[CTRL] Confidential Medical Information
-Caveat Lector- washingtonpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37585-2003Feb6.html Discarded Computer Had Confidential Medical Information By Charles Wolfe Associated Press Writer Thursday, February 6, 2003; 5:34 PM FRANKFORT, Ky. A state computer put up for sale as surplus contained confidential files naming thousands of people with AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, the state auditor said Thursday. This is significant data. It's a lot of information with lots of names and things like (the numbers of) sexual partners of those who are diagnosed with AIDS, Auditor Ed Hatchett said. It's a terrible security breach. The computer, which had been awaiting sale at the state's surplus- property office, never left state custody, Hatchett said. It was one of eight computers the auditor's office had randomly selected from a consignment that was being offered to state agencies and nonprofit groups. Hatchett's office, which routinely conducts such checks, paid $25 each for the computers, which would have been offered to the public if they had gone unsold. Health Services Secretary Marcia Morgan said the computer, used from 1995 to 1999, came from an agency she oversees involved with counseling on sexually transmitted diseases and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Morgan said the computer's hard drive was thought to have been wiped clean when it was shipped off for sale late last year. She has ordered an internal investigation into the breach. B.J. Bellamy, the auditor's chief information officer, said the hard drive appeared to contain several thousand individual files. Sex partners of the individuals are counted but not named, he said. © 2003 The Associated Press Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] The Powell solution
-Caveat Lector- Print this article | Close this window Powell is no longer the man the world thought he was COMMENT by Gary Younge at the United Nations February 7 2003 As he jabbed and slapped the table, pointed into the middle distance and said Enough, enough, the transformation of Colin Powell in the eyes of the international community appeared complete. The man on whom so many European hopes of reining in the excesses of George Bush's administration were pinned had apparently changed sides. Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council was impressive in its delivery. He barraged the Security Council with questions: Who took the hard drives? Where did they go? What's being hidden? Why? Yet he offered few answers and much speculation. His voice was clear, his tone abrupt. His manner wavered between imploring and threatening. Time and again he assured his audience - an increasingly sceptical American public as much as his Security Council colleagues - that he was showing them not assertions but facts and evidence not conjecture. Falling back on his military credentials, at one point Powell conceded: I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things. The White House had been keen to play down any expectation that Powell would produce a smoking gun. By the halfway point of his address, the mood in the hall was weary; after all, Powell must have put forward his best evidence first. By the time he had finished with a rousing call to action, if not war, people were looking at their watches. It has been a dramatic shift in stance for the man who was dissuaded from running for president by his wife, Alma, who feared the threat of assassination. In his autobiography, My American Journey, Powell wrote of the Vietnam War: Many in my generation vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half- baked reasons that the American people could not understand. It was Powell who argued before the Gulf War that sanctions should be allowed to bite before troops were sent in and who argued against bombing in Bosnia because he believed it could not end the ethnic divisions that spurred the conflict. When his predecessor in the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, asked him, What's the point in having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it? Powell said he thought he would have an aneurysm. But while it may have disappointed his diplomatic counterparts, Powell's speech may yet retain him some influence in the White House. It was Powell who went to George Bush on August5 last year and persuaded him, against the advice of Bush's other key aides, to take the issue to the UN. He secured resolution 1441 in November after eight weeks of brinkmanship and against the wishes of hawks like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Up until a month ago he appeared to be the only reasonable link between the White House and the world. At the beginning of January he implied that the inspections process still had longer to run: The inspectors are really now starting to gain momentum. The decisive moment in this evolution took place not, as many believe, last week when the chief weapons inspector delivered his critical report to the UN, but a week earlier following a Security Council meeting called to discuss terrorism. The French, who were chairing the session, shifted its focus on to Iraq, declaring the weapons inspectors needed more time. Powell was furious. He described the French position as unfortunate in public, but in private he was angry. A day after that, he said: The question isn't how much longer do you need for inspections to work. Inspections will not work. It's the scepticism that we had all along to give Iraq one last chance for inspections to work. There are those who believe that Powell has not changed, only the perception of him has been corrected. The Powell doctrine has always been that the US should use force only as a last resort to protect America's vital interests, but that once force has been authorised it should be applied overwhelmingly and decisively. It is vexing that the argument is cast as hawks and doves - or in Nike language 'Just do it' against 'Just don't don't do it', said one of his aides recently. The Powell solution is 'Just do it right'. But as his Security Council colleagues offered their sceptical responses, it seemed that Powell had now adopted the Bush doctrine: Just do it anyway. The Guardian This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498914611.html Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes
[CTRL] Fwd: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
-Caveat Lector- --- Start of forwarded message --- From: Libertarian Party Announcements [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case Date: 2/6/2003 6:20:59 PM -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- === NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org === For release: February 6, 2003 === For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case reveal double standard, Libertarians say WASHINGTON, DC Reports that federal investigators may file criminal charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe facing criminal charges as well? After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their life savings. Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and another for political celebrities? asked Geoffrey Neale, national chair of the Libertarian Party. It's fair to ask whether Cheney and McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the federal government. Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on Thursday that they have a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart, who is accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping 4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one day before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer drug an action that caused the company's stock to plummet. But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing. * Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August 2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months. * McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18 million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock, McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry. Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission? Neale asked. And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on Cheney and McAuliffe? The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging in selective prosecution and if you're a powerful federal official you're probably not going to be selected. But if you're an ordinary American or a TV celebrity who can be exploited to benefit someone's career you'd better abide by the law or risk having your life turned upside-down by zealous federal bureaucrats. Neale emphasized that Libertarians don't know whether the specific accusations against Stewart, Cheney or McAuliffe are true only that their cases are being handled very differently by government prosecutors. The result, he said, is that many people will wonder if justice is a game in America in which certain individuals can lose their freedom and others always seem to win a get-out-of-jail free card. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBPkMUAdCSe1KnQG7RAQG8EwP/eQbJLxfsGY6ZQGSk++ 4ccvBptRFeiSAJ AWUD86ARcx6um9UeiZ+YWsRL6F8H+ 3EsBq0d/UgrNLCXUv4Cj8NMzjTkcLH5ywc2 TECETY3a80jQAVW5h+T0IGoX9E4vOfoOZIYhoa0lpJWp3+HsToYw3RtINjOCOipV R530aN8cnfU= =R9gx -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- The Libertarian Partyhttp://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 --- For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: http://www.lp.org/action/email.html End of forwarded message Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
[CTRL] Did Colin Know He Was At the UN?
-Caveat Lector- NORTHERN IRAQ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/international/middleeast/06ANSA.htm l?ex=1045550702ei=1en=74ae0f77bed509f4 Kurds Puzzled by Report of Terror Camp By C. J. CHIVERS RBIL, Iraq, Feb. 5 Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's assertion today that Islamic extremists were operating a poisons training camp and factory in northern Iraq appeared to surprise Kurdish officials, who greeted the claim with a mix of satisfaction and confusion. The officials were pleased to hear an American effort to discredit their Islamist enemies, and to sense momentum toward war to unseat Saddam Hussein. But some also wondered if the intelligence Mr. Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council was imprecise. Advertisement As part of his presentation to the Security Council, Mr. Powell said a terrorist network run by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an operative of Al Qaeda, had helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. As he spoke, a monitor displayed a photograph with the caption: Terrorist Poison and Explosives Factory, Khurmal. The network that Mr. Powell referred to appeared to be Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group controlling a small area of northern Iraq. Ansar has been accused of dispatching assassins and suicide bombers, of harboring Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan and of training several hundred local fighters. The secular Kurdish government has been battling the group since 2001, and, since December, there have been indications that Mr. Zarqawi may have spent time in Ansar's territory last year. But no Western officials had gone as far with claims of Ansar's danger as Mr. Powell did when he showed a photograph of the Khurmal factory. Mr. Powell also said that Baghdad has a senior official in the most senior levels of Ansar, a claim apparently intended to build a case that Baghdad is collaborating with Al Qaeda and, by extension, in a chemical factory. Some here quickly seconded Mr. Powell's opinion. We have some information about this lab from agents and from prisoners, Kamal Fuad, the Parliament speaker, said. But Mr. Powell's assertion also produced confusion tonight. One senior Kurdish official, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan who is familiar with the intelligence on Ansar, said he had not heard of the laboratory Mr. Powell displayed. I don't know anything about this compound, he said. Kurds also questioned whether Mr. Powell was mistaken, or had mislabeled the photograph. Khurmal, the village named on the photo, is controlled not by Ansar al-Islam but by Komala Islami Kurdistan, a more moderate Islamic group. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is allied with Washington and has been hosting an American intelligence team in northern Iraq for several months, maintains relations with Komala. It has been paying $200,000 to $300,000 in aid to the party each month, in an effort to lure Komala's leaders away from Ansar. So Mr. Powell's photograph raised a question: Is the laboratory in Komala's area, meaning the Kurdish opposition might have inadvertently helped pay for it, or has the United States made a mistake? My sources say it is in Beyara, one Kurdish official said. Not in Khurmal. Ansar has a headquarters in Beyara, a village several miles from Khurmal. Abu Bari Syan, an administrator for Komal Islami Kurdistan, the party that controls Khurmal, took an even stronger stand about Mr. Powell's claim. All of it is not true, he said. Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no
[CTRL] HERO PILOTS
-Caveat Lector- DON'T GO IN WITHOUT UN BACKING, HERO PILOTS WARN http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12616656 method=fullsiteid=50143 By Steve Mccomish TWO hero airmen tortured by Saddam Hussein's thugs yesterday called on George Bush and Tony Blair to halt their rush to war with Iraq. RAF pilot John Peters and his navigator John Nichol were captured when their Tornado fighter bomber was shot down during the Gulf War in 1991. Their battered faces were flashed on TV screens around the world as they were paraded by their captors. Father-of-two Mr Peters, 41, warned yesterday that Britain now risks being dragged into another Vietnam War. With 100 aircraft poised to leave Britain for the Gulf, he said he had grave reservations about attacking Iraq without the full backing of the United Nations. Mr Nichol said US Secretary of State Colin Powell's evidence against Baghdad still did not prove the case for military action. The two lieutenants faced a seven-week nightmare of interrogation after their capture. They were threatened with rape, starvation and death - and forced to admit their guilt as war criminals before the TV cameras. Mr Peters said: I am very uneasy about the fact that we are considering going into Iraq. In the Gulf War it was Iraq who invaded Kuwait and the international community felt that that was unacceptable. It was very different from the current situation. The general public feeling is that we are not sure we're doing the right thing. No one wants to go to war without a sense that your nation supports you. If the nation ends up damning the troops, it will be Vietnam all over again and it will psychologically scar our forces. America is still suffering from this. No one in the military wants that. Mr Peters said Tony Blair had to make his reasons for supporting George Bush's stance completely clear. People in the military deserve political clarity if they're to be sent to war, he said. Saddam Hussein is an evil man and he operates an evil regime but in my view we have not been given enough reasons to attack a sovereign state. We need to be convinced that Saddam has got weapons that are a direct threat to our security. It looks as though he has but the responsibility should be on him to prove that he is not a threat. It is also important to remember that we have the freedom to question our leaders whereas people living in Iraq have not. No one questions Saddam because they can't. Mr Peters left the RAF two-and-a-half years ago and lives in Worcestershire with wife Helen, 41, and children Guy, 14, and Toni, 12. He runs management development consultancy UPH with former England rugby international Rory Underwood and survival expert Martyn Helliwell. But his ordeal still haunts him. How would you feel if you lived your life in constant fear? he asked. You never know what will happen next. You know your captors can kill you - and will if they have to. That is the most terrifying thing of all. It's not the actual harm inflicted upon you, it is the expectation that something awful could happen at any time. You can only imagine the worst. Mr Peters added: Being in the armed forces is a dangerous job. You know this when you sign up. I received training to deal with this kind of situation so I do not believe that I am especially heroic. After the Gulf War we thought that Saddam would fall. He is very clever in all the wrong ways and we should never underestimate him. I find it very sad that we are in this position. Friends of mine died during the previous conflict. You like to feel that you have achieved something. John Nichol, now an author and commentator, said Colin Powell's report on Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council went some way to answering the White House's critics - but did not go far enough. Mr Nichol said: Although the presentation offered evidence that there just might be some grounds for concern, I would suggest that with all the technology available to the Americans they could have come up with something better than some put-together graphics and a couple of phone conversations. The danger is not just about attacking Iraq. We always take a short term view of these situations. It's what happened when the West was arming Iraq when it was our friend 20 years ago. Top Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in
[CTRL] Defiance
-Caveat Lector- The White House Continues To Defy the Constitution John C. Bonifaz TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7196 Lost in the debate about whether or not our nation should wage war on Iraq is a fundamental question: Who has the power to decide? Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War This simple and clear language requires that the decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch. By definition it specifically prohibits the president from making that decision, as the authors of the Constitution deemed the power to wage war to be too great to place in the hands of one individual. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution that gave President Bush the power to fight terrorism. A loose reading of it would lead one to believe that it gave him the power to start wars. But the content of it does not issue a declaration of war against any nation. Rather, it states that the president has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States It does not and cannot alter the express language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could do so. U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.) opposed the resolution because he thought it was unconstitutional. In his October 3 remarks on the Senate floor he spoke of the framers of the Constitution who foresaw the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the framers bestowed on Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. He quoted James Madison, who wrote in 1793: In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard a series of cases challenging the authority of the executive branch to wage war. In Orlando v. Laird, the court reiterated an earlier opinion that the constitutional delegation of the war- declaring power to the Congress contains a discoverable and manageable standard imposing on the Congress a duty of mutual participation in the prosecution of war. Relying on that, the court asked whether there is any action by the Congress sufficient to authorize or ratify the military activity in question. The core of the Orlando ruling is this: [T]he Congress and the Executive have taken mutual and joint action in the prosecution and support of military operations in Southeast Asia from the beginning of those operations. The court cited the following evidence to support this holding: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; the congressional appropriation of billions of dollars to implement operations in Southeast Asia; and Congress' extension of the Military Selective Service Act, which was done with Vietnam in mind. A challenge to the president's authority to wage war against Iraq would highlight the fact that no such legal groundings exist in this case. Congress has yet to pass any military appropriation acts for this war and has yet to initiate a military draft. The only action Congress has taken is the passage of the resolution last October which, far from declaring war, allows the president to fight terrorism but does not allow him to launch into war against another country. Very few members of Congress who voted for the Iraq resolution thought they were handing President Bush war-making powers. Just read the statements made on the floors of the House and the Senate by the resolution's proponents. Also, on Jan. 24, 2003, 123 members of Congress sent a letter to the president stating that the US should make every attempt to achieve Iraq's disarmament through diplomatic means and with the full support of our allies. Of the signers, 22 had voted for the resolution. For these reasons, President Bush's continued march toward war, absent a congressional declaration, demands judicial intervention. Calling for such intervention is not merely -- as it will surely be portrayed -- an act of desperation on behalf of the anti-war community. It is a supremely relevant, historically profound question about which branch of government has the power to start a conflict with another nation. The integrity of the Constitution itself demands that this question be asked now. John C. Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston with the Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz. Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
[CTRL] Trouble with Goose-Stepping
-Caveat Lector- 02-05-2003 http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Insider% 20Notes%2edbcommand=viewoneop=tid=2rnd=573.3642578125 Richard Perle and the Trouble with Goose-Stepping Richard Perle is at it again. After laying low for several months, he emerges to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor and to pronounce gravely that France is no longer the ally it once was. In addition to being a strategic genius, military hero, accomplished soufflé chef and all-powerful Chairman of the Defense Policy Board here in the 3rd Floor of the Pentagon Richard Perle reads minds and knows exactly what Chirac believes deep in his soul. I am seriously impressed. We should all be humbled by this great man. Even more importantly, you can bet your plane ticket to the war zone that Perles view is shared by the Pentagon E-Ring, the Eliot Abram crowd at the NSC, and the White House. While the professional military/civilian versus political appointee rift in the Pentagon is real, the constant river of public exclamations of Washington groupthink brings to mind images of a goose-stepping National Socialist parade. And were all in. Inspiring, isnt it? Dont worry the bloody, disastrous and Federal Reserve-breaking parts come after the parade, with the rest of the cleanup. It is one thing for the United States to attack other countries or organizations, like al Qaeda, because they actually threaten our security and well being. It is another to label anyone who questions the United States President (or Mr. Rumsfeld for that matter) as an enemy of the United States. Now, Perle is just picking on France today. It is personal with him, and he must feel so terribly betrayed, as a well-known francophile who often enjoys the pleasures of Paris, French culture, and those wonderful soufflés. But there are a host of commentators and government mouthpieces who are also targeting American citizens or groups that have asked inconvenient questions about the upcoming adventure in Iraq. Take, for example, the accusations that the so-called peace movement in this country is funded by communists and Saddam Hussein himself. First of all, what peace movement? But suspend your disbelief for just a second, and read on. The fact that one of the founders of the Christian Right, Paul Weyrich, is now calling for a congressional investigation into the funding sources for pro-peace activities in this country and elsewhere is revealing. Correction Weyrich says its not really communists doing this its neo- communists! What the heck is a neo-communist? If the relationship between a conservative and a neo- conservative is any model for deciphering this modern day political dilemma a neo- communist must be a pro-market classical liberal who values democracy and individualism. But I digress. Know this: the activities planned for Iraq to the extent that major annexes have yet to be written, even this late in the game will come as a surprise to most Americans, particularly parents, spouses and siblings of soldiers. The expected liberation will not occur throughout Iraq evenly, if it occurs at all, and the secure and happy demarcation between them and us that we enjoy in Afghanistan hints at the nature of the upcoming Iraq occupation. Perle and the neo-conservative alliance of talk show warriors, soldiers of the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal editorial pages, henchmen of the Christian Right and our own pro-Israel vanguard in the E-Ring are talking up the war. They are throwing homegrown bombs at those who ask wise and thoughtful questions about motive, objective, cost, day-after planning, and the ramifications of mistaken assumptions. But just like in the X-Files, except scarier, the truth is out there. Every major newspaper opinion page is increasingly giving a little column space to the challengers of the Dubya-knows-all-and-trust-him-blindly theorists. Why would they do that? Are they funded by neo-communists and on Saddams payroll? Not likely. We are seeing serious questions about the wisdom and motive and end- state operations in the opinion pages of L.A. Times, the San Diego Union- Tribune, the Washington Post and New York Times, -- even the Washington Times. Read them each published in the last two days and thoughtful, patriotic, wise, putting America first. Whats it all about? Well, when you are goose-stepping with eyes right, you cant see your ass but you know its vulnerable, especially in that famous fully extended position. You hope its covered, but you just cant be sure. So it has come to this Perlotov cocktails slung wildly at anyone not fully invested in the George W. Bush pick-up game, and major media outlets starting to cover their backsides just in case. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list.
Re: [CTRL] What The Coming War Is Really About
-Caveat Lector- --- William Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What The Coming War Is Really About By J.J. Johnson The arguments being made to go to war with Iraq do not make sense. If they did, we should be carpet bombing North Korea right now. _ It all depends on what the definition of weapons of mass destruction is. -William Jefferson Bush __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] THE LYING GAME
-Caveat Lector- http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html February 7, 2003 THE LYING GAME Lies, more lies, and outright repression â as far as the eye can seeâ¦. We are now being inundated with hosannas to Colin Powell's UN speech as having "delivered the goods" and, supposedly, a knockout blow to the "give inspections a chance" crowd, but I don't believe a word of it because, well, I can't say it any better than my friend Jim Henley: "Because they lie. Routinely and often and deliberately. They said there were 100,000 people in mass graves in Kosovo. That was a lie. They said Iraqi soldiers were tossing babies out of incubators. That was a lie. They said Iraqi troops in 1991 were massing on the Saudi border. That was a lie. They said Saddam's attack on Kuwait was a total surprise. That was a lie. They said US troops had no combat role in Central America in the 1980s. That was a lie." Are we really supposed to believe that the U.S. captured, on tape, a conversation between two Iraqi military personnel that not only shows them trying to hide forbidden mobile units, but also describing it in detail? C'mon, guys, you can do better than that! And what about that murky "Al Ansar" group in "northern Iraq," where terrorist cadres are supposedly training to poison New York City's water supply, or something like that? This fairy tale might be convincing if only their alleged location wasn't a region fully under the control of our allies, the Kurds, and easily reachable without invading that portion of Iraq still under Saddam's control. Most of what Powell had to say was refuted â the day before â by Hans Blix, but it wasn't a European or even a worldwide audience that Powell was addressing, so that didn't matter anyway. The Secretary of State's real purpose was to convince Americans, who, in spite of the push-polls, are, at best, uneasy about the course the administration is taking. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a prominent voice raised in support of the war, recently noted: "I've had a chance to travel all across the country since September, and I can say without hesitation there was not a single audience I spoke to where I felt there was a majority in favor of war in Iraq. The dominant mood is: 'Mr. President, we don't want to be against you in a war on terrorism. But do we really have to do this? My 401(k) is now a 201(k), heading for a 101(k). Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. The Europeans are uncovering new terrorist cells right and left. And I have walked through so many airport metal detectors in the last year that I now glow in the dark. I understand what the Afghan war was about and would have volunteered with a pitchfork â but I just don't get this war.'" The polls, too, are a lie: "I don't care what the polls say," opines Friedman, "this is the real mood." Friedman wants the President and his advisors to "level" with the American people, who seem to think that this is going to be a cakewalk. Sure, this is about disarming Iraq â but it is also, he admits, about conquering Iraq, and, not only that, but about transforming the entire region into "a progressive model to spur reform â educational, religious, economic and political â around the Arab world." Friedman thinks this "audacious" project is "worth the risk" â but wonders if the American people agree. He also wonders what they will think when they wake up, one day after our glorious "victory," to discover that we are now the proud owners of a spanking brand new empire. Friedman suspects they will be less than thrilled, and he practically begs the administration to stop lying and come clean with its real goals and aspirations, but what he doesn't understand is that they can't stop. Lying is not just a habit with these people. It is a way of life. One might think, with so much practice at covering up the truth, that they would get better at it: but, no. Instead, they get worse. How else to explain why the British government's "intelligence dossier" â touted by Colin Powell in his UN speech â is a plagiarized mish-mash of three separate articles, copied practically word-for-word, including one by a California graduate student? As Britain's Channel 4 reports: "It gives the impression of being an up to the minute intelligence-based analysis â and Mr Powell was fulsome in his praiseâ¦. It outlines the structure of Saddam's intelligence organizations. But it made familiar reading to Cambridge academic Glen Rangwala. It was copied from an article last September in a small journal: the Middle East Review of International Affairs. It's author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Large sections do indeed appear, verbatim." But not all: "In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading." A hurried, slap-dash effort, that shows just how desperate they are to have their war at any price. Whom do they think they're kidding? You,
[CTRL] Charley Reese - Going To War
-Caveat Lector- http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030205/index.php Going To War by Charley Reese President Bush made it quite clear in his recent State of the Union speech that the United States is going to attack Iraq, with or without United Nations support. At the same time, he practiced the same kind of deceit that he accuses Saddam Hussein of practicing. His "list" of alleged violations is a distortion of what the arms inspectors have reported. The international nuclear-arms inspectors have dismissed the business about the aluminum tubing and an alleged nuclear-weapons program. Furthermore, American analysts have told journalists off the record that the Bush administration is pressuring the intelligence community to "cook the books" â in other words, to provide propaganda rather than true intelligence. Even the former head of the U.N. inspection team, Richard Butler, a man I don't much care for, has accused the Bush administration of using a "flagrant" double standard against Iraq. He correctly points out that other countries, including our allies, and the United States have these weapons of mass destruction. He said going to war against Iraq would be a mistake. Nobody can accuse Butler of being soft on Iraq â Saddam Hussein hates the guy. Once again, Bush has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent danger to the United States. His clever line about being unwilling to trust the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is just misleading puffery, because Bush's father, former President Bill Clinton and George Bush himself have done just that for the past 12 years. If Saddam is so eager to supply weapons to terrorists, why hasn't he done so? The naked fact is that Saddam has not been tied to a single terrorist incident in the past decade. Providing financial support to the Palestinians has nothing to do with us and is not a threat to us. If George Bush were honest, he would provide the intelligence information that the rest of the world knows: to wit, that Saddam and Osama bin Laden hate each other and have publicly threatened each other. He has also failed to lay the evidence out that Saddam even has weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the inspectors don't say that he has them; they merely say that there are discrepancies in various reports, so that a certain number of things are "unaccounted for." For example, Hans Blix said an Iraqi air force document states that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped, while the Iraqi declaration states that 19,000 were used. Thus there is a difference of 6,000 â but it is a difference in numbers, both of which were supplied by the Iraqi government. Perhaps the air force did drop 13,000 bombs, and the army, in artillery shells or rockets, fired the other 6,000. Who knows? Both numbers come from the Iraqi government. Why believe the smaller and disbelieve the larger? The American people should not let Bush get away with the game of saying "intelligence tells us" or "defectors tell us." He needs to provide harder evidence than claims by anonymous sources if he is going to subject the American people to all the risks and dangers of war and prolonged occupation. Of course, as I have said before, I don't care if Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. Many countries do. Deterrence works. It worked against the Soviet Union. It has worked against Saddam Hussein. There is simply no justification for assuming that deterrence will not continue to work. Americans had better understand clearly what a dangerous, provocative doctrine Bush is proclaiming. When he says that mere possession of certain weapons by governments he doesn't like is sufficient grounds for a pre-emptive attack by the United States, he is in effect not just declaring war on Iraq but on a number of countries. That is madness. A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[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
[CTRL] Fwd: [GATA] Comex changes exchange rules to rescue the gold shorts
-Caveat Lector- A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[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- EXCERPT FROM 'MIDAS' COMMENTARY FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2003, AT WWW.LEMETROPOLECAFE.COM Copyright 2003, LeMetropoleCafe.com By BILL MURPHY It has been a long day for me thus far. I am back in Vancouver to make a presentation Saturday at the World Outlook Investment Conference. Love this town. When I boarded the plane, gold had rallied back to just below unchanged. As it was rallying, this news hit the tape: * * * NYMEX upping COMEX gold margins at close Thursday NEW YORK, Feb. 6 (Reuters) -- The New York Mercantile Exchange will raise the amount of collateral required to trade gold futures contracts at its COMEX Division as of the close of business Thursday. Margins on COMEX gold futures will be increased to $1,500 from $1,000 for members, member firms, and hedgers; and to $2,025 from $1,350 for speculative customers, the exchange said in a release issued late Wednesday. * * * The gold war is on in full fury. The Comex division is loaded with members of various bullion dealers, who are the big shorts. A number of these folks have been part of the Gold Cartel all these years. From the Commitment of Traders Report, they know gold is filled with small speculators who are very leveraged. So Comex waited to raise the margin requirement when it would do the shorts the most good. Gold reversed yesterday after reaching $390 in the futures contracts. The open interest had increased to 245,682 on Wednesday. That is the highest since January 13, 1981. It went up 4521 contracts on the big spike yesterday. A 50 percent margin increase is a hefty one. They did not raise it sharply as gold went up, but as gold reversed sharply to the downside, making the specs vulnerable to such a significant margin increase. The Gold War is heating up. The good news for us is that all crooked cabal types are doing is buying time. They are finished. That does not mean we could not get a doozy of a swift, sharp correction. Because the spec position is so large, it could even be dramatic. My thinking is that no matter what happens, the drop will be a quick one and gold will shoot right back up. There is too much power behind the move and too much physical market demand for gold to stay down for very long. Besides, the massive, trapped shorts will have to cover when they can. This may be their last chance to do so before the inevitable gold- buying panic kicks in. -END- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] US Ambassador Orders Australians To Stop Insulting George Bush!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/wecontrolamerica/hornet.html 6 February 2003 US Ambassador Orders Australians To Stop Insulting George Bush! Early today, the US Ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, went on Australian nationwide television to tell Australians to stop insulting George Bush. By any yardstick, this was a gross breach of diplomatic protocol that will only serve to inflame an already furious Australian population. In a poll released yesterday, nearly eighty-percent of Australians remain opposed to an attack on Iraq. Debate in Australia is always heated, but where Iraq is concerned it has exceeded boiling point, with Labor politician Mark Latham stating. “Bush himself is the most incompetent and dangerous President in living memory.” But Mark Latham reserved his most cutting remarks for the right-wing Australian government, which still continues to ignore the wishes of eighty-percent of the Australian people: “There they are, a Conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of politics,” Latham said amid roars of laughter in the background, “The backbenchers suck up to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister sucks up to George W Bush.” Schieffer may not have liked the remarks, but they were made by an elected Australian politician within the Australian Parliament, and thus were none of his damn business. Most Aussies are generally aware that their politicians do exactly what they are told to do by the American or Israeli ambassadors, but do not like having this unpalatable reality rammed down their throats on nationwide television by a middle-ranking American bureaucrat. If Schieffer feels he cannot do his job in Australia within proper diplomatic constraints, he should ask the State Department to send him somewhere more compliant – Texas for example. If his problems are merely emotional in origin, or if he thinks his name is really Douglas MacArthur, Schieffer should probably consult a qualified psychiatrist. The stress on the US Ambassador probably increased dramatically on Wednesday, when the Australian Senate passed a full motion of “no confidence” in Prime Minister John Winston Howard regarding his actions on Iraq, and his obsequiousness towards George Bush. It was the first full no-confidence motion ever suffered by a serving Prime Minister since Australian Federation back in 1900. Things really are that bad down here. Clearly the enormous implications of this no-confidence motion were not lost on the mainstream media, members of whom quickly had the entire matter censored by late afternoon. The stakes are getting higher every day, and Australia will still “appear” to be backing George W. Bush internationally, no matter what the Australian people and Senate may think, say or do, now or at any time in the future.
Re: [CTRL] Confidential Medical Information
-Caveat Lector- Morgan said the computer's hard drive was thought to have been wipedclean when it was shipped off for sale late last year. She has ordered aninternal investigation into the breach. Many people believe that just by highlighting a particular file and pressing the Delete key that they have indeed completely wiped the file from their computer... What really happens is that the space taken up by that file is now freed up so that it can eventually be overwritten by other data IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[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
Re: [CTRL] Confidential Medical Information
-Caveat Lector- Morgan said the computer's hard drive was thought to have been wipedclean when it was shipped off for sale late last year. She has ordered aninternal investigation into the breach. Most people believe that by highlighting a file and pressing the Delete key that they have indeed totally wiped out all the data included in that file... when in reality all that has been done is that the space taken up by that file is now freed up to be overwritten by other data -- but until it IS overwritten, the old data remains and can be retrieved by relatively easy means... One has to make sure that one has set the option to additionally immediately overwrite a file when it is deleted -- not only will the space be freed up, but the data it contains will be erased at the same time... June IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[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] FW: [togethernet] [NEWS] Tony Blair's Plagiarism: UNBELIEVABLE
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Robert Graham Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:42 PM Subject: [houstonpeaceroundtable] FW: [togethernet] [NEWS] Tony Blair's Plagiarism: UNBELIEVABLE -Original Message- From: Raja Mattar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:13 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [togethernet] [NEWS] Tony Blair's Plagiarism: UNBELIEVABLE [This is how low the obsessed prime minister of a country that used to be a great empire has stooped in order to get his war.] TONY BLAIR'S UP TO DATE INTEL ASSESSMENT OF IRAQ WAS PLAGIARISED FROM STUDENT'S ESSAY by Gordon Thomas Prime Minister Tony Blair's up to the minute assessment of Saddam's arsenal - presented as the input of MI5 and MI6 - was in fact plagiarised from an essay by an Arab student! The revelation has seriously torpedoed Blair's credibility - and created behind-the-scenes fury in the White House. President Bush had cited the document as independent proof to support Secretary of State Collin Powell' s show and tell performance at the United Nations. The Downing Street document - published on its official website is titled: Iraq: It's Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation. The clear implication was that it had been compiled from the very latest input from MI5, MI6 and GCHQ - Britain's ear in the sky global listening agency. Colin Powell, in his 90 minute performance at the UN heralded it as an important contribution to revealing the truth about Saddam. But when Britain's intelligence chiefs saw the 19-page document, they were furious. They immediately recognised that it had been culled from three separate articles. But the bulk of the 19-page Downing Street document - on which Blair's government has based its carefully co-ordinated offensive against anti-war protesters - was written by an Arab post-graduate student in California. He is Ibrahim al-Marashi, who studied politics at the small university of Monteray outside Los Angeles. Large sections of his essay were copied verbatim on to the Downing Street site - under the bold claim that the revelations, for the first time, outlines the structure of Saddam's intelligence organisations. Horrified Intel chiefs, Eliza Manningham-Buller of MI5, and Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, pointed out the source of the claim was a student's article in the specialist journal, The Middle East Review of International Affairs. The article was published six months ago. Both MI5 and MI6 subscribe to the journal - as does the CIA. The already cold relationship between Downing Street and the spy agencies has plummeted with the discovery that the Prime Minister's official website had plagiarised an old document - and dressed it up as the very latest intelligence from MI5 and MI6. The student has no contacts with secret intelligence. He simply wrote a discursive paper, the kind any postgrad student does, said an MI5 source. In cribbing it, Downing Street just showed how desperate it is to promote the war, he added. The source pointed out that large sections of the student's original article appears verbatim on the Downing Street site. Six paragraphs on Saddam's Special Security Organisation are the exact same words as the Californian student's paper. In several places, Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading. Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is spying on foreign embassies in Iraq. The original reads: monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq. And the provocative role of supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes has a weaker, political context in the original: aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes. Even typographic mistakes in the original article are repeated. Of military intelligence, al-Marashi writes in his paper: The head of military intelligence generally did not have to be a relative of Saddam's immediate family, nor a Tikriti. Saddam appointed, Sabir Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri as head. Note the comma after appointed. Downing Street paraphrases the first sentence: Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War. This second line is cut and posted, complete with the same grammatical error: Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War. After the Gulf War he was replaced by Wafiq Jasim al-Samarrai. Downing Street document: These shifting appointments are part of Saddam's policy of balancing security positions. By constantly shifting the directors of these agencies, no one can establish a base in a security organisation for a substantial period of time. No one becomes powerful enough to challenge the President. Student's document: These shifting appointments are part of Saddam's policy of balancing security positions between Tikritis and non-Tikritis, in the belief that the two factions would
[CTRL] MIDDLE EASTERN CHESSBOARD: ARMING IRAQ
-Caveat Lector- http://etherzone.com/2003/wats020703.shtml MIDDLE EASTERN CHESSBOARD: ARMING IRAQ By: Paul Joseph Watson Published in the February 7, 2003 issue of Ether Zone. The purpose of this article is to ascertain how Iraq acquired its arsenal of weapons that eventually led to it being declared as a rogue state. I stress that some of these subjects have been exhaustively documented elsewhere numerous times. The scope here is to provide a thumbnail sketch, which includes the latest up to date information. It is necessary to understand why the Globalists arm rogue nations only to overthrow them ten or fifteen years later. Obviously it makes significant amounts of money for giant defense contractors, which often have tentacles into government itself, like the Carlyle Group. Any such rogue state will not be provided with the latest advanced weaponry but will receive enough arms to make it a threat to its neighbors, thus destabilizing its geographic region. This then provides the pretext for the Globalists to later invade the country in the name of saving the region from collapse, citing dangerous weapons of mass destruction that the Globalists had provided the rogue state with in the first place. The name of the game is geopolitical chess. A move is only made after the subsequent twenty moves have already been mapped out. In December of 2002, Iraq compiled a dossier to be sent to the United Nations detailing records of how their weapons program had developed and what steps they had taken to abandon it. Iraq merely listed the source of their weapons from which companies they had acquired the weapons that now made them the target of an imminent U.S. invasion. The companies listed were largely either American or British, namely, Honeywell Spectra Physics MEED International Leybold Vacuum Systems Sperry Corp Euromac Ltd-Uk International Signal Unisys Finnigan-MAT-US Inwako Dupont Alcolac International Carl Zeiss Cerberus Electronic Associates Bechtel EZ Logic Data Systems Canberra Industries TI Coating C. Plath-Nuclear Consarc Semetex Walter Somers Ltd Matrix Churchill Corp Endshire Export Marketing Sheffield Forgemasters Terex Corp Tech Development Group Eastman Kodak TMG Engineering XYY Options, Inc Axel Electronics Inc Hewlett-Packard Rockwell International Computer Tektronix Ali Ashour Daghir International Military Svs American Type Culture International Computer By pure coincidence, the Americans seized the document before it could be passed on to the U.N. Security Council. They edited out 8,000 pages, more than two-thirds of the entire dossier, citing its contents as risky. CFR henchman Kofi Annan made noticeably little fuss, describing the theft as unfortunate, but angry U.N. diplomats did see that the original contents were leaked to a German media source. U.S. war hawks pounced on the gaps that they had personally created, citing them as a material breach of U.N. resolutions: A UN source in New York said: 'The questions being asked are valid. What did the US take out? And if weapons inspectors are supposed to be checking against the dossier's content, how can any future claim be verified. In effect the US is saying trust us, and there are many who just will not.' [Sunday Herald] British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw bemoaned big gaps in the Iraqi declaration. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the omissions troublesome. The Americans seized and edited the document because it was proof that the so-called Iraq threat was a result of U.S. and British government-approved companies illegally arming Iraq throughout the 1980s and even into the 1990s, Iraq's bioweapons program, which U.S. President George W. Bush wants to eradicate, got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq. [Associated Press] These records were a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the Senate. The CDC is a deeply corrupt New World Order attack arm and exists to proliferate disease rather than prevent it. The full checklist of horrors that the U.S. government graciously handed over to Iraq included the following, Anthrax: The American Type Culture Collection, a biological samples repository in Manassas, Va., sent two shipments of anthrax to Iraq in the 1980s. Three anthrax strains were in a May 1986 shipment sent to the University of Baghdad, which UN inspectors later linked to Iraq's biological weapons program. A 1988 shipment from ATCC to Iraq also included four anthrax strains. VX Nerve Gas: The Iraqi Air Force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq in late 1987, provoking outrage on Capitol Hill, particularly after the now infamous March 1988 attack on the
[CTRL] Fw: Total Information Awareness (TIA) Update
-Caveat Lector- They lie as usual. No consumer information? Remember the example they gave about being able to isolate the terrorists in Florida because they paid for their pizza orders with credit cards? JR - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:55 PM Subject: Total Information Awareness (TIA) Update NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of DefenseNo. 060-03(703)697-5131(media)IMMEDIATE RELEASEFebruary 7, 2003(703)428-0711(public/industry)TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS (TIA) UPDATEThe Department of Defense will establish two boards to provideoversight of the Total Information Awareness Project, theprogram designed to develop tools to track terrorists. The twoboards, an internal oversight board and an outside advisorycommittee, will work with the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (DARPA), as it continues its research. These boards willhelp ensure that TIA develops and disseminates its products totrack terrorists in a manner consistent with U.S. constitutionallaw, U.S. statutory law, and American values related to privacy.The TIA internal oversight board will oversee and monitor themanner in which terrorist tracking tools are transitioned forreal world use. This board will establish policies andprocedures for use within DoD of the TIA-developed tools andwill establish protocols for transferring these capabilities toentities outside DoD. A primary focus of the board will be toensure that the TIA-developed tools to track terrorists will beused only in accordance with existing privacy protection lawsand policies. The board, which is expected to hold its firstmeeting by the end of February 2003, will be composed of seniorDoD officials.The outside advisory board will be convened as a federaladvisory committee and will comply with all the legal andregulatory requirements for such bodies. The committee willadvise the Secretary of Defense on the range of policy and legalissues that are raised by the development and potentialapplication of advanced technology to help identify terroristsbefore they act.Members of the outside advisory board are Newton Minow(chairman), director of the Annenberg Washington Program and theAnnenberg Professor of Communications Law and Policy atNorthwestern University; Floyd Abrams, renowned civil rightsattorney; Zoe Baird, director Markel Foundation; Griffin Bell,former U.S. Attorney General and Court of Appeals judge; GerhardCasper, president emeritus for Stanford University and Professorof Law; William T. Coleman, former chairman and CEO of BEA(world's leading application and infrastructure company) and nowChief Customer Advocate; and Lloyd Cutler, former White HouseCounsel.DARPA is continuing its research into whether advancedtechnologies can be used to help identify terrorist planningactivities. This technology development program was establishedunder the name Total Information Awareness (TIA) and is designedto catch terrorists before they strike. Under the rubric ofTIA, DARPA is attempting to develop three categories of tools -language translation, data search and pattern recognition, andadvanced collaborative and decision support tools. The researchconducted under TIA will provide the tools for obtaininginformation pertaining to activities of terrorists, and ifconnected together, this information could alert authoritiesbefore terrorists' plans are carried out. While the research todate is promising, TIA is still only a concept.Development of these anti-terrorism tracking tools would allowthe agencies to better execute their missions. TIA does notplan to create a gigantic database. Further, TIA has not evercollected or gathered and is not now collecting or gathering anyintelligence information. This is and will continue to be theresponsibility of the US foreignintelligence/counterintelligence agencies, which operate undervarious legal and policy restrictions with congressionaloversight. This technology development program in no way altersthe authority or responsibility of the intelligence community.Furthermore, TIA has never collected, and has no plan or intentto collect privately held consumer data on U.S. citizens. It isa research program designed to catch terrorists before theystrike.[Web version: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/b02072003_bt060-03.html]-- News Releases: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/releases.html-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout
[CTRL] THE CONSPIRACY'S TACTICS
-Caveat Lector- http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang020703.shtml THE CONSPIRACY'S TACTICS DON'T GET BUSHWHACKED By: Alan Stang As this commentary goes to press, the billionaire totalitarian Socialist conspirators who rule us are within a few weeks, maybe a few days, of launching the illegal war (illegal because there is no Declaration) they have been planning against Iraq and its Soviet-sponsored dictator. They have embroiled us in needless wars for a century, all in pursuit of their goal of a totalitarian Socialist world government, so now is a good time to take another look at some of the history and tactics of the Conspiracy. Those tactics still work because even at this late date they have not been sufficiently exposed. After World War II, a congressional committee investigating foundations sent a lawyer named Kathryn Casey to New York, to look through the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What she found was so shocking that the lady suffered a nervous breakdown. In the archives for the years 1908-1910, she found at least one discussion among Endowment leaders who were looking for the best way to destroy American independence and submerge our country in a world government they would run. They decided that the best way to do that would be to embroil the United States in war, and that is why we have been in almost perpetual war ever since. It is no surprise that around the same time Miss Casey was making this discovery and having her nervous breakdown, the man who ran the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was former top State Department official Alger Hiss, who later would go to prison for committing perjury when he testified that he had not been a Soviet spy. Hiss of course was the first Secretary-General of the Communist United Nations. One of the Conspiracyâs tactics from the very beginning has been to seize control of both major political parties at the top, so that whoever is nominated and therefore whoever wins will be one of their men. Colonel Edward M. House, Woodrow Wilsonâs "alter ego," who lived with Wilson in the White House, described the scheme in his anonymous political novel, Philip Dru, Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, which you really should take a look at. In the kind of politics the Conspiracy imposes, there is no real contest between ideologies, even between policies. The only real politics it permits is a contest between conspiratorial flunkies about which of them can better implement the Conspiracyâs strategies on the way to world government. Hence, the utterly superficial "difference" between Clinton and Bush. With regard to the last century of war, the only difference between the two parties seems to be that the Democrats trick us in, and then the Republicans keep us in. In every war, the peopleâs minds must be prepared, and so it is in this one. The conspirators typically are using what I call the tactic of False Alternatives for the purpose, in which neither of the two alternatives they offer is the right one. For instance, look at the anti-war side of the issue. In the streets there are the usual Communist demonstrations led by revolutionaries who descend from the Sixties. In Congress, the Democrats have made themselves look even more ludicrous, even farther left, by naming totalitarian Socialist Nancy Pelosi, from Sodom by the sea, their leader. Some observers ask, "Donât the Democrats want to get elected? Whatâs wrong with them? Are they stupid?" Yes, the Democrats are political criminals; yes, they are totalitarians; yes, their hero exudes a stench that makes sewer slime smell like gardenias. But the last thing you can call them is stupid. There has to be another reason for their stupidity. Well, what is the effect of it? Doesnât it make the other side, the War Party, the Republican Party, look good? Doesnât it make Bush look good? For instance, nobody with any sense wants to get involved with Susan "The Strumpet" Sarandon, who spouts off at length without provocation about how we should live, but who doesnât have enough sense to marry the pinhead she cohabits with. In the same category are Hillaroid, the nationâs leading cause of lower back pain, and congressional supporters of baby dismemberment. Because all this is so putrid, the natural response is to yearn for the other side. There we find utterly blind support for the war, blind support for a man who has gotten away with things Clinton would have been dragged into the street for. Again, it looks good because, in contrast, the other side looks so bad. Is this an accident? Remember that traitor Franklin Roosevelt said there are no accidents in politics. If it happens, said the man who engineered Pearl Harbor, you can bet it was planned that way. The result is that many people back the war policy despite their discomfort with it, simply because the other side is so repulsive. They have been booby-trapped aboard. Because the people on the left
[CTRL] Straight Talk with Joe - Articles, Opinions, Essays
-Caveat Lector- http://joeabodeely.com/straight.htm A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] 'Barney' Blair to go to Doghouse After Wetting Saddam's Carpet
-Caveat Lector- http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNewsstoryID= 2172308 Check out the authoress' name! Look out 'Barney'! 05 Feb 2003 11:31 GMT Blair faces war crimes trial after Iraq war By Opheera McDoom LONDON (Reuters) - A group of lawyers aims to prosecute Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes at the new International Criminal Court (ICC) if an Iraqi war goes ahead. They said national leaders could be held individually responsible for war crimes and be tried as ex-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has at a separate court for former Yugoslavia. There is a 100 percent certainty that Blair will be investigated by the ICC for war crimes if he attacks Iraq, said Phil Shiner of the Public Interest Lawyers firm in Birmingham. He is leading a campaign to prosecute leaders in the seven-month-old ICC if military action goes ahead without a second United Nations resolution expressly authorising force, or if any Iraqi civilians are killed in bombing campaigns. The ICC brings a new international context to war -- Blair now has to consider his individual accountability, Shiner said. The United States fiercely opposes the ICC, saying it would infringe U.S. sovereignty, but Britain has ratified its treaty and would have to give up any citizen the court wanted to try. Nicholas Grief of Bournemouth University, who specialises in international law, said November's U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq did not authorise the use of force. He said the resolution used the term serious consequences if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspectors, and not use all necessary means, which has previously been used as a diplomatic code for authorising military force. But former British government lawyer Tony Aust said the U.N. was deliberately obscure in its language. The U.N. is a prudish delicate flower -- it does not like to call a spade a spade, so never uses the word force, he said. Grief and Aust debated the issue on a BBC radio programme on which Oxford University professor of law Vaughan Lowe said an Iraqi war would be illegal under international law. The ICC's establishment has put the spotlight on individual responsibility for war's consequences and civilian casualties. The ICC will now place a serious constraint on Blair, Shiner told Reuters. The court's independent prosecutor can initiate proceedings at the request of a state or can receive evidence from anyone, and then decide whether to prosecute, subject to advice from three of the court's 18 judges. Grief said Blair could be tried for war crimes even in a U.N.-backed war, if there were a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, ratified by Britain in 1957. If convicted, punishment could be life imprisonment. Possible breaches include using weapons that are indiscriminate by nature such as nuclear weapons, or launching an attack that resulted in a clearly excessive loss of life or damage to the natural environment. A government spokesman said any British involvement in armed conflict would be in accordance with international law. Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A
[CTRL] Sour Honey
-Caveat Lector- Now this is not just bland news. Given the strength of the antibiotic, given that there are diseases that are becoming less responsive to drugs of lesser strengths, any introduction of any antibiotic and using it improperly CAN (not necessarily will) create conditions where diseases can resist treatments. The comfort ladies in the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, and, now probably, Kosovaria and other recently established sites of female slaving, have been subject of various reports of having terminally untreatable social diseases -- venereal primarily but also tubercular and others. I am not a sawbones nor a druggist so perhaps some conjecture may be imparted above. But I ain't turning a bland eye! A:E:R http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNewsstoryID= 2176342 05 Feb 2003 20:30 GMT U.S. Seizes More Honey Tainted with Antibiotic WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 185,000 pounds of honey imports were seized in Texas because of contamination with a human antibiotic banned from U.S. food products, the Food and Drug Administration said on Wednesday. The containers of honey seized from Hoyts Honey Farm Inc. in Baytown, Texas contained traces of chloramphenicol, an antibiotic drug used by physicians as a last resort to treat life-threatening infections. The drug is not widely used because it can cause a disease known as aplastic anemia, in which the body's bone marrow stops making enough healthy blood cells. Chloramphenicol is prohibited in all U.S. food and animal feed products by the FDA. The seized honey was stored in 266 drums, each containing 639 pounds, and five totes, each weighing 3,000 pounds, the FDA said. The FDA did not say how the honey was contaminated with the drug. The seizure was the third time during the past six months that U.S. officials have found similarly contaminated honey, the FDA said in a statement. Other shipments were seized last August in Louisiana and last month in Waxahachie, Texas. U.S. Customs began investigating honey imports last year after officials were tipped off that Chinese bulk honey was being illegally transshipped through Thailand to the United States. The stop in Thailand was intended to circumvent payment of anti-dumping duties on Chinese honey imports required by the U.S. Commerce Department, according to the government. Global honey prices have soared in recent months on a sharp decline in supplies. The continued monitoring of food production and distribution at many levels has enabled FDA to detect this adulterated honey since the agency learned of the presence of chloramphenicol in imported honey, the FDA said. Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] RUMSFELD WANTS OK FOR U.S. CHEMICAL STRIKES
http://64.176.94.191/article1250.htm RUMSFELD WANTS OK FOR U.S. CHEMICAL STRIKES Iraq using poison gas? That's a reason for war. The U.S. military using it against the Iraqis? That's just fine and dandy, according to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is pushing to allow the use of chemical agents – similar to the fentanyl gas employed by the Russians to take out Chechen hostage takers last year -- in an upcoming strike on Iraq. The agent is a "non-lethal" narcotic, supposedly. But in the U.S., doctors use it to stop patients from breathing. And 118 people died in the Moscow fentanyl gas attack. Rumsfeld Says Pentagon Wants Use of Nonlethal or should we say, Less- Lethal Gas By David McGlinchey Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — While senior Pentagon officials are fashioning rules of engagement that will allow the U.S. military to use nonlethal agents if the United States attacks Iraq, the effort has been made “very complex” by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 4, 2002). “We are doing our best to live within the straitjacket that has been imposed on us on this subject,” Rumsfeld said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee. Russian forces used a gas to subdue hostage-taking militants in a Moscow theater last year, but a large number of hostages were killed in the raid. “I’m authorized to use lethal force and authorize troops to shoot somebody, but I’m not authorized in some instances, without a presidential waiver, under the treaty or under the agreements, to authorize the use of nonlethal riot agents,” Rumsfeld said. Rumsfeld said that he has been trying to “fashion the rules of engagement in a way that we believe is appropriate. Where we can’t, I go to the president and get a waiver.” There have been no requests to alter U.S. law or modify any treaties, he said. Source: Global Security Newswire Defense Tech
[CTRL] 'Barney' Blair's Interview on and by the BBC
-Caveat Lector- Thursday, 6 February, 2003, 22:09 GMT Transcript of Blair's Iraq interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm Tony Blair appeared on Newsnight on 6 February where he was quizzed by Jeremy Paxman and a panel of voters about the Iraq crisis. Here is the transcript of the interview: JEREMY PAXMAN: Good evening, welcome to a Newsnight special in which we'll be cross-examining the Prime Minister on the confrontation with Iraq. After yesterday's performance at the UN America looks more determined than ever to go to war. Our government is George Bush's closest ally yet many here and around the world would not believe the case for war has been made. Tonight in the Baltic Centre in Gateshead we've invited the Prime Minister to face an audience of ordinary people from here in the north-east, all of whom are sceptical about the arguments for war with Iraq. Facing them is the Prime Minister. He has confessed himself worried he has not yet made the case for war. Tonight, taking questions from our audience and from me he'll have the chance to do so. Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country - what is it? TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait. JEREMY PAXMAN: But right now there is no danger, it's a danger some time in the future. TONY BLAIR: I've never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain but if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein there is absolutely no doubt at all that he poses a threat to his region. If he was to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the rest of his region, there is no way that Britain could stand aside from that, or indeed the rest of the world. And that is precisely why we have had 12 years of United Nations resolutions against him. JEREMY PAXMAN: Well you said of those UN resolutions and the sanctions which followed them in the year 2000, you said that they had contained him. What's happened since? TONY BLAIR: I didn't actually, I said they'd been contained him up to a point and the fact is - ¿ JEREMY PAXMAN: I'm sorry Prime Minister - we believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein in the last ten years, you said that in November 2000. TONY BLAIR: Well I can assure you I've said every time I'm asked about this, they have contained him up to a point and the fact is the sanctions regime was beginning to crumble, it's why it's subsequent in fact to that quote we had a whole series of negotiations about tightening the sanctions regime but the truth is the inspectors were put out of Iraq so - JEREMY PAXMAN: They were not put out of Iraq, Prime Minister, that is just not true. The weapons inspectors left Iraq after being told by the American government that bombs will be dropped on the country. TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, that is simply not right. What happened is that the inspectors told us that they were unable to carry out their work, they couldn't do their work because they weren't being allowed access to the sites. They detailed that in the reports to the Security Council. On that basis, we said they should come out because they couldn't do their job properly. JEREMY PAXMAN: That wasn't what you said, you said they were thrown out of Iraq - TONY BLAIR: Well they were effectively because they couldn't do the work they were supposed to do JEREMY PAXMAN: No, effectively they were not thrown out of Iraq, they withdraw. TONY BLAIR: No I sorry Jeremy, I'm not allowing you away with that, that is completely wrong. Let me just explain to you what happened. JEREMY PAXMAN: You've just said the decision was taken by the inspectors to leave the country. They were therefore not thrown out. TONY BLAIR: They were effectively thrown out for the reason that I will give you. Prior to them leaving Iraq they had come back to the Security Council, again and again, and said we are not being given access to sites. For example, things were being designated as presidential palaces, they weren't being allowed to go in there. As a result of that, they came back to the United Nations and said we can't carry out the work as inspectors; therefore we said you must leave because we will have to try and enforce this action a different way. So when you say the inspectors, when you imply the inspectors were in there doing their work, that is simply not the case. JEREMY PAXMAN: I did not imply that, I merely stated the fact that they were not thrown out, they were withdrawn. And you concede they were withdrawn. TONY BLAIR: They were withdrawn because they couldn't do their job. I mean let's not be ridiculous about this, there's
[CTRL] http://makethemaccountable.com/tax/index.htm
-Caveat Lector- Please contribute via PayPal, or click here for information on paying by check. Contributions are not tax deductible. About - Contact, Send an email message Bush and Taxes The Anonymous CPA BUSH MAY HAVE EVADED TAXES ON SALE OF BASEBALL TEAM - 8/19/02 Listen to Peter Werbe's interview of Carolyn Kay regarding the sale of the team (9:13) George Bush's 1998 Tax Return (pdf format) See especially: Page 2 Page 4, line 13 Page 11, lines 15-27 TAX CONSEQUENCES - BUSH LOAN FROM HARKEN ENERGY CORP. (HEC) - 8/16/02 To listen to the audio files, you will need RealPlayer--it's free! Click on the icon at the right and then look at the right side of the page. Last changed: February 04, 2003 A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] No Chicks, No Incubators, No Deal
-Caveat Lector- http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2003/feb/feb063.html February 6, 2003 Where are the incubators? By Paul de Rooij* On February 5th, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, delivered his lengthy accusation of Iraqi attempts to build and retain weapons of mass destruction. The setting was eerily reminiscent of the presentation of the key propaganda event that justified the first Gulf War. At that time, also at the United Nations, the Hill Knowlton propaganda specialists concocted the throwing babies out of incubators charade, starring the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador. If they needed to concoct such a lie in 1991 to change US public opinion when there was a clear case of Iraqi aggression, then one should be on guard now when the grounds for war are much more tenuous. A bit of historical context should perhaps guard us from lending too much credence to evidence concocted by the US and presented by Powell himself. We should also expect more fabrications and staged provocations; in fact, the US has never let a bit of truth stand in its way of a war. One of the most important messages coming out of the Powell presentation was the reiterated threat against the UN. He stated that it should either play along with the US or it will be rendered meaningless; this threat almost drives a nail through the UNs coffin. The post- War basis for international law would be overturned in favor of a world where the US would rule by the might is right principle a principle one assumed had been totally discredited. Secretary General Kofi Annan looked on impassively throughout without uttering a statement afterwards. Perhaps his diminutive voice will from now be even further muted. He could hide in some of the bombproof cars that have been given to him by the US and Germany but why the UN Secretary General would need such vehicles is a mystery. In fact, the US has attained expertise in crafting UN resolutions or accords that will guarantee an outcome leading to war. During the Ramboulliet Conference about Kosovo, the conditions of the Accords were so onerous that they were certain to be rejected, and therefore an unnecessary war ensued. UN Resolution 1441 requiring inspections and that Iraq come clean seems also to have been crafted in such a way that it could provide the excuse for war. That was the open and shameless implication evident from Powells presentation. First of all, the UN resolution put the Iraqis in the impossible situation that they must prove that they do NOT have any weapons of mass destruction. Any proof proffered or any inspection will not enable them to satisfy the resolution Americans will always state that Iraqis are hiding something. The Iraqis obviously had no choice other than to go along with the resolution, but either way the outcome seems to be war. Powell emphasized the importance of the satellite photographs proving that there were chemical or biological weapons. If the photos actually showed this, then why cant the inspectors be flown to the locale? Furthermore, there are very good grounds for Iraqis to be moving around their assets given the impending war. They would be total idiots to let them sit in plain sight to be easily bombed by US planes. So, the motive attributed by Powell for hiding them is entirely legitimate given the perceived risk of the onset of war. The same explanation can be proffered if Iraqis are found trying to hide bunkers this is called camouflage. Had the American buildup been delayed until after the inspectors had a chance to determine the status of the various weapons programs, then moving weapons around would have been suspicious. With tens of thousands of troops surrounding Iraq there are very good reasons to spread those weapons around, hide them, or to safeguard expensive equipment. Powell stated that the Iraqis were spying on the UN inspection team and intimated that this somehow would be illegitimate. Since history is a useful guide, then we know that the previous inspection teams were used by the US to spy on Iraq. Scott Ritter, a former inspector, has said this much himself. If the US is building a massive military force around Iraq, and if it is likely using the UN inspection team for spying, then it is legitimate to take defensive measures. Again, the US buildup makes Iraqi countermeasures understandable, and not attributable to some perverse motive. Using this same argument it is also understandable why Iraqis dont want US U2 spy plane over-flights. NB: the image of a U2 airplane shown during the presentation disingenuously showed a UN symbol on the airplane this would be a rare sight indeed if it were true. How could data gathered from such an airplane be controlled by the UN? Scott Ritter has stated that nuclear weapons and their radioactive components are very easy to spot. Airplanes flying over Iraq could detect these. So, Powells assertions about the silly aluminum tubes are dubious. The shelf life of both
[CTRL] Eng Gov't Official Upset At 'Barney's' Homework Copying
-Caveat Lector- GLENDA: DOWNING STREET LIED ON DOSSIER http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12618038 method=fullsiteid=50143 Former Labour minister Glenda Jackson today accused the Government of lying to the public over its Iraq dossier. Ms Jackson said the file, which was supposed to prove Saddam's attempts to deceive the UN, is an example of how Downing Street is trying to mislead Britons. Last night it emerged the dossier was partly based on 12- year-old information and included chunks lifted from a thesis by a student in California. Ms Jackson told the BBC: If that was presented to Parliament and the country as being up-to-date intelligence, albeit collected from a variety of sources but by British intelligence agents, and in fact as we now know they simply lifted it from a university thesis, it is another example of how the Government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq. And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying. The student who wrote the thesis, Ibrahim al-Marashi, is furious the British Government used his work without giving him credit for his efforts. They never cited my article, Mr al-Marashi said. Any academic, when you publish anything, the only thing you ask for in return is that they include a citation of your work. There are laws and regulations about plagiarism that you would think the UK Government would abide by. Downing Street today admitted it was wrong to produce the document without crediting Mr al-Marashi. But a spokesman for Tony Blair insisted the document was accurate. Top Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] RFID tags, PEI, abusers, guilty plea, porn case,Iraq docs plagiarised,false ties
-Caveat Lector- also has : Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. on Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda "The government's carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism. The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN yesterday." Several consumer products to get 'tagged' By Michelle Kessler, USA Today 1/27/03 San Francisco - "By the end of the year, a host of consumer products will, for the first time, be sold with tiny computer chips known as RFID tags in them. The chips contain small bits of data, such as a product's serial number, which can be read by a scanner. The scanner sends the data to a database so stores and manufacturers can quickly track what is sold. The radio frequency identification tags could dramatically improve inventory processes, retail analysts say, thus reduce costs and maybe consumer prices." http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-27-rfid_x.htm from L Moss Sharman Ex-member of P.E.I. commune faces child sex charges Broadcast News Charlottetown - RCMP in P.E.I. have charged a former member of the religious commune with sexual assault. Daniel Ezra Boissonneault, 57, has been charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. Police allege the offences took place between February 1999 and July 2001 at the commune in Hazel Grove led by Lucille Poulin. RCMP Sergeant Richard Thibault says the victim is a girl who is now 13 years old, and is not related to Boissonneault. The complaint was part of a police investigation into the 1999 death of a 12-year-old boy at the commune. Police say that investigation is still underway, and expect to have a report in two or three months." http://www.canada.com/ Sexually Abused Kids Don't All Become Adult Abusers: Study 2/6/03 By Serena Gordon (HealthScoutNews) - "A new British study disputes the common belief that someone who is sexually abused as a child will become a sexual predator as an adult. The researchers found that only 12 percent of 224 boys who had been sexually abused as children later became sexual abusers themselves. They also discovered that abusers shared similar risk factors growing up, such as abuse from a female or a history of cruelty to animals. "Most males who are sexually abused are unlikely to become sexual offenders," says the study's author, Dr. David Skuse, a professor of behavioral and brain sciences at the Institute for Child Health in London. "But it is possible to identify boys who are at higher risk, and thus to make sure we intervene with those most vulnerable children to prevent them from becoming the pedophiles of the future," he adds. The findings, published in the Feb. 8 issue of The Lancet, were challenged by at least one expert who says the percentage of abused-turned-predator is probably too low." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2cid=97u=/hsn/20030207/hl_hsn/sexually_abused_kids_don_t_all_become_adult_abusers__studyprinter Guilty Plea in Mass. Child-Abuse Case By Adam Gorlick 2/4/03 Worcester, Mass. - "One of five people charged in connection with the alleged decade-long sexual abuse of 10 children in central Massachusetts admitted his role in the assaultsPolice say Dimo and his friends -- a woman, her husband, her ex-husband and her former brother-in-law - sexually abused 10 children ranging in age from 6 to 17, at various times from 1990 to 2001." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-abuse-worcester0204feb04,0,6700958.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines Child-porn convict handed record-high prison sentence by Jose Martinez 2/6/03 "A Leominster man who pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing more than 1,000 kiddie porn images yesterday received the longest-ever federal sentence related to child pornography in Massachusetts. Christopher Albert, 41, pleaded guilty Oct. 28 in U.S. District Court in Worcester. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton sentenced him to 10 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release and intensive sex offender treatment."Albert was a repeat sex offender on state probation with a suspended sentence hanging over him at the time of his arrest in this case," U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan said. "His history of assaulting children, combined with his ongoing child pornography collection and distribution activities, revealed that he was a predator who posed a significant risk to children in his community." http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/porn02062003.htm http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/uk020603.html Government 'intelligence' report on Iraq revealed as plagiarism Release: Government 'intelligence' report on Iraq revealed as plagiarismThe British government's latest report on Iraq's non-compliance with weapons inspections, which claims to draw on "intelligence material", has been reveal
[CTRL] Mossad Exposed in Phony Palestinian al Qaeda Caper
-Caveat Lector- http://www.mediabypass.com/feature.htm Feature Story Mossad Exposed in Phony "Palestinian al Qaeda" Caper by Michele Steinberg and Hussein Askary The United States government has been provided with concrete evidence that the Israeli Mossad and other Israeli intelligence services have been involved in a 13-month effort to "recruit" an Israeli-run, phony "al Qaeda cell" among Palestinians, so that Israel could achieve a frontline position in the U.S. war against terrorism and get a green light for a worldwide "revenge without borders" policy. The question: Does the United States have the moral fiber to investigate? Evidence of the Israeli dirty tricks burst onto the public scene on December 6, when Col. Rashid Abu Shbak, head of the Palestinian Preventive Security Services in the Gaza Strip, held a press conference revealing the details of the alleged plot, as his agency had put the pieces together. The revelations undermine the "big lie" that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has used to justify new brutal attacks on Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and other occupied areas. Sharon claimed on December 4 that Israeli intelligence had "hard evidence" of al Qaeda operations in the Gaza Strip. Now, the top Palestinian leadership has shown the United States and other nations how Israeli intelligence entities were creating that al Qaeda link! American leader Lyndon LaRouche, a Democratic Presidential pre-candidate in 2004, commented that these revelations, if confirmed, could be "of strategic importance" in stopping the American, British and Israeli warhawks pushing for a Middle East war, beginning with an invasion of Iraq. A war would justify the Sharon government's plan to annihilate the very idea of a Palestinian state. LaRouche warned that if institutions of the American Presidency and the international community successfully block an American pre-emptive war on Iraq, the biggest danger would be that a "mega-terror" attack, blamed on Palestinians, or an "Iraqi-linked" al Qaeda, would be staged by Israel's ruling Jabotinskyite fanatics, to put the war back on the agenda. News about the Mossad-run attempt to create an al Qaeda cell came when well-informed intelligence sources based in Washington had already told the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) that there are many doubts about the Mossad's hasty declaration that "al Qaeda" had been responsible for the November 28 attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, where three Israelis were killed, and the failed rocket attack on an Israeli chartered jet that was departing from Mombasa airport. There was no identification of the bombers within the first five days of the incident, the sources pointed out, yet Sharon's government ministers went on an immediate propaganda rampage announcing worldwide revenge. Authorities in Kenya also denied the al Qaeda link. But the usefulness of blaming al Qaeda, for the Israeli right, was palpable, when Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the Kenya attacks "a golden opportunity" to prove to the United States that Bush's war on terrorism, and Israel's war with the Palestinians is the same thing. Netanyahu's faction has violently rejected the Palestinian Authority's revelations, and so far, the American and European press have followed suit, despite the dramatic nature of these charges, and the documents that the Palestinians have provided to the international press. Chronology of the Revelations On December 7, the British news service, Reuters, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, and Qatar-based Al-Jazeera TV network, all reported that the Palestinian Authority had accused the Mossad of creating a phony al Qaeda cell in the Gaza Strip. Ha'aretz reported, "the head of Palestinian Preventive Security" in the Gaza Strip, Col. Rashid Abu Shbak, said on December 6, "that his forces had identified a number of Palestinian collaborators who had been ordered by Israeli security agencies to 'work in the Gaza Strip under the name of al Qaeda.' He said the investigation was ongoing and evidence would be presented soon." Al-Jazeera TV added that the Palestinian authorities had arrested a group of Palestinian "collaborators with Israeli occupation" in Gaza, involved in the operation. Reuters' reporter Diala Saadeh, under the headline, "Palestinians: Israel Faked Gaza al-Qaeda Presence," quoted a number of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) senior officials, including President Yasser Arafat, who told reporters at his West Bank Ramallah headquarters, that Sharon's claims of al Qaeda operations in Palestinian territories "is a big, big, big lie to cover [Sharon's] attacks and his crimes against our people everywhere." P.A. Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo detailed the case: "There are certain elements who were instructed by the Mossad to form a cell under the name of al Qaeda in the Gaza Strip in order to justify the assault and the military campaigns of the Israeli occupation army against Gaza." Palestinian officials
[CTRL] Legend: Part Three
-Caveat Lector- December 22, 2000 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/122200a.html Behind Colin Powell's Legend: Part Three By Robert Parry Norman Solomon Saving Ronald Reagan We need you, Colin, pleaded the familiar voice over the phone. This is serious, said Colin Powells old mentor, Frank Carlucci, who in in December 1986 was President Reagans new national security adviser. Believe me, the presidency is at stake. With those words, Colin Powell re-entered the Iran- contra affair, a set of events he had dangerously advanced almost a year earlier by secretly arranging missile shipments to Iran. But just as Powell played an important behind-the- scenes role in those early missile shipments, he would be equally instrumental in the next phase, the scandal's containment. His skillful handling of the media and Congress would earn him the gratitude of Reagan-Bush insiders and lift Powell into the top levels of the Republican Party. In late 1986, Carlucci called Powell in West Germany, where he had gone to serve as commander of the V Corps. Powell thus had missed the November exposure of the secret shipments of U.S. military hardware to the radical Islamic government in Iran. Though Powell had helped arrange those shipments, he had not yet been tainted by the spreading scandal. President Reagan, however, was reeling from disclosures about the reckless arms-for-hostage scheme with Iran and diversion of money to the Nicaraguan contra rebels. As the scandal deepened into a potential threat to the Reagan presidency, the White House searched for some cool heads and some steady hands. Carlucci reached out to Powell. Powell was reluctant to heed Carluccis request. You know I had a role in this business, Powell told the national security adviser. But Carlucci soon was moving adroitly to wall Powell off from the expanding scandal. On Dec. 9, 1986, the White House obtained from the FBI a statement that Powell was not a criminal suspect in the secret arms deals. Carlucci also sought assurances from key players that Powell would stay outside the scope of the investigation. The next day, Carlucci asked Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, Powells old boss, to call Peter Wallison, WH Counsel -- to tell them Colin had no connection with Iran arms sales -- except to carry out President's order. Weinberger wrote down Carluccis message. According to Weinbergers notes, he then called Peter Wallison -- Told him Colin Powell had only minimum involvement on Iran. The statement wasnt exactly true. Powell had played a crucial role in skirting the Pentagons stringent internal controls over missile shipments to get the weapons out of Defense warehouses and into the CIA pipeline. But with the endorsement of Weinberger, Carlucci was satisfied that his old friend, Powell, could sidestep the oozing Iran-contra contamination. On Dec. 12, 1986, Reagan formally asked Powell to quit his post as commander of V Corps in West Germany and to become deputy national security adviser. Powell described Reagan as sounding as jovial and folksy as ever. Yes, sir, Powell answered. Ill do it. But Powell was not enthusiastic. According to his memoirs, My American Journey, Powell felt he had no choice. Taking Charge Powell flew back to Washington and assumed his new duties on Jan. 2, 1987. As usual, Powell took to his task with skill and energy. His personal credibility would be instrumental in convincing official Washington that matters were now back under control. By that time, too, the White House already was pressing ahead with a plan for containing the Iran-contra scandal. The strategy evolved from a plan of action cobbled together by chief of staff Don Regan immediately before the Iran-contra diversion was announced on Nov. 25, 1986. Oliver North and his colleagues at the National Security Council were to bear the brunt of the scandal. Tough as it seems, blame must be put at NSC's door - - rogue operation, going on without President's knowledge or sanction Regan had written. When suspicions arose he [Reagan] took charge, ordered investigation, had meeting with top advisers to get at facts, and find out who knew what. Anticipate charges of 'out of control,' 'President doesn't know what's going on,' 'Who's in charge?' Suggesting that President Reagan was deficient as a leader was not a pretty option, but it was the best the White House could do. The other option was to admit that Reagan had authorized much of the illegal operation, including the 1985 arms shipments to Iran through Israel, transfers that Weinberger had warned Reagan were illegal and could be an impeachable offense. By February 1987, however, the containment strategy was making progress. A presidential commission headed by former Sen. John Tower, R-Texas, was finishing a report that found no serious wrongdoing but criticized Reagan's management style. In its Feb. 26 report, the Tower Board said the scandal had been a failure of responsibility and
[CTRL] E-Bombing Civilization
-Caveat Lector- http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy42.html E-Bombing Civilization by Daniel McCarthy Thereâs a new weapon of mass destruction, one designed to destroy critical electronic infrastructure. It shorts out everything from office computers to traffic lights to pacemakers, crippling the machines that run a modern economy â not to mention those that run a modern hospital. Although not intended as an anti-personnel device, the side-effects that this weapon has upon human beings caught within its blast radius are devastating: those lucky enough to suffer a direct hit are more or less instantly vaporized. The less fortunate on the periphery of the blast, or those caught by a ricochet, suffer severe burns and damage to the internal organs, including the brain. The weapon is the "e-bomb," or microwave bomb, and as you may have guessed, this new marvel of terror is brought to us by the same folks who gave the world the atomic bomb and weaponized anthrax. Yes, itâs a creation of the United States federal government and its "defense" contractors. Victorino Matus writes about the e-bomb on the Weekly Standardâs website; Matus cannot quite conceal his enthusiasm, but he does at least mention the humanitarian concerns about the device. Of course, he concludes by reiterating that the purpose of the bomb is actually to spare lives: to destroy electronics without also killing people. This is a humanitarian weapon. Something here doesnât add up. Several news sources have reported that the e-bomb may see its first use in the attack on Iraq. Thatâs understandable as far as it goes; Iraq is not really a stone age country, despite years of sanctions. It may still have enough electronics to make the bomb an effective weapon in the U.S. arsenal (although then again, it may not). But think about this in the long term. The real danger to the United States at present comes from terrorist organizations, not from "rogue states," which are only significant to the extent that they harbor and support terrorists. How do you use an "e-bomb" against al Qaeda? Itâs not a weapon of much use against people hiding in caves. Nor is it of any use in stopping a hijacked airplane â it could bring down an aircraft, of course, but so could a conventional missile, and the e-bomb would run the additional risk of shorting out any other electronics nearby, including other planes and systems on the ground. Even its usefulness against Iraq will be very limited. To put it bluntly, an anti-technology weapon is most useful against a target dependent on high technology. That doesnât mean Iraq, and it certainly doesnât mean Afghanistan or al Qaeda. It means countries like the United States. By its very nature, the e-bomb poses more of a danger to the United States and other first world countries than it does to terrorists or rogue states. So why is the US developing this weapon? One explanation would be that the military-industrial bureaucracy is still fighting the last war. The e-bomb might work fine against the aircraft and mechanized infantry divisions of a large nation state such as the Soviet Union. It would be a useful weapon to deploy against cities as well, to scramble communications and handicap the economy. But this kind nation-to-nation warfare is not what America or the world currently faces. Even apart from al Qaeda, most of the fighting in the world today is within, not between, states. Outside of Africa, what warfare there still is between states typically now takes the form of the United States and its allies fighting a single, smaller foe of extremely limited conventional forces (Serbia, Iraq, etc.). In such engagements the e-bomb has limited practical value. Itâs a bunker-buster, and one of a highly specialized sort, in an age characterized by fewer and fewer bunkers. It might have applications in Iraq, but it would have had few indeed in Serbia â except, again, as a weapon for use against cities. On the other hand, the e-bomb would be a very convenient weapon for anyone who wanted to attack America. There are ways to shield, or "harden," electronics against electromagnetic pulses, but microwaves are the most difficult radiation to harden against. No doubt some of the most highly sensitive military technology might be proofed against an e-bomb, but civilians would have little protection. In addition to hospitals and traffic lights, power grids, air traffic control systems, and telecommunications could all be crippled or destroyed. The loss of life and economic damage would be bad enough in Belgrade or Baghdad; in an American city it would be far worse. The microwave bomb really is a weapon of mass destruction, one particularly tuned to the weaknesses of a modern, computer-reliant city. Will the governmentâs development of this weapon come back to haunt us? In twenty yearsâ time we may have President George P. Bush threatening war with Bhutan unless the Bhutanis can prove that they
[CTRL] Legend: Part Five
-Caveat Lector- December 27, 2000 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/122700a.html Behind Colin Powell's Legend: Part Five By Robert Parry Norman Solomon Loose Ends The Persian Gulf victory capped Powell's rise to full-scale national hero. But, in the year that followed, some of his political compromises from the Reagan years returned to tarnish, at least slightly, the shining image. To his dismay, Powell was not quite through with the Iran-contra affair. In testimony to Iran-contra independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Powell had denied knowing about illegal missile shipments to Iran through Israel in 1985, though acknowledging arranging legal shipments from Defense stockpiles in 1986. Then, in 1991, Iran-contra investigators stumbled upon Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger's long-lost notes filed away in a corner of the Library of Congress. Among those papers was a note dated Oct. 3, 1985, indicating that Weinberger had received information from a National Security Agency intercept that Iran was receiving arms transfers, a notice that would have gone through Powell, Weinbergers military assistant. [For details, see Part Two of this series.] The belated discovery of Weinberger's diaries led to the former defense secretary's indictment for obstruction of justice. The notes also prompted Powell to submit a pro- Weinberger affidavit that contradicted Powell's own earlier sworn testimony in which he had insisted that Weinberger maintained no diaries. In the new version, dated April 21, 1992, Powell argued that he regarded Weinberger's daily notes as a personal diary and that it was entirely possible that Weinberger would not have understood these personal papers to be within the scope of the Iran-contra document requests. Beyond this apparent contradiction on the question of whether a diary existed or not, the greater threat to Powell's reputation was the pending Weinberger trial which was scheduled to start in January 1993. Powell was listed as a prospective witness. At trial, the general might have to maneuver through a legal mine field created by his unlikely claims of ignorance about the illegal Iran weapons in 1985. If evidence emerged demonstrating what seemed most likely -- that Powell and Weinberger both knew about the 1985 shipments -- Powell could face questions about his own credibility and possibly charges of false testimony. So, in late 1992, Powell joined an intense lobbying campaign to convince President George H.W. Bush to pardon Weinberger. The president had his own reasons to go along. Bush's participation in the scandal also might have been exposed to the public if the trial went forward. Bush's insistence that he was not in the loop on Iran-contra had been undermined by the Weinberger documents, too, damaging Bush's reelection hopes in the final weekend of the campaign. On Christmas Eve 1992, Bush dealt a retaliatory blow to the Iran-contra investigation, granting pardons to Weinberger and five other Iran-contra defendants. The pardons effectively killed the Iran-contra probe. Weinberger was spared a trial -- and Powell was saved from embarrassing attention over his dubious role in the whole affair. A Press Favorite In 1995, back in private life, Colin Powell was still remembered as the confetti-covered hero of Desert Storm. A star-struck national press corps seemed eager to hoist the four-star general onto its shoulders and into the Oval Office. Any hint of a Powell interest in the White House made headlines. Without doubt, Powell was a good story, potentially the first black American president. But some journalists seemed to embrace Powell because they disdained his rivals, from Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton. Newsweek was one of the first publications to catch the Powell presidential wave. In its Oct. 10, 1994, issue, the magazine posed the hyperbolic query: Can Colin Powell Save America? Powell was portrayed as a man of consummate judgment, intelligence and grace. Not to be outdone, Time endorsed Powell as the ideal candidate for president. In Time's view, Powell was the perfect anti-victim, validating America's fondest Horacio Alger myth that a black man with few advantages can rise to the top without bitterness and without forgetting who he is. [Time, March 13, 1995] Soon, Time was detecting near-super-human powers: Powell could defy aging and even the middle-age paunch. While Jesse Jackson had grown older, paunchier and less energetic, Powell was the Persian Gulf War hero who exudes strength, common sense and human values like no one else on the scene. [Time, Aug. 28, 1995] But the newsmagazines were not alone in the accolades. Surveying the media scene, press critic Howard Kurtz marveled at how many supposedly hard-edged journalists were swooning at Powell's feet. Even by the standards of modern media excess, there has never been anything quite like the way the press is embracing, extolling and flat-out promoting this retired general who has never sought
[CTRL] Legend: Part Four
-Caveat Lector- December 26, 2000 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/122600a.html Behind Colin Powell's Legend: Part Four By Robert Parry Norman Solomon The Commander On June 21, 1989, in secret, the Justice Department promulgated an extraordinary legal opinion, asserting the president's right to order the capture of fugitives from U.S. laws even if they were living in foreign countries, even if the arrest meant ignoring extradition treaties and international law. The opinion had specific relevance to U.S.-Panamanian relations because a federal grand jury in Florida had indicted Panama's military leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega, on drug-trafficking charges. The legal opinion also would influence the course of Colin Powell's career. The four-star general had left Washington at the start of Bush's presidency in 1989. He had taken charge of Forces Command at Fort McPherson in Georgia. By August 1989, however, President George H.W. Bush and his defense secretary, Richard Cheney, were urging Powell to return to Washington where he would become the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell accepted the new assignment. His first day on the new job was Oct. 2, 1989 -- and Powell immediately joined debates about whether to intervene in support of a home-grown Panamanian coup attempt led by Maj. Moises Giroldi against Noriega. The whole affair sounded like amateur night, Powell wrote in My American Journey. Cheney, [Gen. Max] Thurman and I ... agreed that the United States should not get involved. Bush accepted the advice of his military advisers. With only minimal U.S. help, the coup failed. Noriega promptly executed Giroldi. In the wake of the coup attempt, Bush came under fierce criticism in the news media and in Congress. TV's armchair-warrior pundits had a field day mocking Bush's supposed timidity. On The McLaughlin Group, conservative Ben Wattenberg charged that Bushs only policy was prudence, prudence, prudence. Prudence is not a policy. The New Republics Fred Barnes chimed in that Bushs policy is when in doubt, do nothing. It was a massive failure of nerve. And then they come up with these whiny excuses. ... If this were a baseball game, the fans would be going -- the choke sign. Another pundit, Morton Kondracke, offered a joke line about the president. Most of what comes from George Bushs bully pulpit is bull. In Congress, Bush did not fare much better. Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D- Colo., taunted him as the Revlon president for offering only cosmetic solutions. Rep. David McCurdy, D-Okla, declared: There's a resurgence of the wimp factor. According to Bob Woodward's book, The Commanders, Powell was stunned. He had never seen piling on of this intensity, and across the whole political spectrum. It was as if there was a lynch mob out there. Even more unsettling, Powell saw his own leadership at the JCS jeopardized by Washington's super-macho political environment of the late 1980s. Neither Bush nor Powell would make the same mistake again. They quickly built up U.S. forces in Panama, and the administration began spoiling for a fight. We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here', declared Powell. An Incident In mid-December, the tensions between the United States and Panama exploded when four American officers in a car ran a roadblock near the headquarters of the Panamanian Defense Forces. PDF troops opened fire, killing one American. Another American officer and his wife were held for questioning. After their release, the officer alleged that he had been kicked in the groin and that his wife had been threatened with rape. When word of this humiliation reached Washington, Bush saw American honor and his own manhood challenged. He certainly could imagine, too, the pundits hooting about his cowardice if he didn't act. Powell also saw the need for decisive action. On Dec. 17, he recommended to Bush that a large-scale U.S. military operation capture Noriega and destroy the PDF, even though the assault might result in many civilian casualties and violate international law. The authorization for the attack was found in the Justice Department legal opinion from almost six months earlier. On Bush's orders, the invasion began on Dec. 20, with Powell and Cheney monitoring developments at the Pentagon. The high-tech American assault force, using the F-117 Stealth aircraft for the first time, incinerated the PDF headquarters and the surrounding civilian neighborhoods. Hundreds of civilians -- possibly thousands, according to some human rights observers -- perished in the first few hours of the attack. An estimated 315 Panamanian soldiers also died, as did 23 Americans. But Noriega eluded capture. Best Spin Despite the temporary setback, Powell followed his dictum of putting the best spin on a story. Stepping before cameras at the Pentagon, Powell declared victory and played down the disappointment over Noriega's disappearance. This reign
[CTRL] An Israeli primer for Muslim rulers: How to make America love you
http://yt.org/article.php?sid=1047 "An Israeli primer for Muslim rulers: How to make America love you" Printed on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 @ 23:25:58 EST By Yusuf Agha YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – Alas, poor Musharraf! No matter what the Pakistani general does to please President Bush, he can't get the U.S. administration to reciprocate his amorous advances. A single phone call from General Powell and he turns his back on his Taliban allies. He surrenders his military bases to American forces. He allows FBI agents to roam the length of his country picking up Pakistani citizens at will. He arrests anyone with an Arabic accent and bundles him off to Guantanamo -- 440 to date, and counting. He extradites his citizens bypassing Pakistani law and courts. He rigs elections so he can keep the rapidly growing anti-American political forces out of government. And what does he get for his troubles? America adds Pakistan to its list of nations whose citizens are being considered a security risk: Hundreds of Pakistanis living in the U.S. are imprisoned; all Pakistanis entering the U.S. are to be fingerprinted like criminal suspects. But that's only the insult -- the added injury came when U.S. airplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a mosque/seminary in Pakistan and U.S. officials announced they will chase enemy fighters into Pakistani territory. The latest: American ambassadors to both India and Pakistan have been accusing Pakistan's Kashmir stance as "cross border" terrorism, attracting feeble murmurs of disapproval from the Foreign Office. "There is little [Musharraf] can do to counter the U.S. military's capacity for making bad situations worse," says London's the Guardian. "And Musharraf must realize that his support for Washington does not mean Washington will always support him…" That is the dilemma of the host of rulers in the Muslim world today. Saddam today, gone tomorrow! So how does a Muslim ruler in today's world ensure Washington's continued love and support? Dale Carnegie, eat your heart out! Here's a didactic framework for autocrats galore -- the Musharaffs, Abdullas, and Assads of the Muslim world -- on how to make the world's sole superpower "Keep on loving you" in return. Take your cue from America's single sweetheart for thirty-five years -- the one and only (drum roll, please) -- Israel! Everyone knows that America's power base -- presidents, senators, representatives, national security advisors, the press, networks, Hollywood and televangelists -- loves to love Israel. This little Middle Eastern country, pariah state to most people in the world, seems to call the shots on America's polity both at home and abroad. Here's a primer for Muslim leaders on how to follow Israel's lead, thereby possibly making their way to America's heart. Lesson One: "The course of love never did run smooth." (Shakespeare) Jilt (or publicly snub) the U.S. President. For example, when George Bush called on Sharon to pull out his armies from the West Bank, Sharon snubbed the U.S. President by non-compliance. He proceeded to scuttle Bush's push for a U.N. peace mission to Jenin. When Associated Press correspondent Fournier asked Bush what were the "consequences for those who thumb their nose at the President of the United States [meaning Mr. Sharon]," the President responded by blaming Chairman Arafat, whose performance, said Mr. Bush, had "just been disappointing ... he's let down the Palestinian people." In return, Bush ensured the Israeli Prime Minister continued access to the White House -- Sharon was the only ruler of a foreign state who visited the executive office more often than Tony Blair last year. Lesson Two: "Not that I love Caesar less, but that I love Congress more." In his trip to Congress in June last year, Sharon charmed the U.S. Congress with unsullied love. "Since my election as head of state," quoth he, " I have made it my duty to tighten the links with the two houses of Congress, where we have numerous friends, rather than rely only on the American President as many of my predecessors have done." In return, Congress overwhelmingly expressed its unstinting support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, standing "in solidarity with Israel" as a frontline state in the war against terrorism. Bush, trying his hardest not to be outdone, declared that Israel has a right to "defend" itself and declared that conditions were not ripe for a Middle East peace conference. Lesson Three: "Bury the heart and wound the knee." "Most members of Congress chose to pony up [to Israel]," says Pat Buchanan, "rather than face the retribution of an Israeli lobby that has in its trophy case the scalps of two chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright and Chuck Percy." Add to that the scalps of a long list of Congressmen who "dared to speak out" against Israel, including Paul Findley, Earl Hilliard and
[CTRL] Chomsky: War would be insane.
-Caveat Lector- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2677131.stm Tuesday, 21 January, 2003, 17:32 GMT Viewpoint: War would be insane Noam Chomsky, a leading American academic who has been at the forefront of anti-war protests since the 1960s, says the Bush administration is wrong to stress military options in its dealings with Iraq. You never need an argument against the use of violence, you need an argument for it. And the arguments that have been given for it are not convincing. There is no debate about the importance of disarming Iraq and indeed other countries that have the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. That is very important and everyone agrees on it. The way to proceed with that is the way that has been done - with careful inspection procedures and efforts to ensure that the US and Britain and others will no longer carry out the policies of the past and provide Saddam with means for developing weapons of mass destruction. It is extremely unlikely that Saddam Hussein would use nuclear weapons, which is a recipe for instant suicide - except in a desperate reaction to an attack. So we should certainly do everything to prevent him from developing weapons of mass destruction. I think that nobody doubts that the world would be better off if he is eliminated. But the means that are proposed are outlandish. The means that are proposed are that we should carry out an attack which we understand may cause very severe humanitarian catastrophe and might also lead to the only real likelihood of his using weapons of mass destruction. Anti-war sentiments There is simply no historical precedent in the history of the United States or of Europe for such overwhelming opposition to a war at this stage - that is before it has even been undertaken. The US planners are well aware that it is not a situation like the 1960s, when you can carry out aggression and violence for years with no public opposition. Now the popular consciousness has just changed. You can declare victory over the much weaker enemy - but anything longer than that is going to arouse the public which simply is not as willing to accept aggression and violence as Europe and the United States have been in the past. Whether there will be large-scale humanitarian catastrophes, nobody knows. It is a reasonable possibility and sane people do not undertake actions when they know that there is reasonable possibility that it may lead to a humanitarian catastrophe unless they have enormously powerful arguments. The arguments that they have put forward are so weak that there can be no choice about this. Noam Chomsky teaches linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He recently published 9-11, a book about terrorism and US foreign policy. He was speaking to the BBC's Today programme He presented his views on the 11 September attacks in a video essay at the time of the first anniversary:Video Here A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[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] Left and Right Join to Fight Big Brother
-Caveat Lector- Left and Right Join to Fight Big Brother Pentagon's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program under fire. Funds in doubt for Pentagon's cyber-spy plan http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030206-6831109.htm --- -iNFoWaRZ American's say no to Big Brother Spying. The only program I approve of is a camera and a microphone watching and recording every politician and bureaucrat, and broadcast, via Television and Internet, to the watchful eyes of the American people twenty four hours a day. Watch how fast corrupt government straightens up. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/france/14juillet/gb/decldroits.html
-Caveat Lector- The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen The 1789 Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen was inspired by the American Declaration of Independence of 1776. The French Declaration marked the end of the Ancien Régime and the dawn of a new era. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic explicitly refers to this Declaration, which is now one of our founding texts. History The Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen, along with the decrees of August 4 and 11, 1789 abolishing feudal rights, was one of the fundamental texts adopted by the Constituent Assembly formed in the wake of the meeting of the Estates General. Although adopted in principle before July 14, 1789, several drafts of the Declaration were discussed before deputies voted for the final text, after lengthy debate, on August 26. It consists of a preamble and 17 articles containing various provisions pertaining to the individual and the Nation. It spells out such natural and indefeasible rights as liberty, property, security, and the right to resist oppression. The Declaration also recognizes equality, notably before the law and justice. Finally, it asserts the principle of the separation of powers. Louis XVI did not ratify it until October 5, and then under pressure of the Assembly and the people, who had marched out to Versailles. The Declaration served as the preamble to the first constitution of the French Revolution, adopted in 1791. Although the Revolution itself subsequently reneged on certain of its principles and framed two further Declarations of the rights of man (in 1793 and 1795), only the August 26, 1789 text has remained in posterity. It is now one of the founding documents of our institutions, and notably the constitutions of 1852, 1946 and 1958. During the 19th century, the 1789 Declaration inspired similar documents in several European and Latin American countries; The French Revolutionary tradition also helped inspire the European Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome on November 4, 1950. The text The representatives of the French People, formed into a National Assembly, considering ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to be the only causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, unalienable and sacred rights of man, to the end that this Declaration, constantly present to all members of the body politic, may remind them unceasingly of their rights and their duties; to the end that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power, since they may be continually compared with the aim of every political institution, may thereby be the more respected; to the end that the demands of the citizens, founded henceforth on simple and incontestable principles, may always be directed toward the maintenance of the Constitution and the happiness of all. In consequence whereof, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Article 1 - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good. Article 2 - The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression. Article 3 - The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it. Article 4 - Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law. Article 5 - The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain. Article 6 - The Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part, personally or through their representatives, in its making. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents. Article 7 - No man may be accused, arrested or detained except in the cases determined by the Law, and following the procedure that it has prescribed. Those who solicit, expedite, carry out, or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders must be punished; but any citizen summoned or apprehended by virtue of the Law, must give instant obedience; resistance makes him guilty. Article 8 - The Law must
[CTRL] Don't Get Bushwhacked
-Caveat Lector- The Conspiracy's Tactics Don't Get Bushwhacked By: Alan Stang As this commentary goes to press, the billionaire totalitarian Socialist conspirators who rule us are within a few weeks, maybe a few days, of launching the illegal war (illegal because there is no Declaration) they have been planning against Iraq and its Soviet-sponsored dictator. They have embroiled us in needless wars for a century, all in pursuit of their goal of a totalitarian Socialist world government, so now is a good time to take another look at some of the history and tactics of the Conspiracy. Those tactics still work because even at this late date they have not been sufficiently exposed. After World War II, a congressional committee investigating foundations sent a lawyer named Kathryn Casey to New York, to look through the archives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What she found was so shocking that the lady suffered a nervous breakdown. In the archives for the years 1908-1910, she found at least one discussion among Endowment leaders who were looking for the best way to destroy American independence and submerge our country in a world government they would run. They decided that the best way to do that would be to embroil the United States in war, and that is why we have been in almost perpetual war ever since. It is no surprise that around the same time Miss Casey was making this discovery and having her nervous breakdown, the man who ran the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was former top State Department official Alger Hiss, who later would go to prison for committing perjury when he testified that he had not been a Soviet spy. Hiss of course was the first Secretary-General of the Communist United Nations. One of the Conspiracys tactics from the very beginning has been to seize control of both major political parties at the top, so that whoever is nominated and therefore whoever wins will be one of their men. Colonel Edward M. House, Woodrow Wilsons alter ego, who lived with Wilson in the White House, described the scheme in his anonymous political novel, Philip Dru, Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, which you really should take a look at. In the kind of politics the Conspiracy imposes, there is no real contest between ideologies, even between policies. The only real politics it permits is a contest between conspiratorial flunkies about which of them can better implement the Conspiracys strategies on the way to world government. Hence, the utterly superficial difference between Clinton and Bush. With regard to the last century of war, the only difference between the two parties seems to be that the Democrats trick us in, and then the Republicans keep us in. In every war, the peoples minds must be prepared, and so it is in this one. The conspirators typically are using what I call the tactic of False Alternatives for the purpose, in which neither of the two alternatives they offer is the right one. For instance, look at the anti-war side of the issue. In the streets there are the usual Communist demonstrations led by revolutionaries who descend from the Sixties. In Congress, the Democrats have made themselves look even more ludicrous, even farther left, by naming totalitarian Socialist Nancy Pelosi, from Sodom by the sea, their leader. Some observers ask, Dont the Democrats want to get elected? Whats wrong with them? Are they stupid? Yes, the Democrats are political criminals; yes, they are totalitarians; yes, their hero exudes a stench that makes sewer slime smell like gardenias. But the last thing you can call them is stupid. There has to be another reason for their stupidity. Well, what is the effect of it? Doesnt it make the other side, the War Party, the Republican Party, look good? Doesnt it make Bush look good? For instance, nobody with any sense wants to get involved with Susan The Strumpet Sarandon, who spouts off at length without provocation about how we should live, but who doesnt have enough sense to marry the pinhead she cohabits with. In the same category are Hillaroid, the nations leading cause of lower back pain, and congressional supporters of baby dismemberment. Because all this is so putrid, the natural response is to yearn for the other side. There we find utterly blind support for the war, blind support for a man who has gotten away with things Clinton would have been dragged into the street for. Again, it looks good because, in contrast, the other side looks so bad. Is this an accident? Remember that traitor Franklin Roosevelt said there are no accidents in politics. If it happens, said the man who engineered Pearl Harbor, you can bet it was planned that way. The result is that many people back the war policy despite their discomfort with it, simply because the other side is so repulsive. They have been booby-trapped aboard. Because the people on the left say something, there is a natural
[CTRL] Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act
-Caveat Lector- http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502L1=10L2=10L3=0L4=0L5=0 Special ReportJustice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism ActCenter Publishes Secret Draft of Patriot II Legislation By Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle (WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) -- The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information. The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of this previously undisclosed legislation and is making it available in full text (12 MB). The bill, drafted by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft and entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, has not been officially released by the Department of Justice, although rumors of its development have circulated around the Capitol for the last few months under the name of the Patriot Act II in legislative parlance. We havent heard anything from the Justice Department on updating the Patriot Act, House Judiciary Committee spokesman Jeff Lungren told the Center. They havent shared their thoughts on that. Obviously, we'd be interested, but we havent heard anything at this point. RELATED DOCUMENTS The draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (12 MB) The Office of Legislative Affairs control sheet which shows that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker Hastert and Vice President Cheney Read the Justice Department's response to this report. Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned. Mark Corallo, deputy director of Justices Office of Public Affairs, told the Center his office was unaware of the draft. I have heard people talking about revising the Patriot Act, we are looking to work on things the way we would do with any law, he said. We may work to make modifications to protect Americans, he added. When told that the Center had a copy of the draft legislation, he said, This is all news to me. I have never heard of this. After the Center posted this story, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Dept., released a statement saying that, "Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels." RELATED LINKS For additional information, watch the PBS program "Now With Bill Moyers" tonight at 9 P.M. EST. (Check local listings.) The show will also air an interview with Charles Lewis. An Office of Legislative Affairs control sheet that was obtained by the PBS program "Now With Bill Moyers" shows that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney on Jan. 10, 2003. Attached for your review and comment is a draft legislative proposal entitled the Domestice Security Enhancement Act of 2003, the memo, sent from OLP or Office of Legal Policy, says. Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, reviewed the draft legislation at the request of the Center, and said that the legislation raises a lot of serious concerns. Its troubling that they have gotten this far along and theyve been telling people there is nothing in the works. This proposed law, he added, would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive suspicion, create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups. Some of the key provision of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 include: Section 201, Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information: Safeguarding the dissemination of information related to national security has been a hallmark of Ashcrofts first two years in office, and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 follows in the footsteps of his October 2001 directive to carefully consider such interest when granting Freedom of Information Act requests. While the October memo simply
[CTRL] The Bush Brothers
-Caveat Lector- The Bush Brothers Are These Two From The Same Family? By: Jim Moore You know the old saw about the minister with two sons. Brothers in the heart, but not in the head. This, however, would not be immediately apparent, but would manifest itself as the lads grew to adolescence and thence to manhood. At which time, the brothers, who had begun life on the same track, gradually begin to show their true colors. One brother becomes a lazy lout who debauches himself with drugs and wild living and winds up an addict and a street bum. The other brother follows in his father's footsteps and becomes an ordained minister and begins preaching the gospel. When you think about it, it doesn't seem logical that two boys can come from the same father's seed and the same mother's womb, and travel in such diverse directions. Of course, brothers don't always express themselves in good and bad actions. Sometimes they will take opposite roads in more cerebral and subtle ways: differences of opinion, beliefs, attitudes, and objectives. And this sibling dichotomy can be even more dramatic when it affects more people than just themselves and their families. Such is the case of the famous Bush Brothers, George and Jeb. One being the President of the United States, the other the Governor of Florida. Both Bush brothers are republicans and, as such, hold to the republican credo of less government, less taxes, more freedom. However, one brother's mindset seems to be more in line with the republican view than the other Which brother it is becomes quite clear when you compare what actions each takes for the citizens they serve. And you won't need a bunch of quotes to tell which brother is which. He proposed $400 billion over the next decade to strengthen Medicare. He believes his job, as Governor, is to trim government and make it more competitive with the private sector. He proposed $1.2 billion to fund research for hydrogen- powered cars. He says, ask any Floridian whether there is too much waste and bureaucracy in government, he will say yes. So the goal is to reduce both, and save the taxpayers money. He proposed a $450 million initiative for the USA Freedom Corp to recruit and train mentors for disadvantaged children. He reduced the size of state government by 2,300 employees since 1999. He proposed a $600 million program over three years to help 300,000 Americans receive treatment for drug abuse. He had to eliminate thousands of jobs to shrink government down to manageable size, but the good news is most of those people are now working in the private sector. So the savings to taxpayers is substantial. He proposed $15 billion in emergency funding for AIDS relief worldwide over the next five years, including nearly $10 million in new money. He did not relish downsizing the Department of Management Services by 3,100 jobs, but he promised the people of Florida a smaller, more efficient government. And he's going to make sure they get it. He proposed $6 billion for effective vaccines against anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and the plague. He phased out 144 borderline positions in the Division of Safety. and 350 probation officers in the Department of Justice. Downsizing is a distasteful business. But a tighter ship means less waste, tax money used more efficiently, and a more effective government. He proposed giving the IRS a 5.3-percent boost to $10.4 billion, which will include $133 million for added audits of businesses and high-income tax payers. He is determined to cut 25-percent off the size of state government. ** ** ** To date, President Bush has proposed nearly 100 new federal programs, and has planned to spend more tax dollars than any president in history. How Governor Bush's philosophy of governance differs from his brother's speaks for itself. Note: The president's proposals were part of his State of the Union address. The governor's less government programs are in full swing in Florida. ---\ Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact. Jim Moore is a free-lance political writer and is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. Jim Moore can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] A list of works by Jim Moore can be seen at the American Reformation Project website Published in the February 7, 2003 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone. -- -iNFoWaRZ Conservatives Against Bush A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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
[CTRL] already are under U.N. monitoring
-Caveat Lector- www.sfgate.com Return to regular view http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/news/archive/2003/02/07/international1107EST0556.DTL Iraq says sites mentioned by Powell already are under U.N. monitoring CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Friday, February 7, 2003 ©2003 Associated Press URL: (02-07) 11:51 PST AL-AMIRIYAH, Iraq (AP) -- Iraqi officials on Friday took foreign journalists to missile assembly and test sites spotlighted in Colin Powell's anti-Iraq U.N. presentation, to underscore the fact that the installations have been under U.N. scrutiny for months. In Washington, a senior U.S. official dismissed the press tour. He said Powell had made the point that Iraq hides what it is doing, making it difficult for even experienced monitors to detect illicit activity. The U.S. secretary of state alleged in his presentation Wednesday that the facilities enable Iraq to project power, to threaten. The U.N. teams, in their regular updates, have not reported finding any major violations of U.N. edicts banning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and restricting missiles to a 90-mile range. We've shown all kinds of cooperation with the inspectors, who have come several times, said Ali Jassim, manager of the al-Rafah missile engine test installation, in scrublands 25 miles southwest of Baghdad. They found no problem with it. In his U.N. address, Powell revived a previous U.S. allegation that the building of a larger al-Rafah test stand -- a concrete and steel structure to hold and test engines - - signaled that Iraq would test engines for larger missiles violating the U.N. limit. But the U.N. missile experts have reported inspecting al-Rafah at least five times since inspections resumed Nov. 27, have studied the specifications of the new test stand, regularly monitor tests at the installation, and thus far have reported no concerns. The Iraqis say the new stand only will test permitted engines, and its configuration relates to safety needs. At the second site, a missile assembly installation, the director said of Powell's statement about his facility, It's only lies. In Wednesday's presentation, seen by television audiences worldwide, Powell displayed a satellite photo labeled 10 Nov 2002 showing a large truck and missile and warhead canisters outside a workshop building at the al-Musayyib site, 35 miles south of Baghdad. Powell suggested this was a sign of Iraqi deception, two weeks before U.N. inspections resumed in Iraq. Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections? he asked. An incredulous site director, Karim Jabar Youssef, said such shipments of parts and finished missiles were an everyday occurrence at the Rasheed Co. site. On Friday, a similar truck sat near the photographed location, along with missiles, canisters and missile components, inside and outside the workshop, waiting for transfer. On any day there would be constant activity, so any day Colin Powell can claim there is intense activity here, Youssef said. Besides, he noted, U.N. inspectors have visited al-Musayyib 10 times since November. The short-range Fatah missiles there, legal under U.N. resolutions, bore U.N. inventory stickers. Inspectors have not reported any violations at the site. Al-Rafah and the Rasheed site were just two of numerous Iraqi installations said by Powell to pose threats, without his noting that U.N. teams have them under close watch. Another intelligence report also was under international criticism Friday. London's Channel 4 News said a British government report purporting to show how Iraq is deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors contained large chunks lifted, without attribution, from old public sources, including an article from Jane's Intelligence Review and one by an American university lecturer. The British dossier was cited by Powell. The British government said Friday it erred in not acknowledging that sections of the document were based on work by Monterey, Calif.-based researcher Ibrahim al- Marashi, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said. ©2003 Associated Press Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason
[CTRL] unPATRIOTic Act
-Caveat Lector- unPATRIOTic Act http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=14475 Bill Moyers - NOW! with Bill Moyers 02.07.03 - Friday, February 7 at 9 p.m. PBS (check local listings at www.pbs.org/now/sched.html). NOW with Bill Moyers provides details of a Justice Department draft of a bill designed to extend the powers of the Patriot Act. Read the documents on the NOW home page. The draft bill was provided exclusively to NOW by the Center for Public Integrity, [www.publicintegrity.org], which obtained it from a confidential government source. The document, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, outlines significant broadening of law enforcement powers, including domestic intelligence gathering, surveillance, and law enforcement prerogatives, while decreasing public access to information and judicial review authority. Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution assessed the document for NOW with Bill Moyers and the Center for Public Integrity. I think this is a quite radical proposal. It authorizes secret arrests. It would give the Attorney General essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests. It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations, he told NOW's Roberta Baskin. And...it has not been put on the table so there can be a discussion about it. NOW interviewed executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, in New York on Thursday. When asked to gauge the significance of the document Lewis responded: It just deepens and broadens, further extends the first Patriot Act, he says. And it's arguably...a more thorough rendering of all the things law enforcement and intelligence agencies would like to have in a perfect world. I think it's a very tough document when it comes to secrecy and surveillance. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] http://www.vetsforjustice.com/VeteransBetrayalDay.htm
-Caveat Lector- Welcome to Vets For Justice. Our goal is to help America's Veterans actually find justice. Help Out! We need YOU to offer suggestions, and to help us, in our quest to put together a Veterans Bill of Rights. All content at this site owned, and/or copyrighted, by VetsForJustice.Inc. may be FREELY copied and distributed. VetsForJustice.Com, Inc., a New Veterans Group with over 20,000 visitors at their internet site since January 2, 2003 when they were officially incorporated as a Non-Profit Veterans Organization, has announced that it's members will celebrate February 12, 2003 as Veterans Betrayal Day. February 12, 2003 Veterans across the Nation will PROTEST the betrayal of many World War II and Korean Veterans who were Firmly Promised by the United States Government that if they served 20 or more years in the military that they, and their dependants, would get free health care benefits for life. Both the United States Government, and the Federal Courts, Admit the promise was made, however the Federal Courts have ruled that the government may make false promises, and commit fraud, to America's Veterans and not be held accountable. Retired Air Force Colonel George Bud Day, a Vietnam Veteran, and Medal of Honor winner, has taken this Clear Case of Mass Fraud against America's Veterans to the Federal Courts in Washington which, for solely political reasons, have slapped all of America's Veterans in the face, and refused to correct this grave injustice against those who provide the very freedom our Courts operate under. Tana Kidwell, CEO of www.VetsForJustice.com, and wife of Disabled Vietnam Veteran, Billy Kidwell, issued a statement saying that; She does not find it surprising that the Washington Federal Courts, which have a long history of being hostile to, and betraying America's Veterans, are again playing politics and misusing their power, to save money on the budget, by cheating those who defend this great country. By stealing from our Veterans. If the United States Supreme Court lets such a farce, and mockery, of justice stand then no Veteran should ever respect, or give any weight, to any decision by that Court. As we prepare for another Great War it is appalling that the same administration sending our troops into harms way, is actively pursuing a policy of cheating, and stealing, from those who have already served. Is this the future of those going into combat now? To be required to fight one day for the benefits they have earned, and are firmly promised, only to have slick, shyster Federal Judges, playing politics, steal their benefits from them? Is this how America treats her combat troops? To bring awareness to the many injustices directed towards America's Veterans VetsForJustice.Com, Inc. will direct it's many new chapters, and all it's members, to actively spread the word about Veterans Betrayal Day. All Veterans of conscience should protest this grave injustice against our brothers. We STRONGLY URGE all of our new members to be active in some way on February 12, 2003 either protesting, or passing the word to as many other people as you can, exposing that this is the future of today's military now going into harms way, if we all don't UNITE together in this great cause.and Mirrors Go to Main Page A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] O'Reilly Freaks Out
-Caveat Lector- O'Reilly Freaks Out Because one of the 911 Victim's Family Members Stands up and Tells the Truth about the US Government Being Involved in the September 11th Attacks. MP3 Audio Clip: http://www.poisonskin.com/oreilyfreakout.mp3 O'Reilly tries to say that only one family is upset by Bush's involvement in 911, but in reality Stanley Hilton (a lawyer that O'Reilly had on his show) is suing the Bush Administration on behalf of 400 families. http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.lawyer.0611w -iNFoWaRZ O'Reilly, a New World Order Shill A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] Pretty Colors
Title: Message -Caveat Lector- Here is what I think the color system really means:DiVERSiONZPermalink | Put The Lotion In The Basket (0) | Track It (0) | File: EDITORIAL ATTEMPTS --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[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] http://www.sftt.org/dwa/2003/2/5/da.html
-Caveat Lector- February 5, 2003 12:42 Will Colin Powell Stand Tall? By David H. Hackworth While a bellicose North Korea belts out nuclear material for an assembly line of bombs, and al Qaeda keeps blowing up people, places and things from Afghanistan to Yemen, tens of thousands of American fighters and their supporters are pouring into the Persian Gulf region to take out Saddam. And from every quarter of Pax America, our commanders, not unlike their ancient Roman counterparts, say they need more toys and boys to cinch the accomplishment of their missions around a war-weary world where more than a million of our best and brightest are playing Supercop. For example, our admiral running the Pacific wisely wants more forces to deal with the paranoids from Pyongyang in case they put steel and fire behind their words of war, while our general out in the Persian Gulf - counting the weeks before he clobbers Iraq - isn't happy that combat units have been cut from his order of battle. Meanwhile, his counterpart in Afghanistan wants more troops for peacemaking that gets hotter, messier and bloodier with the passage of each day. And the skippers responsible for homeland defense are rightfully complaining that the USA is being left high and dry without the men and material to handle the job. A month ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boldly said he could do it all. But it was no big surprise when Gen. Peter Pace, his Pentagon assistant, quietly refuted this assertion a few weeks later. Between the reserves and active-duty forces, the Pentagon can field only about 2.5 million effective fighters and supporters, which means we just don't have enough troops for all the missions currently on the Pentagon's military menu. Despite the heavy activation of reservists and even the call-up of retired folks, many units today are badly stretched, and other units - especially reserve outfits - are far from good-to-go. Morale, the most essential factor in war, is not exactly over-the-top. Cooked books and ghost soldiers, along with failed social experiments, have left many units severely undermanned. A staggering number of soldiers, sailors and airmen have been unable to deploy overseas for reasons such as disability, discipline and dope problems, pregnancy and child-care issues. The exact number is one of the Pentagon's most-guarded secrets. Perhaps Congress should ask? We started down this mine-laden path more than a decade ago when the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz first advocated - to Bush-the-Elder and then- Defense Secretary Dick Cheney - that the USA become the sole superpower and dominate the world. You know, steal a few lines from 1930s Germany with a good-guy enlightened democratic spin on the proposed New World Order. But Bush I turned his back on Wolfowitz's Greater Middle East Marshall-like plans, the Cold War ended, and our military muscle was ruthlessly whacked in half. Then President Clinton delivered the body blow of political-correctness- run-amok that just about brought down what was left of a once- magnificent Desert Storm military force. When Bush II got in the saddle, he bought into the NWO gospel according to Wolfowitz and a coterie of like-minded, draft-dodging superhawks - including Washington insider William Kristol - that containment, the strategy that brought the Soviets down, should be replaced by the NWO big stick, beginning with the democratization of Iraq. But since none of these warmongers - who were of dying age for Vietnam but chose to escape- and-evade - has walked the walk, Colin Powell needs to draw on his been-there wisdom and authority and summon up the grit to tell Mr. Bush to slow down on Iraq, at least until we rebuild our military into a force capable of chewing what we've already bitten off. Or for sure the NWO doctrine will do unto Bush II what Vietnam did unto LBJ as our country sallies forth to rule the world. Kristol told The New York Times that he lies awake at night worrying that something could go wrong with the war with Iraq. Chemical weapons could be used against American troops, he says. A biological weapon could be set off in America. I'm sure many of us lie awake at night, too, with the same terrible thoughts - including Robert McNamara, another unrestrained defense intellectual who never served in the trenches and whose similar abstract thinking fueled the Vietnam disaster. http://www.hackworth.com is the address of David Hackworth's home page. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. Look for his new book, Steel My Soldiers' Hearts, (Rugged Land LLC, New York City). © 2003 David H. Hackworth A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different
[CTRL] Strange NASA Graphic
-Caveat Lector- I turned to the NASA channel yesterday just to see what they had. There was a picture of the crew of STS-107 with the US and Israeli flags behind them. To me it's beyond coincidence that the Magen David of the Israeli flag just happened to wreathe Colonel Ramon's head like a halo. Very cool symbol work. -- ´´ Mark McHugh A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;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] Center Publishes Secret Draft of Patriot II Legislation
-Caveat Lector- http://64.176.94.191/article1256.htm Center Publishes Secret Draft of âPatriot IIâ Legislation There's an important story developing tonight at the Justice Department. The non-partisan Center for Public Integrity obtained a closely-guarded document that shows plans for a sweeping expansion of the government's police powers. Until now, few people outside of the department, not even members of key congressional committees have seen this draft legislation. It could lead to increased surveillance and greater secrecy - all in the name of the war on terror. It raises questions about how we balance liberty and security - the rights of individuals versus the rule of law. Tonight, on Friday, February 7 at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html), NOW with Bill Moyers will provide details of a Justice Department draft of a bill designed to extend the powers of the Patriot Act. The draft bill was provided exclusively to NOW by the Center for Public Integrity, which obtained it from a confidential government source. The draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (12 MB) The Office of Legislative Affairs âcontrol sheetâ which shows that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker Hastert and Vice President Cheney Read the Justice Department's response to this report. Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion Of Anti-Terrorism Act By Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle (WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) -- The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information. The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of this previously undisclosed legislation and is making it available in full text (12 MB). The bill, drafted by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft and entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, has not been officially released by the Department of Justice, although rumors of its development have circulated around the Capitol for the last few months under the name of âthe Patriot Act IIâ in legislative parlance. âWe havenât heard anything from the Justice Department on updating the Patriot Act,â House Judiciary Committee spokesman Jeff Lungren told the Center. âThey havenât shared their thoughts on that. Obviously, we'd be interested, but we havenât heard anything at this point.â Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned. Mark Corallo, deputy director of Justiceâs Office of Public Affairs, told the Center his office was unaware of the draft. âI have heard people talking about revising the Patriot Act, we are looking to work on things the way we would do with any law,â he said. âWe may work to make modifications to protect Americans,â he added. When told that the Center had a copy of the draft legislation, he said, âThis is all news to me. I have never heard of this.â After the Center posted this story, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Dept., released a statement saying that, "Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels." An Office of Legislative Affairs âcontrol sheetâ that was obtained by the PBS program "Now With Bill Moyers" shows that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney on Jan. 10, 2003. âAttached for your review and comment is a draft legislative proposal entitled the âDomestice Security Enhancement Act of 2003,ââ the memo, sent from âOLPâ or Office of Legal Policy, says. Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, reviewed the draft legislation at the request of the Center, and said that the legislation âraises a lot of serious concerns. Itâs troubling that they have gotten this far along and theyâve been telling people there is nothing in the works.â This proposed law, he added, âwould radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive âsuspicion,â create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.â Some of the key provision of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
[CTRL] [PERSIANS-JEWS-FLIES] CITIZENS' Inspection Teams (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:22:23 -0800 (PST) From: Party of Citizens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PERSIANS-JEWS-FLIES] CITIZENS' Inspection Teams How about it? When a police search is done for evidence in a field for example, it relies on huge numbers to do a thorough job. Iraq could sell extra oil as permitted by the UN to increase the numbers of the CITIZENS Inspection Teams even beyond the tripling or so recommended by France. Libby et al are practicing here in Vancouver. They could get extra local training as needed. Then Iraq would cover all costs for them to stay in Iraq and inspect. The cost, even in billions would be less than the cost of a war and there is no doubt that the inspectors would find and eliminate all WMD's which is the NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR PEACE and to ward off El Moron the U-S-A psycho. POC - CITIZEN'S WEAPONS INSPECTION TEAM webvideo from the working TV archives ( 1998 ) http://www.workingtv.com/citizeninspection.html Vancouver East MP Libby Davies leads a Citizen's Weapons Inspection Team to the Bangor nuclear submarine base, about 2 hours south of Vancouver, looking for weapons of mass destruction. RT: 6:24 BROADBAND video online. In RealVideo and Windows Media Player formats __ Left-wing 'inspectors' to check U.S. for weapons Petti Fong Vancouver Sun Friday, January 31, 2003 Libby Davies plans that her team, funded by peace groups, will inspect U.S. weapons bases. A team of weapons inspectors, headed by New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, plans to go Washington, D.C., next month to look for stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the U.S. capital. The six-member team includes Davies, MP for Vancouver East, British Labour MP Alan Simpson, academics, and labour organizers. They want to make the point that the U.S. poses more of a threat to global security than Iraq. These weapons of mass destruction that the U.S. is talking about in Iraq are just south of the border to us, Davies said Thursday. Hopefully this engages citizens in an exercise of accountability with our own government. Davies was contacted by a Toronto-based lobby group called Rooting Out Evil which claims to have 14,000 signatures of support on its Web-site. Davies, who was appointed NDP House leader Thursday, said the strong response on the Web-site is an indication of how people feel about the possibility of a U.S. war with Iraq. It's a phenomenal response. Governments are so far removed from what people are saying that they really need to start listening. People are saying that we don't want to see weapons of mass destruction whether it's in Washington, D.C., or Baghdad. The team says it plans to inspect the military site in the Washington, D.C., area Feb. 22-23. The location has not yet been announced. Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said as an member of Parliament, Davies would be expected to go through the U.S. State Department to request access to defence areas. It's a diplomatic issue at this point, Irwin said Thursday. After Sept. 11, we have increased our security at bases, especially bases that have weapon systems. Irwin said all military areas in the U.S. remain on high alert and security could even be tighter in upcoming weeks. In an interview from the U.K., Simpson said there is growing public anti-war sentiment and the U.S. has to be aware of mounting opposition to its plans to invade Iraq. Every one of the major churches in Britain has come out and said that this will be a war that carried no moral authority, he said. When you add on the humanitarian responsibilities, most people in Britain and in Canada, I'm certain, start to recoil from the horror of it. Canadian Alliance foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day said Thursday that Davies' trip to Washington will harm American-Canadian relations. It's not only an embarrassment to Canadians, but detrimental to our relations with the United States, Day said. It's the type of silliness that, frankly, is hurtful to relations which are already being strained. Day said if Davies is looking to fight the U.S., it should be over issues that are critical to Canadians, such as the softwood lumber dispute and agricultural subsidies. Canada's Foreign Affairs spokesman Rodney Moore said the department is aware that Davies is heading to Washington. MPs are free to travel as they want. We don't think this will have any effect on U.S. and Canadian relations. Rooting Out Evil organizer Christy Ferguson, who will also go to Washington, said the group was launched in September when U.S. President George W. Bush began talking about dangerous countries with weapons. We found that according to its own criteria, the U.S. was the most dangerous country of them
[CTRL] [Fwd: 'We decided not to run it...']
-Caveat Lector- The complicity of the mass media just makes me want to puke! They are as much criminals as the animals controlling the power centers of this government, and should be charged with aiding and abetting. I'm so angry I can't even find the right words to express it! http://www.ruminatethis.com/ February 06, 2003 WE DECIDED NOT TO RUN IT... Here's an interesting story. It's an important one, and it's not being covered. After Colin Powell spoke to the UN Security Council yesterday, a bi- partisan bill was introduced in Congress by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D- Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX). It wasn't just any bill - this is legislation that looks to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress in October. If you're wonkish about these things, you might recall that similar legislation was put forward a couple of weeks ago by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). It didn't get more than a mention here or there in the press, but it's important to note that DeFazio and Paul's bill is different. Jackson's sense of the Congress bill, if passed would have taken the body's temperature on the issue. That's all. DeFazio and Paul's effort goes beyond the thermometer. Faced with the administration's Rush to War, DeFazio and Paul are looking for a prescription. If they were to get this one passed, the outcome would be legally binding, and the October bill then outright repealed. Congress could at that point thoughtfully revisit the issue of Iraq - the danger it presents and the costs of war. Big story. Right? So, where's the media? Yesterday, DeFazio and Paul conducted a press conference that the major media outfits were invited to. Did you see it on C-SPAN? Nope. CNN? Nope. Did you read about it in the New York Times? Nope. They were all invited to attend the news conference. How about the Washington Post? Nope. But the story nearly saw daylight there. Almost. Almost? Almost. We decided not to run it, says a low-level staffer. Why not? Hold on, I'm told, as he runs to check. Because our editor decided not to run it. It's as simple as that. One gets the sense that one best take it or leave it. Leave a message in his voicemail. Back to yesterday's press conferenceafter this low-attendance event, and later in the day, DeFazio appeared on The O'Reilly Factor: seven minutes of airtime, the usual back and forth, until the mic is silenced, the lights lowered, and O'Reilly has the last word. War. Other than a handful of local radio interviews, a small story here and an AP wire there...that's the sum total of major coverage. No Imus. No Chicago Tribune. No ABC News. Major bipartisan legislation opposing a war nobody wants, and what do we hear? The sound of media silence. Where's the American media? Perplexing, isn't it? Especially given that ying and yang make for great journalism. Informing the public interest makes for legitimate journalism. Why the silence? But wait...what's going on over in this corner? We've got Colin Powell running around Capitol Hill today, pumping hands and begging for the Blessing to War. Where's the media? Oh, the media is covering Colin Powell. They monitor his every breath and movement. In the surreal world that is today's media, Colin Powell has no opposition. None. There is no alternative view. None. In this Kafkaesque place, Reps. DeFazio and Paul didn't conduct a press conference yesterday. Nor did they introduce legislation that counters George Bush and Colin Powell's world view...a world view, mind you, that the world doesn't share. Colin Powell tells us that the next 24 hours are crucial. Crucial? Apparently not crucial enough to hear the voices of dissent - even Congressional dissent. Why have the voices that questionmoderate voices, voices of Moms and Dads and scout leaders and nuns and grandmas...why have they gone silent? Why is their legislation invisible? Ask that our media do us a favor, and report the news, instead of choreographing it. Ask that they cover DeFazio and Paul's bill to repeal the Authorization for Force on Iraq. Whether that bi- partisan legislation is in keeping with the editorial page views of some in the American media is frankly immaterial. It's a news story. An important one. It mirrors the views of many Americans - most, if you believe the polls - and it's barely being covered. - Agree with DeFazio and Paul? Dial up the Congressional toll-free switchboard at 1-800-839-5276 and urge your Congressman to sign onto their bill, H.J. Res 20, which aims to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution. A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the
[CTRL] News of Bogus UK Intelligence Report Sweeping the Planet (U.S. Immune)
-Caveat Lector- I would dearly love for someone to prove me wrong and come forward with a U.S. media coverage of this story. Instead, I see the country being put on Orange alert for terrorist attacks while the bellicose war talk continues unabated and the media reports every bit of foul air coming out of Washington and calls it news. My radio stations commercials say we'll keep you informed, yeah, right. I'm not holding my breath... From Mike Ruppert at FTW: - News of Bogus UK Intelligence Report Sweeping the Planet - Blair Government Facing Imminent Crisis - Revelation May Speed Up Iraqi Invasion Britain's Intelligence Dossier on Iraq was Plagiarized from a Grad Student by Michael C. Ruppert Feb. 6, 2003, 2230 hrs, PST, (FTW) - A story is sweeping the world tonight and it says a great deal about those who are forcing the world into a war it does not want. The famed dossier presented by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his Parliament was plagiarized from two articles and a September 2002 research paper submitted by a graduate student. Worse, the Iraq described by the graduate student is not the Iraq of 2003 but the Iraq of 1991. So glaring was the theft of intellectual property that the official British document even cut and pasted whole verbatim segments of the research paper, including grammatical errors, and presented the findings as the result of intense work by British intelligence services. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell both praised and quoted that same British report in his presentation at the United Nations yesterday. It is important that readers see and understand the enormity of this violation of public trust for themselves. The story was first broken by Britain's Channel 4 today and it is appearing in more papers and web sites by the hour. The following links lead directly to the Channel 4 story, to the British intelligence report and to the original student paper. What was also disclosed was that certain portions of the academic report were altered by the PM Tony Blair to make them more inflammatory. In one cited instance Blair changed aiding opposition groups to supporting terrorists. The Channel 4 story is at: http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html The Official UK intelligence report is at: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7111.asp The original student research paper is located at: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html In the context of merely preventing or slowing a war with Iraq this would be earth shattering news. But in a world that is slowly beginning to feel the pressure of and admit the reality of dwindling global oil supplies the fallout from the story may actually accelerate hostilities. British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be, by tomorrow, facing monumental challenges in both Parliament and from British public opinion that is overwhelmingly opposed to an Iraqi invasion. The event could be enough to topple his government and cause new elections which might well result in a new government that is not mind-melded with the Bush administration. The Bush administration, faced with its own embarrassment over the issue, cannot wage a successful war without England. The first thought that came to my mind when I saw the story was that George W. Bush must pre-empt this story and make it moot to save not only Blair but himself as well. The only way to do that is to have the war begin before the justified outrage of the electorate which has been treated with utter contempt can make itself felt. I noticed tonight that the Associated Press and Yahoo news had reported that the 101st Air Assault Division based at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky - the Army's premier door kickers - had been given their deployment orders for the Gulf this afternoon. As I have previously reported, the 101st, along with units like the 75th Rangers can be deployed and operational within 96 hours, anywhere in the world. When the 101st heads out you know the war is going to start very soon. These are incredibly dangerous times, made more so because there is no turning back for the Bush administration. This story is incredible proof of the cynicism, dishonesty and callousness of the tyrants pushing the world toward destruction. And Iraq is merely the first stop on a sequential plan for control of the last remaining oil reserves on the planet. I encourage all who read the information contained in these links to spread it far and wide and also, by whatever means at their disposal, to tell the mainstream press, members of congress and the White House itself that we will not follow; we will not obey; and we will not kill on the orders of those who lie to us and who demonstrate the integrity of thieves and intellectual cowards. This might be our last chance before the bombs start falling, before young American men and many innocent Iraqi civilians are reduced to blood and ash.
Re: [CTRL] [Fwd: 'We decided not to run it...']
-Caveat Lector- How interesting that you just noticed how the media appears controlled. Back in the late '70s I saw examples of this. However, I what I saw was the media was censoring the right, and I don't mean the far right. Just the ordinary, every day people who didn't like what was going on in the schools, the churches, the humanist movement and in the pro-abortion movement. However, since it was a leftist slant that was being pushed and the everyday leftists thought they were just getting the truth, it wasn't a problem, was it? It's been a long time since real dialogue has taken place between people of differing views. Until real dialogue takes place between all points of view, we will all be under the thumb of the spinmeisters, supposedly right or left. -Original Message- From: Conspiracy Theory Research List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of goldi316 Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [CTRL] [Fwd: 'We decided not to run it...'] -Caveat Lector- The complicity of the mass media just makes me want to puke! They are as much criminals as the animals controlling the power centers of this government, and should be charged with aiding and abetting. I'm so angry I can't even find the right words to express it! http://www.ruminatethis.com/ February 06, 2003 WE DECIDED NOT TO RUN IT... Here's an interesting story. It's an important one, and it's not being covered. After Colin Powell spoke to the UN Security Council yesterday, a bi- partisan bill was introduced in Congress by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D- Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX). It wasn't just any bill - this is legislation that looks to repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress in October. If you're wonkish about these things, you might recall that similar legislation was put forward a couple of weeks ago by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). It didn't get more than a mention here or there in the press, but it's important to note that DeFazio and Paul's bill is different. Jackson's sense of the Congress bill, if passed would have taken the body's temperature on the issue. That's all. DeFazio and Paul's effort goes beyond the thermometer. Faced with the administration's Rush to War, DeFazio and Paul are looking for a prescription. If they were to get this one passed, the outcome would be legally binding, and the October bill then outright repealed. Congress could at that point thoughtfully revisit the issue of Iraq - the danger it presents and the costs of war. Big story. Right? So, where's the media? Yesterday, DeFazio and Paul conducted a press conference that the major media outfits were invited to. Did you see it on C-SPAN? Nope. CNN? Nope. Did you read about it in the New York Times? Nope. They were all invited to attend the news conference. How about the Washington Post? Nope. But the story nearly saw daylight there. Almost. Almost? Almost. We decided not to run it, says a low-level staffer. Why not? Hold on, I'm told, as he runs to check. Because our editor decided not to run it. It's as simple as that. One gets the sense that one best take it or leave it. Leave a message in his voicemail. Back to yesterday's press conferenceafter this low-attendance event, and later in the day, DeFazio appeared on The O'Reilly Factor: seven minutes of airtime, the usual back and forth, until the mic is silenced, the lights lowered, and O'Reilly has the last word. War. Other than a handful of local radio interviews, a small story here and an AP wire there...that's the sum total of major coverage. No Imus. No Chicago Tribune. No ABC News. Major bipartisan legislation opposing a war nobody wants, and what do we hear? The sound of media silence. Where's the American media? Perplexing, isn't it? Especially given that ying and yang make for great journalism. Informing the public interest makes for legitimate journalism. Why the silence? But wait...what's going on over in this corner? We've got Colin Powell running around Capitol Hill today, pumping hands and begging for the Blessing to War. Where's the media? Oh, the media is covering Colin Powell. They monitor his every breath and movement. In the surreal world that is today's media, Colin Powell has no opposition. None. There is no alternative view. None. In this Kafkaesque place, Reps. DeFazio and Paul didn't conduct a press conference yesterday. Nor did they introduce legislation that counters George Bush and Colin Powell's world view...a world view, mind you, that the world doesn't share. Colin Powell tells us that the next 24 hours are crucial. Crucial? Apparently not crucial enough to hear the voices of dissent - even Congressional dissent. Why have the voices that questionmoderate voices, voices of Moms and Dads and scout leaders and nuns and grandmas...why have they gone silent? Why is their legislation invisible? Ask that our media do us a favor, and report the news, instead of choreographing it. Ask that
[CTRL] Fw: DoD to Transfer Background Investigations to OPM
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Press Service To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:48 PM Subject: DoD to Transfer Background Investigations to OPM By Jim GaramoneAmerican Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003 -- Just over 1,800 DefenseSecurity Service investigators will transfer to the Officeof Personnel Management under a new DoD-OPM agreement,defense officials said.The move, effective Oct. 1, will give the DefenseDepartment more flexibility and will save money.Carol Haave, deputy assistant secretary of defense forsecurity and information operations, said the process ofindividuals getting background security checks will speedup.The Defense Security Service is responsible for roughly 1million background security checks each year. Two yearsago, the service had a backlog of around 500,000 cases. Thewait time for a secret or top secret clearance reached upto 18 months."The question became how do we fix it?" Haave said. Theinvestigators at the Defense Security Service were doing aheroic job. Haave said the investigators were drivingthemselves and putting in a lot of overtime. Still, therewas only so much they could do.OPM helped DSS to whittle down the backlog. As the twoagencies worked together, DoD was examining how to speed upthe process and make it more thorough. But institutionalimprovements only worked on the margins, Haave said.At the same time, DoD officials looked at the department'score missions and decided performing background checkswasn't one. "As we got deeper into the analysis, what wecame to find was there was a great synergy that could behad between the Office of Personnel Management and DSS,"Haave said.Each agency has its own information technology system andmanagement systems. Combining them all into a single systemwould cut down on duplication and save money through costavoidance, Haave said. Also, she said, the two agenciesfound they complemented each other."We have resources where OPM has few, and they haveresources where we don't have that much," she said. Thismeans less money spent on travel and overtime.While OPM would take over the background investigations,DoD would retain "quality control" over the process. Thedefense service and OPM already operate to the samenational standard.The transfer of the investigators to OPM will betransparent to them, Haave said. "The way we think it willhappen is OPM will basically provide them 'offer letters'of employment at their same locations, their same gradesand status," she said. "Their paycheck will simply comefrom OPM and not the Department of Defense."DoD will start purchasing services from OPM in fiscal 2004."We are in the process right now of implementing atransition plan in cooperation with OPM to look at how wewould transfer cases and when we will start doing that,"Haave said. "We don't have all the details worked out yet,but we're in the process over the next 30 days of doingthat plan."___NOTE: This is a plain text version of a web page. If your e-mail programdid not properly format this information, you may view the story athttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02072003_200302075.htmlAny photos, graphics or other imagery included in the article may alsobe viewed at this web page.Visit the Defense Department's Web site for the latest newsand information about America's response to the Sept. 11, 2001,terrorist attacks and the war against terrorism: "Defend America"at http://www.DefendAmerica.mil.Visit the "Department of Defense Homeland Security" Web siteat http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/homeland/ to learn moreabout the Department of Defense role in homeland security.Unsubscribe from or Subscribe to this mailing list:http://www.defenselink.mil/news/subscribe.html A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=""Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A
[CTRL] Fw: Boards to Oversee Total Information Awareness Program
-Caveat Lector- - Original Message - From: Press Service To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Boards to Oversee Total Information Awareness Program By Jim GaramoneAmerican Forces Press ServiceWASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003 -- Two boards will oversee theDefense Advanced Research Project Agency's TotalInformation Awareness program, said Pete Aldridge,undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology andlogistics, today.The program concept is designed to catch terrorists beforethey strike. TIA uses tracking tools to obtain and analyzeinformation pertaining to the actions of terrorists. TheDefense Department said that while the program ispromising, it is very much a research concept.Retired Rear Adm. John Poindexter, a former nationalsecurity adviser under President Reagan, heads the researcheffort.Poindexter explained the program at a DARPA-sponsoredconference in California in August 2002. "If terroristorganizations are going to plan and execute attacks againstthe United States, their people must engage in transactionsand they will leave signatures in information space," hesaid at the DARPATech 2002 Conference. "This is a list oftransaction categories, and it is meant to be inclusive."He said currently terrorists can hide when necessary andfind sponsorship for their acts. "We are painfully aware ofsome of the tactics that they employ," Poindexter said."This low-intensity, low-density form of warfare has aninformation signature. We must be able to pick this signalout of the noise."Civil liberties groups are concerned the program willinvade privacy. Some maintain it is an excuse to spy uponAmerican citizens and liken it to the FBI surveillance ofMartin Luther King Jr.DoD is attempting to assuage these concerns by establishingthe boards. The internal board, chaired by Aldridge, willoversee and monitor the way Total Information Awareness ishandled and how it is turned over to other agencies fortheir use. The board will hold its first meeting at the endof February.In addition to Aldridge, the internal board will consist ofDavid Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel andreadiness; Doug Feith, undersecretary for policy; JohnStenbit, assistant secretary for command, control,communications and intelligence; Powell Moore, assistantsecretary for legislative affairs; Victoria Clarke,assistant secretary for public affairs; and William HaynesII, DoD general counsel.The external board is chaired by Newton Minow, director ofthe Annenberg Washington Program and the Annenbergprofessor of communications law and policy at NorthwesternUniversity. Also serving are Floyd Abrams, civil rightsattorney; Zoe Baird, director, Markle Foundation (privatephilanthropic organization); Griffin Bell, former U.S.attorney general and U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appealsjudge; Gerhard Casper, president emeritus for StanfordUniversity and professor of law; William T. Coleman, formerchairman and CEO of BEA (application infrastructuresoftware company) and now chief customer advocate; andLloyd Cutler, former White House counsel.Aldridge said the program cost DARPA $10 million in fiscal2003 and is forecast to receive $20 million in thepresident's fiscal 2004 budget request.___NOTE: This is a plain text version of a web page. If your e-mail programdid not properly format this information, you may view the story athttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02072003_200302074.htmlAny photos, graphics or other imagery included in the article may alsobe viewed at this web page.Visit the Defense Department's Web site for the latest newsand information about America's response to the Sept. 11, 2001,terrorist attacks and the war against terrorism: "Defend America"at http://www.DefendAmerica.mil.Visit the "Department of Defense Homeland Security" Web siteat http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/homeland/ to learn moreabout the Department of Defense role in homeland security.Unsubscribe from or Subscribe to this mailing list:http://www.defenselink.mil/news/subscribe.html A HREF=""www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis 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.
