[CTRL] Fwd: FC: How ISPs know your phone number even if you block caller ID
-Caveat Lector- www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om ---BeginMessage--- -Caveat Lector- Previous Politech message: ATT offers prepaid (anonymous?) Internet service http://www.politechbot.com/p-04833.html --- Subject: RE: ATT offers prepaid (anonymous?) Internet service Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:37:30 -0400 From: Boothby, Colleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CPN (Calling Party Number, formerly ANI) is passed to an IXC even if the calling party blocks her caller ID. Caller ID blocking adds a privacy indicator to the signalling information (or Initial Address Message packet) associated with a call. Both the CPN and the privacy indicator are passed along the chain of carriers to the last carrier on the terminating end of a call. That carrier blocks the CPN from passing to the called party. I seem to be having a Declan festival lately. :-) --- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 08:05:08 -0500 From: Nathan Neulinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: ATT offers prepaid (anonymous?) Internet service If you use t1/isdn-pri at the dialup end, you have access to EVERY callers info, since it is part of the signalling data - regardless of whether they have blocked cid or not. -- Nathan --- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:07:40 -0400 Subject: Re: FC: ATT offers prepaid (anonymous?) Internet service From: George Ellenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Declan, When I worked for an ISP in Orlando (1994 - 1999), our US Robotics/ 3Com Total Control Hubs (which used ISDN PRI Lines to provide v.90 access to end-users); both ANI DNIS information was routinely passed to the RADIUS servers (actually a part of the RADIUS accounting logs) by default. I doubt things have changed in that area in 4 years. -- George Ellenburg --- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:10:56 -0400 From: Robbie Honerkamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: ATT offers prepaid (anonymous?) Internet service Declan McCullagh wrote: [Any reason to think ATT would *not* be recording caller ID information from their prepaid-dialup users? Even in the absence of possible government pressure, it might be useful as an anti-fraud move. Many ISPs already do this. In addition to fraud, being able to record ANI information makes it easier to pinpoint net.abusers (spammers and the ilk) and block them from using the service again under a different credit card, etc. I would say it is almost certain that ATT would record ANI information if for no other reason than as another way to help make spammers' lives more difficult- I think spammers would like the idea of using prepaid Internet cards. There's also the secondary issue of a prepaid ISP possibly recording URLs you visit and the identities of your email correspondents and preserving those logs in case the FBI or a subpoena-happy divorce lawyer comes visiting... Anonymous browsing proxies and using SSL to relay your email to a server that supports TLS gets around this for tech-savvy users (though they probably block port 25, you could use port 465 (SMTP over SSL) or another port if you ran the mail server). Obviously not for the casual user, but if you're going out of your way to be anonymous these are not unusual precautions. Robbie --- Subject: Re: FC: ATT offers prepaid (anonymous?) Internet service From: Marian Szczepkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: JOZEP Pty/Ltd Date: 11 Jun 2003 23:43:42 +1000 In an ericsson exchange the number is available to all exchanges through the call. For ISDN the calling party number IE is generated at the source even if you put in a dummy number blocking of presentation is done in the exchange itself. You want to know who's calling, enable MCT(Malicious Call Trace) in the exchange and leave the handset off for 90 seconds, they get a printout. So yes they have your number, and not after some weird hollywood 30 seconds. So
[CTRL] [THE-DIALECTIC-OF-THE-DIALECTIC] TWO-WAY Conversation with God ... via EPCOT, Florida (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:34:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Party of Citizens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Same Old Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [THE-DIALECTIC-OF-THE-DIALECTIC] TWO-WAY Conversation with God ... via EPCOT, Florida On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Same Old Bob wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Party of Citizens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So he doesn't just chat with you, eh? One thing at a time. First He LECTURES to me through the language of all that is good in the world: This is my Father's world, He shines on all that's fair. In the rustling grass, I hear Him pass. He speaks to me everywhere. In other words It doesn't chat directly with you. The university lecture is very direct. Like God's Lectures, it incorporates features of verbiage, pictures, show-and-tell etc. Rather you intrepret It thru It's creation. Since God is at the top of the Creation Science profession, creativity is His forte. He speaks to us through what He creates. Would you have Him speak through what He doesn't create? That isn't exactly what I meant by conversing. Look at it this way. In some universities you get guys who are at the top of their profession and they walk into a class and lecture and then walk out. The nitty gritty of discussion is left to lesser lights in seminars. I didn't attend the seminar. It is best to avoid the seminars of the religiocrats lest you become spiritually corrupt, ie a liar, like them. Just stick with the LECTURES. Pay close attention to what you are being told in lecture. As 'God' is supposedly omnipresent, I'm waiting for It to bring the seminar to me. The lecture is all around you. See This is my Father's world above. God is at the top of His profession, which is Creation Science. His seminar leaders are bozos and can't create spit. Just ask them to create one UniverCity as a shining city on a hill to compete with the pagan gods of Mount Burnaby, http://www.UniverCity.ca. What's your beef with Burnaby? You're not 'God', POC, but you seem to confused yourself with It. What is the confusion? God is God. POC is POC. So why should He engage in a more detailed dialogue with them? I'm not interested in reading the book. Books are often written by ghost writers. God speaks to us through books too...GOOD books. Praise God from whom all blessings flow. ALL blessings, ie all that is good. As 'God' is supposedly omnipresent, I'm waiting for It to give me scoop firsthand. admittedly I'm hardheaded limited. But you are pretty honest in your ignorance so there is hope for you, unlike the religiocrats, filled with vanity and self-righteousness. Who said, MANY would come to Him and say, Lord, Lord and He will reply, I knew you not? Maybe It will have to give me scoop more than once for me to understand / be willing to stand under. You are on the right track. Quaecumque Vera (motto of U of A)...Whatsoever Things Be True. Churchocrats HATE TRUTH and Jesus Christ who is TRUTH PERSONIFIED. Re 'standing under', I don't want to be fooled by demon. Ergo, stay away from churchocrats who are demon possessed. If presence isn't 'good', presence isn't god I want to stand under. Bull's eye. Goodness is the EXCLUSIVE property of God and all those on whom He confers it. St Luke said of Jesus Christ (He) went about doing good. __ is a good feature because _ would tell us all about that shining city on a hill, UniverCity if you will, and answer the question, What would Jesus build? But religiocrats like the CHP hate the very idea of spelling out a Culture of God even while they trash so-called pagan cultures to transform them into the evil which they represent. They are lucky He doesn't decide to cancel His lectures for them altogether. You still seem confused re YOUR IDENTITY vs Its Identity. Not at all. What is the exact point of confusion? Some day of course He will in that the Division Bell will ring and many who are first will be last and the last will be first. Did It tell you that or did you just read that in a book? God speaks through books too. If you meet a person who cannot use words or chooses not to use words, He may give you type or print in a book. I'm only so interested in what men / ghost writers wrote in book. The whole God told me to tell you shtick doesn't make sense to me. I gotta shtick You gotta shtick All O' God's chillun gotta shtick. When I get to heaven, gonna give up that shtick, Cause there aint no shticks in God's heaven. Sung to the tune of I Gotta Harp Omnipresent omniscient omnipotent 'God' should be able to converse
[CTRL] U.S. Gets War Crimes Tribunal Exemption
-Caveat Lector- Isn't asking for an exemption recognizing the court's jurisdiction? And what about American non-peacekeepers, e.g. we civilians. Couldn't individuals be prosecuted under the ridiculous definition of "genocide" and/or the non-defined "crimes against humanity"? http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/ap/o/1110/6-12-2003/2003061216_081.html http://news.findlaw.com Thursday, June 12, 2003 U.S. Gets War Crimes Tribunal Exemption UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal. France, Germany and Syria abstained, apparently ignoring a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent - which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the International Criminal Court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping." The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court. France and Germany, both members of the European Union, were in the forefront of opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq. Last week, the United States warned the EU that its criticism over the exemption request was putting more strains on trans-Atlantic relations. But during an open Security Council debate before the vote, Greece's U.N. ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation bloc, put the United States on notice that "automatic renewal would be undermining to the letter and the spirit of the Rome Treaty and its fundamental purpose." All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves. The court got another boost Wednesday when China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said his country was "positively considering" ratifying the Rome Treaty. Beijing was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute but in the last four years has taken a more positive attitude. "China's change reflects a growing support worldwide for the ICC and international justice," said William Pace, who heads the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal. Then President Clinton's administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature. Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. During Thursday's debate, Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker appealed to the council to keep the exemption from becoming permanent and emphasized that "the ICC is not a court for frivolous prosecutions." He noted safeguards put in the treaty at U.S. request to ensure that such prosecutions will be screened out. Last July, the council unanimously approved a one-year exemption. Seeking to avoid a replay of last year's confrontation, Washington on Monday asked for a quick vote on its resolution. But non-council nations asked for - and got - an open council meeting before the vote. During last year's battle, the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations - from Afghanistan and the Mideast to Bosnia and Sierra
[CTRL] Cheney Impeachable For Ordering Intel Frauds
-Caveat Lector- http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2003/030607impch_cheney.html LAROUCHE SAYS CHARGES AGAINST CHENEY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT This statement was released on June 7 by the LaRouche in 2004 Presidential candidate's committee. In the midst of a growing mountain of evidence that Vice President Dick Cheney led a battery of senior Bush Administration officials, in repeatedly using what was known to be a forged document from a foreign government to corral Congressional and public support for the Iraq War, Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche issued a sharply worded statement insisting on a full investigation documenting exactly what Vice President Cheney knew, when he knew it, and precisely what he did contrary to what he knew to be the truth. The charges against Cheney are centered on the fact that the Vice President repeatedly used documents, allegedly from the government of Niger, purporting to show Iraqi government efforts to purchase large quantities of uranium precursor, "yellow cake" from that African nation, long after he learned that the documents were forged. On June 2, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to President George W. Bush, demanding a full explanation from the Administration, as to why senior Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the President himself "cited forged evidence about Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear materials." In a statement released through his national spokeswoman, Debra Hanania-Freeman, LaRouche was quoted as saying, "Let there be no mistake about it. The nature of these charges constitute hard grounds for impeachment. The question has to be taken head on. It is time for Dick Cheney to come clean. I want to know exactly what Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it. The charges are grave and specific and leave no wiggle room. Determining who knew what and when is, at this time, an urgent matter of national security." Freeman, citing LaRouche's own track record in challenging the avalanche of disinformation and "spun" intelligence products thrown up by the Straussian neo-conservative network inside the Bush Administration, to launch the recent war against Iraq, said that LaRouche was uniquely positioned to hold not only the Administration itself, but also the other Democratic Presidential candidates accountable for their uncritical endorsement of what amounts to an ongoing fraud against the Congress and the American people. She said that the chronology of events documented in the Waxman letter, indicates that Vice President Cheney was among the first Administration officials to be informed that the Niger documents were forgeries, and that he nevertheless continued to assert the Niger-Iraq uranium story as fact. "This kind of witting, repeated fraud against the Congress and the people of the United States represents a crime of the highest order. And, as such, I can tell you that Mr. LaRouche will see to it that a determination is made and made quickly, and that he will not back off until appropriate and severe action against those perpetrating this fraud is taken." (SEE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS OF INTELLIGENCE FRAUD) www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] How International Bankers Gained Control Of America
-Caveat Lector- http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=843 How International Bankers Gained Control of America" >From a Video Script Produced by Patrick S. J. Carmack Directed by Bill Still Royalty Production Company 1998 [QUOTE] One month after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the first shots of the American Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12,1861. ... Certainly slavery was a cause for the Civil War, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the economy of the South depended upon slavery and so (before the Civil War) he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his inaugural address only one month earlier: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Even after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln continued to insist that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery: "My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew ncreasingly angry. But there were other factors at work. ... The central bankers now saw an pportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation - t divide and conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let's look at what a well placed observer of the scene had to say at time. This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in 1876, he is quoted as saying: "It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty," Bismarck declared, "that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world." Within months after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France (the nephew of the Waterloo Napoleon) 210 million francs to seize Mexico and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking advantage of the Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule. No matter what the outcome of the Civil War, it was hoped that a war-weakened America, heavily indebted to the Money Changers, would open up Central and South America once again to European colonization and domination. At the same time, Great Britain moved 11,000 troops into Canada and positioned them along America's northern border. The British fleet went on war alert should their quick intervention be called for. Lincoln knew he was in a bind. He agonized over the fate of the Union. There was a lot more to it than just differences between the North and the South. That's why his emphasis was always on "Union" and not merely the defeat of the South. But Lincoln needed money to win. In 1861, Lincoln and his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, went to New York to apply for the necessary war loans. The Money Changers, anxious to maximize their war profits, only offered loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln said thanks, but no thanks, and returned to Washington. He sent for an old friend, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, and put him onto the problem off financing the War. At one particular meeting, Lincoln asked Taylor how else to finance the war. Taylor put it this way: "Why, Lincoln, that is easy; just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also." When Lincoln asked if the people of the United States would accept the notes, Taylor said: "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money ... the stamp of full legal tender by the Government is the thing that makes money good any time, and this will always be as good as any other money inside the borders of our country. " So that's exactly what Lincoln did. From 1862 to 1865, with Congressional authorization, he printed up $432,000,000 of the new bills. In order to distinguish them from private bank notes in
[CTRL] War Revisionism!
-Caveat Lector- http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-revisionism.html War Revisionism! by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. For those of us skeptical of all war, there was nothing really new in the latest Iraq fiasco. The government was lying (of course), the true motives were hidden (of course), it has created a disaster (of course), it ended up spreading death and misery (of course), and it was and is enormously costly (of course). All of this could be known in advance by anyone following the history of US wars. It's the same pattern, repeated again and again. War isn't nation building; its nation destroying. It vanquishes both the defeated and the defeating power because it chokes off the liberty that is the source of civilization. The lie is the father of war: the lie that because the state smashes and kills, the killers and smashers are mystically protected against the demands of justice; the lie that the war is moral and right because their state is diabolical and ours is angelic; the lie that the opposing government is an imminent threat that must be smashed, whereas, as Justin Raimondo points out, "in retrospect, the events that have impelled us to war have turned out, in every case, to be elaborate hoaxes." The major task of any war historian, then, is to cut through the lies and tell what's true. The historians who do this are called war revisionists because they do not accept the dominant line of those who prosecuted the war. Taking the revisionist line usually lands you among marginal voices and assures that you will be dismissed as a crank from the fever swamps. There are exceptions to the rule. After World War I, war revisionism had a huge run. The war was supported by the public after the US entered it, and the familiar sight of war hysteria was everywhere in evidence as people cheered the jailing of dissenters, renamed consumer products, and held hate sessions against the foe. After, however, the nation found itself shocked at the sheer destruction and expense, and especially the failure of the Wilson administration to provide a clear-headed rationale for why the US went to war in the first place. Slogans like "Make the World Safe for Democracy" or "the War To End All Wars" turned out to be elaborate hoaxes, and the search was on to find out who profited from the war and how. There were investigations, books, recriminations, and political fallout that doomed Wilson's League of Nations. This national attitude was called "War Guilt" back then, as if it were propelled by a psychological state instead of an examination of the facts. In the 1970s, the sense that the recent war was a grave error was called "the Vietnam Syndrome," as if doubting the merit of the war were a sickness that you catch. To those of us who opposed the latest war, it was obvious that this time was no different. The official rationale that Saddam was hiding WMDs and we had to dislodge him in order to prevent him from using them in the region and against Americans was nonsense. We knew this was merely an excuse at best because of the utter hypocrisy of the charge: no government in the world owns as many WMDs as the US. We all knew there were other reasons including Bush's personal hatred of his father's nemesis, the ambitions of US oil producers and their officials, the demands of allies in the region including Saudi Arabia and Israel, and much more. However, as with Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, the first Gulf War, as well as Vietnam and Korea, we were all ready to live the rest of our lives with the knowledge that this war was unnecessary and essentially a racket, but also to recognize the likelihood that our critique would never go mainstream. The power of the received line is so strong that it can easily outpace the truth in matters of war. And yet, what is unfolding before our eyes? A war revisionism unlike anything seen in 80 years. Every day the nation's newspapers and magazines are covered with articles reassessing why the US went to war, what the Bush administration knew and when it knew it, and what to do about it now. Today includes the following from Paul Krugman in the NYT: The Bush administration's determination to see what it wanted to see led not just to a gross exaggeration of the threat Iraq posed, but to a severe underestimation of the problems of postwar occupation. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, warned that occupying Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers for an extended period, Paul Wolfowitz said he was "wildly off the mark" and the secretary of the Army may have been fired for backing up the general. Now a force of 150,000 is stretched thin, facing increasingly frequent guerrilla attacks, and a senior officer told The Washington Post that it might be two years before an Iraqi government takes over. The Independent reports that British military chiefs are resisting calls to send more forces, fearing being "sucked into a quagmire." I'll tell you
[CTRL] Ron Paul on An Appointed Congress?
-Caveat Lector- http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul68.html An Appointed Congress? Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) June 12, 2003 The privately funded and privately constituted "Continuity of Government Commission" has recently proposed that, for the first time in our nation's history, we should allow the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only does this proposal fail to comport with the intention of the founders of this nation, but even worse, it advocates a solution that has been repeatedly rejected by this body. The report of this so-called "Commission" makes clear that while the Senate has, from time to time, voted to pass constitutional amendments allowing for the appointment of House members, this body has always jealously guarded its status as "the people's House" by failing to pass such amendments. A brief history review may be in order at this point. First, our Nation has been under attack from foreign powers in the past, such as in its nascent years when the British were constantly "coming." In our own century, we faced an attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, because we have learned that our Capitol was a potential target in a terror plot, there is an outcry from some corners regarding our vulnerability. Our government leaders are no more vulnerable today to mass extinction than they were 20 years ago. Our top-flight military makes us, in many ways, less vulnerable to attack and the assassination of our leaders than we were 200 years ago. Even if we were to sustain such a devastating attack, the nightmare scenario painted in the first report of the "commission" is not only far-fetched, but also admits of a plethora of potential solutions already existent in our current constitutional structure. Though the report endeavors to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those structures, it is unsuccessful. Moreover, what could be more offensive to our republican form of government and of more questionable legitimacy, than to have a slew of un-elected "representatives" outvote elected people on the floor of our U.S. House? Let's face it: we can scare people and doom-say anytime we wish, but it would only be in the case of a near-complete annihilation that our government would fail to function. In such an instance there is no "system'' that will preserve our government. On the other hand, if we surrender the right to elect people to the U.S. House of Representatives under any circumstances, we will be on a slippery slope away from the few remaining vestiges and most precious principles of the government left to us by our founders. In the event that this "proposal" gets more serious and is given long-term attention, I will place in the record more detailed statements defending the notion of an all-elected House of Representatives, and explaining the fallacies and illogic found in this report. For now, I simply wish to go on record as among those who would fight to the last to preserve the principle of a House of Representatives consisting entirely of members elected by the people. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Did an Israeli Bomb the Jerusalem Bus?
-Caveat Lector- THE HOFFMAN WIRE Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html June 12 Did an Israeli Bomb the Jerusalem Bus? Editor's Note: The bomber who blew up a bus yesterday in Jerusalem is described as having been "dressed" like an Orthodox Jew. The media have rushed past this intriguing datum to proclaim, with their customary omniscience, that the bomber was actually a Palestinian member of the Hamas resistance. At best, this rush to judgement represents sloppy journalism. Any investigative reporter worthy of the name would first proceed from the bald facts: a religious Jewish man seemingly bombed an Israeli bus. If that is not the case, then reporters need to make an alternate case, not merely "proclaim" an identity for the bomber that flies in the face of the obvious and expect us to accept it on faith. The Israelis represent the synthesis of all the knowledge of the western secret societies. To report any skullduggery in their theatre it is necessary to analyze with profound depth and ask difficult, probing questions. For example, how is it that the Palestinian head of security for Mahmoud Abbas, the Quisling selected by Bush to enforce his "Road Map," is in fact a CIA agent trained by George Tenet? Furthermore, it is a matter of record that Hamas was founded by the Israeli government. While Palestinian rage against the Israeli occupation is real, the direction in which that rage is carefully shepherded and manipulated is shrouded in the mists of the Cryptocracy. Researcher James Sanchez initiates an inquiry along these lines. Was the Bus Bombing in Jerusalem Actually Committed by an Israeli? "There is no reason to believe that a bomber dressed as an ultra-Orthodox Jew on a Jews-only bus was anything other than a Jew.." by James Joseph Sanchez The June 11 suicide bombing in Jerusalem is described as having been perpetrated by a "suicide bomber dressed in the black-and-white garb of a devout Jew". It is worth noting that all other casualties on the bus and in the immediate area -- 16 dead and approximately 100 Israeli wounded -- are Jews. This is important to note since Israel's policy of racial discrimination restricts access to the majority of these Jerusalem buses to Jews only. The most reasonable conclusion is that the suicide bomber was an ultra-Orthodox Jewish settler. The "black-and-white garb of a devout Jew" is simply the Judaic dress of an Orthodox Jew and does not indicate being devout. Indeed, it is among Orthodox Jews that the Kach, Eyal, Kahane Chai and other Jewish terror cults find their members. It should be remembered that Baruch Goldstein, the Hebron mass murderer, was an Orthodox Jew. Significantly, he saw the massacre of Palestinians at prayer as an act of faith. Several years ago, after a wave of Hamas bombings in Israel, the Israeli and European media reported that the explosives used in those bombings had been supplied by ultra-Orthodox Jewish settlers who owned a quarry inside Israel. Explosives are used in quarries and so the Jewish radicals were able to procure explosives that they passed onto the Palestinian radicals inside Israel. Both shared the goal of defeating the peace talks, such as they were. This Kach-Hamas connection was never reported in the American media. Historically, the Israeli government itself has used terrorist attacks to stampede Jews to Israel, most famously in a campaign of bombings of Iraqi Jewish synagogues to terrorize Iraqi Jews into emigrating to Israel. Similarly, mere terroristic threats secretly made by the Jewish Agency stampeded the Cochini Jews of southern India to Israel. Other terrorist incidents, like the Israeli bombing of the American Embassy in Cairo to try to damage US-Egyptian relations in the 1950s, the attack onthe USS Liberty in 1967, and the use of the Jewish Defense League to stage terrorist attack in the United States (Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, etc.) in 1970s and 1980s illustrate the same general principle. There is no reason to believe a bomber dressed as an ultra-Orthodox Jew on a Jews-only bus was anything other than a Jew, and probably a Jewish settler. This should make even more clear the depth of the present dilemma. Those most threatened by change in the status quo in Palestine are the Israeli settlers. Under international law every Israeli settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal and must be dismantled. And yet, moving freely within the system of security set up to protect Jews, Israeli terrorists from precisely these settlements can stage suicide bombings at will. It is in the interest of no Jewish government to confront this ugly truth. Pretending Jewish terrorist attacks are really Palestinian terrorist attacks has obvious short-term political benefits for any Israeli political
[CTRL] Michael Chertoff: Spreading Mischief from DOJ to the Federal Bench
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/ Thursday, June 12, 2003 Michael Chertoff: Spreading Mischief from DOJ to the Federal Bench I have been watching John Ashcroft so long that it is getting to be a little boring. Promising to use all available means to fight terrorism, prosecuting every violation of law to the fullest extent of the law, desperately wanting the death penalty for every possible offense, and, according to his remarks last week before the Senate Judiciary committee, wanting laws changed to impose the death penalty for even more offenses. Ashcroft changes law and procedure by signing Executive Orders, and yes, he can get away with that unless a court stops him. So far, no court has. Some congressional members, damn few, express mild dismay at his tactics, such as locking up resident aliens after 9/11 and holding some of them for months without access to family or lawyers (or charges), then deporting many on the most technical visa violations (some of them the fault of INS, over which he has authority). It never endsthe Ashcroft watch. It only gets worse, and more frightening. But now I have a new gremlin to watch, someone who is as intent on undermining the law and Constitution as Ashcroft. I am referring to the man behind the criminal prosecution of terrorists, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, former chief of the Justice Departments criminal division, was appointed asjudge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Whats so scary about Michael? Well, besides having no judicial experience and being a right-ring radical who does not believe in the Constitution and wants to rewrite federal law and rules of procedure on an ad hoc, case by case basis, as it suits him, nothing I guess. A good place to look for Chertoff's legal philosophy is in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, now taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia. Chertoff is not the prosecutor of course, Paul McNulty of the Eastern District is. But Chertoff isMcNultys boss and he is calling the shots. So Chertoff argued the governments case in the super secret hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week. The government is trying to block trial judge Leonie Brinkemas ruling that Moussaoui and his lawyers have access to the governments star witnesses against him. The government has refused and appealed. Judge Brinkema, who still believes in the Constitution, rightly ruled that to deny Moussaoui that access is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Brinkema indicates that she will not be a party to making exceptions to the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. She, in effect, suggests that maybe Justice better take Moussaoui to Guantanamo and try him there in secret, in the military tribunals they set up. Easy there to not only try him, but convict him, and execute him. So why is the government insisting on keeping him in federal court? I have the answer, and it lies in Chertoff. Chertoffs goal, I believe, and the goal of Ashcroft and Bush in supporting this prosecution in federal court, is to subject federal trials, as they see fit, to ad hoc exemptions of whatever laws (be they constitutional, criminal code, or rules of procedure) that will suit their purposes. Their grand scheme is to ultimately cripple and dismantle the federal courts as we know them, one brick at a time. Support for this theory of mine includes their prosecution of attorney Lynne Stewart, for, in effect, zealously representing her client, andrules created by Ashcroft that subject attorneys and their clients to surveillance, be they under secret wiretaps issues by the secret FISA court or monitoring of all contacts in prison settings. These procedures came about by fiat from Ashcroft. They make any attorney who represents someone charged with an act of terrorism (and a terrorist crime is one defined by Bush and Ashcroftthat is an ad hoc determination, as well) suspicious and possibly a terrorist. The Moussaoui case has many examples of legal changes. Moussaoui and even his attorneys (!) cannot receive all documents related to the case, because of national security interests. Witnesses may appear in court behind screens (!) so that they cannot be seen. And, the Fourth Circuit hearing last week was closedclosedfor the first time in history. Under Ashcroft we have had secret warrants (or no warrants), secret hearings denying bail, secret trials, and now secret appellate court arguments. Next, we can expect the Supreme Court to be closed, cant we? The 4th Circuit hearing was close to all but those screened and approved by the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA. The judge presiding over the hearing told the security official to jump up if any attorney arguing the case said anything that would jeopardize national securityso that the room could be cleared! Then, as will happen in a trial, the government can
[CTRL] MRC Alert Extra: David Brinkley, RIP; Saw Liberal Bias Denounced Clinton (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible,with liberty and justice for all. visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto: http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:13:30 -0700 From: Media Research Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MRC Alert Extra: David Brinkley, RIP; Saw Liberal Bias Denounced Clinton ***Media Research Center CyberAlert Extra*** 4:10pm EDT, Thursday June 12, 2003 (Vol. Eight; No. 113) The 1,520th CyberAlert. Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996 David Brinkley Passes Way; In Later Years He Saw Liberal Bias, Denounced a Loaded Paula Zahn Question and Called Bill Clinton a Bore Who Spouts Nonsense Distributed to more than 14,000 subscribers by the Media Research Center, bringing political balance to the news media since 1987. The MRC is the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias. Visit the MRC on the Web: http://www.mediaresearch.org. CyberAlerts from this year are at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/welcome.asp For 2002: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/archive02.asp Subscribe/unsubscribe information, as well as a link to the MRC donations page, are at the end of this message. When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030612_extra.asp Editor's Note: David Brinkley, who passed away in Houston today at age 82, was probably a pretty conventional liberal during much of his career with NBC News and later with ABC News (in an April 10, 1988 Washington Post Magazine profile he revealed: If I had to pick the best Presidents in my lifetime, I would of course pick Roosevelt and Kennedy, and I would also pick Harry Truman), but in his latter years his more cantankerous side came out as he: 1) Conceded the media do have a liberal bias and denounced a liberal question from Paula Zahn: That is so loaded, it's overloaded and it destroys itself in its own excess. Nobody would ever take that question seriously. 2) On election night 1996, chided Bill Clinton, charging he has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore and will always be a bore. Just after President Clinton's victory speech, Brinkley, who thought he was off the air, bemoaned having to look forward to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection. More goddamn nonsense. 1) From the January 1996 MediaWatch, a since-ended publication of the MRC: Paula Zahn is Overloaded Brinkley Agrees Media are Liberal In a December 7 [1995] appearance on CNBC's Cal Thomas, David Brinkley reacted with dismay when read a quote from the MRC's Best Notable Quotables of 1995: The Eighth Annual Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting. Thomas, one of the judges who voted on which quotes deserved inclusion in the year-end issue, asked: Could you get away, for example, with asking a question like this, that was recently asked by a major network anchor of Pat Buchanan...'You've got political enemies out there calling you an isolationist, a bigot, you're anti-gay, and some even go so far as saying your social stands are reminiscent of Nazi Germany.' Now that's the kind of ideologically loaded stuff that turns a lot of people off, isn't it? Brinkley agreed: That is so loaded, it's overloaded and it destroys itself in its own excess. Nobody would ever take that question seriously, I wouldn't even bother to answer it. Though Brinkley didn't know it, the quote, first runner-up for the Damn Those Conservatives Award, came from Paula Zahn's July 5 [1995] CBS This Morning interview. Earlier in the show the former NBC anchor and current This Week host acknowledged liberal bias. Well, it's there and it doesn't show itself in everything that is printed or broadcast but it is there, and I think we're all used to it, we discount it. Some of the press also is more conservative and it's just the way the action is in this country and I don't know any way to change it. You just have to live with it. END Reprint of MediaWatch article (Zahn is now with CNN and will soon return to the air as anchor of the 7-9pm EDT time slot.) 2) From the November 7, 1996 CyberAlert: Networks reporters regularly referred to Bob Dole's harsh rhetoric and media professional didn't complain. But in Thursday's newspapers you may be reading about a critical comment about Clinton that David Brinkley uttered. At the very end of ABC's broadcast, just before 1am ET, Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts, Jeff Greenfield, Lynn Sherr, and Hal Bruno stood by the anchor desk where Peter Jennings and Brinkley sat. Jennings asked Brinkley for a final
[CTRL] Israel's Feeding Frenzy At $3 Trillion
-Caveat Lector- http://www.mediamonitors.net/index.html Israel's Feeding Frenzy at $3 Trillion by William Hughes Recently, I attended an advanced computer skills class at a local community college. I was shocked to find out that we had to meet in an overcrowded WWII-type trailer, that served as an annex to the institutions main facility. As a result of severe legislative under-funding, this school, and many others, are pressing into service these relics of a bygone era. Meanwhile, my daily paper, the Baltimore Sun, has been filled with horror stories relating to the deepening fiscal crises affecting the nation, Baltimore City, its surrounding counties and the state of Maryland. Budget cuts and layoffs dominate the news, as the unemployment rate continues to soar. Teachers and police department personnel are also protesting over denial of promised raises. The governor of Maryland has predicted that unless Medicaid cost are reined in, they could bankrupt the state. Nationally, the U.S. debt is at a staggering $6.1 trillion and last years deficit alone was $158 billion and rising. On the global front, a UN agency, the International Labor Organization, reported, Half the world lives on less than $2 a day, and of that total, a billion people survive on $1 a day. This week, I began reading the June, 2003 edition of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) magazine. An article titled The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $ 3 Trillion caught my eye. Its author is the distinguished economist, Thomas R. Stauffer, who has taught at both Harvard U. and the Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service. Stauffers research is a damning indictment of the outrageously expensive U.S. relationship with Israel, since the post WWII period. The $3 trillion cost to the taxpayers, measured in 2002 dollars, is almost four times greater than the cost of the Vietnam War, also reckoned in 2002 dollars. Even this figure underestimates the costs because certain classes of expenditure remain un-quantified . . . in the interest of national security. In his excellent overview, Stauffer underscores the financial outlays in seven different categories, running from Political or Military Crises to Contingent Costs. He emphasized how the draconian costs arent limited to financial outlays alone. U.S. aid to Israel also costs some 275,000 American jobs each year. Now, theres a statistic that four of the most egregious cheerleaders for Zionist Israel; Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Arlen Magic Bullet Specter (R-PA), Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), and Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), should be forced to explain to their constituents. According to Stauffer, Israels 1973 War proved to be dear. At a minimum, it cost the U.S. between $750 billion and $1 trillion, he wrote. This was the price tag for the rescue of Israel when President Richard Nixon agreed to re-supply Israel with U.S. arms as it was losing the war against its neighbors. Washingtons intervention, Stauffer continued, triggered the Arab oil embargo which cost the U.S. doubly: first, due to the oil shortfall, the U.S. lost about $300 billion to $600 billion in GDP; and second, the U.S. was saddled with another $450 billion in higher oil import costs . . . The 1973 War illustrated the new dimension of Middle East conflicts, where the burdens are economic rather than military. Stauffer expects the extreme right wing Tel Aviv regime of Ariel Sharon to shake U.S. taxpayers down this year, for more aid-$4 billion in extra military support and a further $10 billion in loan guarantees, over and above the current level of appropriated aid. Meanwhile, Israels illegal and brutal occupation continues to generate cycles of violence that fall heaviest on the 3.5 million Palestinian civilians, who are trapped under barbaric conditions of confinement that cry out to heaven for relief. When President George W. Bush mildly rebuked Israel for its extra judicial killings policy, which involved an attempted assassination of a supposed Hamas leader, a hard line U.S.-based Zionist, one Morton Klein, called Bushs reaction really appalling. Kleins reply reeks of monumental ingratitude. It also couldnt be more wrong. The president deserves credit for trying to move this controversial process along, especially in light of the fact that Sharons Defense Minister, the super hawkish Shaul Mofaz, is looking to expel PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat (NY Post, 06/11/03). What IS really appalling is how America is being used by the Zionists. Soon after the President announced his modest Road Map peace plan, 40,000 angry Jewish settlers denounced it at a Jerusalem rally. This one sided relationship has also created totally unnecessary enemies for the U.S. in the Islamic World. In addition to bringing only misery to the Palestinians, it has also sullied Americas name and reputation as a Republic, created political unrest throughout the Middle East, and even contributed
[CTRL] KY clergy 25.7M, Toulouse abuse, RA, clergy data base, log. fallacies,countersue
-Caveat Lector- also has Ashcroft Sides with Torturers Unocal and the Crimes of Burma Death by Torture in Uzbekistan Continues Guantanamo camp works on execution plans Kennedy's killer demands retrial - Sirhan Sirhan claims he was a victim of hypnotic programming Pinter blasts 'Nazi America' and 'deluded idiot' Blair scroll for news articles Ky. Church Suit Settles for $25.7 M by Mike Torralba AP LOUISVILLE, Ky. 6/11/03 - "One of the largest collections of civil actions against the Roman Catholic church came to a close when the Archdiocese of Louisville agreed to pay $25.7 million to 243 people who accused priests and employees of child sexual abuse." from AOL France laps up tale of sex and politics "The French public has been treated to almost daily updates from Toulouse, where convicted serial killer Patrice Alegre is making sensational allegations of collusion against French officials. His targets include a chief prosecutor, politician, judge and policeman. The charges are that the senior city officials not only covered up for the murderer, who says he organised sado-masochistic orgies for them, but that they even ordered some of his killings to protect themselves from blackmail. Alegre's allegations are backed up by two prostitutes, known as Patricia and Fanny." http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,193750,00.html? several from mparent May be very heavy for survivors Boy, 17, 'cut out woman's heart to be a vampire' By Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent 6/17/02 A teenager who wanted to be a vampire cut out the heart of an elderly woman and drank her blood during a ritual killing, a court heard yesterday." http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=315701 Data Base of Alleged California Priest abusers http://www.kbla.com/CA_priest_sheet.pdf Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 18 Types Kenneth S. Pope, Ph.D., ABPP Here are 18 logical fallacies. We've all probably fallen for them -- and perhaps used them -- from time to time. Articles in other sections of this web site examine logical fallacies in more detail (e.g., the affirming the consequent fallacy discussed in the "Science As Careful Questioning" American Psychologist article; the ad hominem fallacy discussed in the "Pseudoscience, Cross-examination, Scientific Evidence" Psychology, Public Policy, Law article)The fallacies are ad hominem, affirming the consequent, appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantium), argument to logic (argumentum as logicam), begging the question (petitio principii), composition fallacy, denying the antecedent, disjunctive fallacy, division fallacy, false analogy, false dilemma, golden mean fallacy, mistaking deductive validity for truth, naturalistic fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), red herring, straw person, and you too (tu quoque)." http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php Abuse response rapped - A London woman says she was outraged the RC Diocese of London countersued her son. Peter Geigen-Miller, Free Press Reporter 6/11/03 "A London woman testified yesterday she was outraged when she learned the Roman Catholic Diocese of London had launched a counterclaim against her son as part of a sexual abuse lawsuit. Donna Swales took the stand for the second day during the civil trial in which her family and three sons, John, Ed and Guy, are seeking $7 million in damages from the London diocese and former London priest Barry Glendinning." "Glendinning pleaded guilty in 1974 to sexual abuse. The diocese denies negligence. The counterclaim by the diocese says John Swales, one of the victims of the priest's abuse, sexually, physically and emotionally abused his siblings." http://www.canoe.com/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2003/06/11/108282.html Ashcroft Sides with Torturers Unocal and the Crimes of Burma By JOANNE MARINER 6/7/03 The plaintiffs in the Unocal case are Burmese villagers who claim that they were subjected to forced labor, murder, rape, and torture during the construction of a gas pipeline through their country. Soldiers allegedly committed these abuses while providing security and other services for the pipeline project. http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner06072003.html Death by Torture in Uzbekistan Continues; "Substantial and Continuing Progress" a Fiction, Says Helsinki Commission 6/9/03 WASHINGTON, June 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- United States Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.) today reacted with outrage after learning of the latest torture victims who died while in custody in Uzbekistan. "I am appalled to learn of not one, but two more deaths-in-custody in Uzbekistan," said Smith. "Orif Ershanov and Otamaza Gafaro are the most recent individuals to join a long and growing list of those who have died after reportedly being tortured at the hands of Uzbek authorities."-- March 12, 2002: U.S. and Uzbek officials sign "Declaration on the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Framework between the
[CTRL] Feds: No Wrongdoing in Test Prep for Airport Screeners
-Caveat Lector- The TSA said there was no wrongdoing because "training was conducted as prescribed by TSA curriculum guidelines," Maybe there is something wrong with the guidelines? - JR http://www.newsday.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=ny-ustsa113327928jun11section=%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation Feds: No Wrongdoing in Test Prep for Airport Screeners By Thomas Frank.WASHINGTON BUREAUJune 11, 2003Washington -- The federal Transportation Security Administration has concluded there was no wrongdoing when airport screeners were given almost all the questions in advance to an exam certifying them to operate bomb-detection machines last year.The TSA launched an internal investigation as a result of Newsday stories saying screeners were read questions and answers before taking an exam to show they knew how to operate machines that detect bombs in luggage. Screeners around the country said they were read questions, often verbatim, and told answers at the end of a week of classroom training in December.The TSA investigation, concluded last month, found that "22 of the 25 questions on the final exam were also on the lesson quizzes" given during the training week.The investigation also found that 24 of 40 screeners interviewed randomly at five airports, including LaGuardia and Kennedy, said "their review questions and answers were identical to the final exam questions."The other 16 screeners said the review questions were "very similar" to those on the final.Seattle-based Advanced Interactive Systems trained a total of 21,500 screeners to operate bomb-detection machines.The TSA said there was no wrongdoing because "training was conducted as prescribed by TSA curriculum guidelines," according to a letter from TSA Administrator James Loy to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who sought the probe.TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield said reading questions during training "is based on standard teaching and testing practice."But Schumer criticized the TSA training and investigation. "We want to see if people have learned from what they were taught. Giving them answers ahead of time doesn't solve any problems," Schumer said. "We wouldn't do this for a kid passing high school math, and this is a more serious test than that."A security screener at LaGuardia, who said his instructor read questions and answers just before giving the exam, called the TSA finding "absurd.""How can the TSA turn around and say that by giving the screeners the answers to the exam, that this training is right?" said the screener, who asked not be named fearing retaliation.Screeners and instructors said they were under pressure to make sure everyone passed the exam. The TSA was racing to meet a Dec. 31 deadline - which many experts called unrealistic - to scan all luggage for bombs using newly installed machines.The week of classroom training was broken into five lessons. Each concluded with a five-question open-book quiz, the TSA probe found.Hatfield, the TSA spokesman, said, "The final test was made up of questions from the quizzes." He added, "It wasn't some out-of-the- ordinary process."Officials familiar with public-sector testing said reading questions before an exam is unusual."You can't give a question to them two days earlier along with an answer and then give them the same question on a test and call it a test, because all it is, is regurgitation and repetition," said Lt. Deb Schroder, who runs instructional services at the California Highway Patrol Academy.Ed Hartin, president of the Northwest Association of Fire Trainers, said, "To solely train them to respond by rote memory might not be the most effective way." Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Ashcroft pushing PATRIOT II, Bush hesitating
-Caveat Lector- http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=BUSH-ASHCROFT-06-12-03cat=WW Ashcroft pushing PATRIOT II, Bush hesitating By BILL STRAUB Scripps Howard News Service June 12, 2003 WASHINGTON - Attorney General John Ashcroft is pushing for enhanced law enforcement powers to conduct the nation's ongoing war on terrorism, but the White House is taking a cautious route in the face of some public and congressional reservations. Ashcroft, the moving force behind the USA-PATRIOT Act, said the law he credited with helping to "save innocent lives" nonetheless contains "several weaknesses which terrorists could exploit, undermining our defenses." With that in mind, the Justice Department continues to work on what is popularly referred to as PATRIOT II, which would further broaden law enforcement's mandate. Ashcroft already is publicly lobbying for three changes - making it unlawful to fight for a designated terrorist organization, imposing the death penalty for various terrorist actions and extending pre-trial detention for those arrested for terrorism-related offenses. Several members of Congress, including Republicans like Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have expressed concerns about providing law enforcement with much more authority, raising questions about civil liberties. "I believe the (Justice) Department and Congress must be vigilant toward short-term gains which ultimately may cause long-term harm to the spirit of liberty and equality which animate the American character," Sensenbrenner said. Now the White House is sending signals that it prefers a slow approach to dealing with any changes and is promising to work with lawmakers in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the anti-terrorism laws. Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said the administration is constantly reassessing the status of anti-terrorism laws, "because it's an ongoing issue against opponents who quickly realize what strengths we have and then design ways to get around our strengths to exploit potential weaknesses." It's likely, he said, that the period of constant review will continue for an extended period. "And this will also be, of course, done with an eye toward maintaining civil liberties and constitutional protections," Fleischer said. "And this is where it's very important to continue to discuss these matters with members of Congress in both parties who have important thoughts about this." Asked specifically if President Bush supports Ashcroft's push for broader powers, Fleischer said, "the president wants to work closely with members of Congress on anything that will help strengthen our ability to fight terrorism, and it depends on the specifics and we'll work with Congress on those." Recent reports have raised questions about the USA-PATRIOT Act as it pertains, for instance, to holding individuals in police custody without a warrant while authorities investigate their immigration status. A recent inspector general's report criticized the Justice Department for the treatment accorded some illegal aliens who were rounded up and detained even though it turned out they had no connections with terrorism. Ashcroft is unapologetic, insisting that the USA-PATRIOT Act has resulted in "steady progress in America's war on terrorism." The Justice Department, he said, has reached plea agreements with 15 individuals charged under the law who are providing "critical intelligence about al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, about their safe houses, their training camps, their recruitment, their tactics in the United States and the operations of terrorists who mean to do citizens harm, both here and abroad." www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
