech, or of the press. Usually referred to as the 1971 Pentagon Papers case—in the law books, it's formally known as New York Times Company v. United Sates because the Times, despite enormous pressure from the Nixon administration, decided—after a fierce internal debate at the paper involving the Times' lawyers—to print a more-than-top-secret study commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Stolen by a former Defense Department and RAND Corporation officer, Daniel Ellsberg—a patriotic constitutionalist—the study revealed that vital decisions about the war in Vietnam had been made at the highest levels in ways that deliberately deceived the American people. The Washington Post had also been given a set of the Pentagon Papers, and Attorney General John Mitchell—the Dick Cheney of the Nixon administration—warned the Post's owner, Katharine Graham, that she'd get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if she violated national security in time of war by printing the classified report. Katharine Graham was not intimidated. The Times, however, had hesitated. As noted in Oxford University Press's First Freedoms: A Documentary History of First Amendment Rights in America (2006), the newspaper's [ law firm] warned that publishing classified documents might violate federal espionage laws. At that point, The Village Voice and this columnist silently and unknowingly became a factor in the Times' decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, leading to the subsequent Supreme Court decision. I was then writing what was essentially a press column for the Voice and got a call from someone I knew at the Times. I know you don't run blind items, the person said, but this is very important. Somewhere in your next column, just say that a secret debate is going on at the Times in an undisclosed hotel room. I can't
[cia-drugs] The Enemy Within - The Real Jack Abramoff , Keeny Boy Duhbbya Story
WOW somebody who see's these BASTARDS for what they are "The Enemy Within"May GOD bless your every effort to Preserve our Freedom and LibertyHere HereJudson WithamRoadsEnd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://cherylsealreports.com/endtoendevil.htmlEnd to End Evil:The Real Jack Abramoff StoryBy Cheryl SealBefore the White House, its creepy pals in Congress, and its sell-out cohorts in the media succeed in spinning the Abramoff scandal as a "bipartisan" problem, a few irrefutable facts about Abramoff must driven home. Like so many sleazebags in high places, Abramoff has so far escaped the full public consequences of his despicable actions through a slick little system of trickle, spin, and deny. Trickle, as in the medias focus on a few select aspects of the criminals career. Spin and deny, as in the media allowing said criminal and his supporters to self-righteously spin off or tearfully deny these minimized charges. This system worked for Tom Delay for years! It is only when the evil deeds are laid out end to end that the real picture is allowed to come into focus for the public and hit home with the force it should.Putting together the whole picture is much more difficult than it should be, however. The mainstream media and its subdomains the blowhard rightwing talkshow hosts like Chris Matthews and Brit Hume and phony foundations like the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation are dedicated to making sure that their golden boys are screened from scrutiny and their lies promoted. Thus the coverage of NeoCon criminals is inevitably heavy on the White House propaganda and light on the chronology of facts. I had to search through several sources that included both political blogs and newspapers that still believe in real reporting (Miami Herald, Texas Observer, etc.) to put together the basic facets of the Abramoff case in one place so that they could be laid end to end. And even still, I sense there are still holes in the chronology large enough to drive Reggie the Rig (the GOPs mascot 18-wheeler) through.But heres a crash course Abramoff 101, if you will.Looking at the assembled "pieces," the Abramoff scandal can be divided into five main categories, each being an aspect of this multifaceted and truly evil slimebag. Here they are:1. Abramoff the traitor. As the generic definition of treason is "an effort to undermine a nation's government," then we can safely assign to Jack Abramoff (forthwith JA) his premier title: TRAITOR. Since the early 1980s, JA's primary agenda has been to turn the US government into a one-party system - ie., a rightwing dictatorship. In short, JA has sought to overturn the US government as we know it in order to insure the financial goals of himself and other NeoCons. Here's an Abramoff quote from the 1983 College Republican "manifesto": It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently:While head of the College Republicans (1981-1985), JA turned this organization into a sort of neo-brown shirt outfit, cranking out mean- spirited, unscrupulous powermongers like Karl Rove. The organization was not just mean-spirited, it was corrupt. Years after leaving the position as top dog, Abramoff was raking in kick backs from the CR. In 2002, he received about $10,000 for what was "officially" described as "accounting and legal services." The group laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars to itself through other organizations. The Seattle Times reported "Some of the most prolific donors said they were unaware they had been giving so much money to the group because the fund-raising letters often came under the names of other official-sounding organizations, such as "Republican Headquarters 2004," and led some to believe the money was going to Bush's re-election campaign." Instead, most of the funds went back to a money-laundering outfit called Response Dynamics Inc. (RDI).The goal of all of these intrigues, of course, was to fuel the takeover of the US government at all levels, from the White House to the House of Representatives with rightwing Republicans. There was no "ideology" involved, except as a surface "hook" to reel in the clueless. The only objective was POWER, plain and simple. The issues tossed about by the "new GOP" - issues like "family values," "democracy," and "fiscal responsibility" - were simply phony "promos." lThey were thrown out like bait, just like the plasma TVs or stereo systems offered to lure the gullible to signing onto a rip- off timeshare scheme.Those who say that Abramoff was an "equal opportunity, bipartisan" crook with no such agenda are just as dishonest and intentionally misleading as JA himself. JA has had a partisan agenda from day one. Media Matters reports that "a search of the Center for Responsive Politics database of campaign contributions did not find any contributions from Abramoff to Democrats or Democratic leadership political action
