Re: [CTRL] Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights
-Caveat Lector- So it's all perfectly legal. I feel so much better. Prudy www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights
-Caveat Lector- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/politics/21MEMO.html?pagewanted=printposition= May 21, 2004GENEVA CONVENTIONS Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner RightsBy NEIL A. LEWIS ASHINGTON, May 20 A series of Justice Department memorandums written in late 2001 and the first few months of 2002 were crucial in building a legal framework for United States officials to avoid complying with international laws and treaties on handling prisoners, lawyers and former officials say. The confidential memorandums, several of which were written or co-written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. They were endorsed by top lawyers in the White House, the Pentagon and the vice president's office but drew dissents from the State Department. The memorandums provide legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war. They also suggested how officials could inoculate themselves from liability by claiming that abused prisoners were in some other nation's custody. The methods of detention and interrogation used in the Afghanistan conflict, in which the United States operated outside the Geneva Conventions, is at the heart of an investigation into prisoner abuse in Iraq in recent months. Human rights lawyers have said that in showing disrespect for international law in the Afghanistan conflict, the stage was set for harsh treatment in Iraq. One of the memorandums written by Mr. Yoo along with Robert J. Delahunty, another Justice Department lawyer, was prepared on Jan. 9, 2002, four months after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The 42-page memorandum, entitled, "Application of treaties and laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees," provided several legal arguments for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions. A lawyer and a former government official who saw the memorandum said it anticipated the possibility that United States officials could be charged with war crimes, defined as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The document said a way to avoid that is to declare that the conventions do not apply. The memorandum, addressed to William J. Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, said that President Bush could argue that the Taliban government in Afghanistan was a "failed state" and therefore its soldiers were not entitled to protections accorded in the conventions. If Mr. Bush did not want to do that, the memorandum gave other grounds, like asserting that the Taliban was a terrorist group. It also noted that the president could just say that he was suspending the Geneva Conventions for a particular conflict. Prof. Detlev Vagts, an authority on international law and treaties at Harvard Law School, said the arguments in the memorandums as described to him "sound like an effort to find loopholes that could be used to avoid responsibility." One former government official who was involved in drafting some of the memorandums said that the lawyers did not make recommendations but only provided a range of all the options available to the White House. On Jan. 25, 2002, Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, in a memorandum to President Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice was sound and that Mr. Bush should declare the Taliban as well as Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions. That would keep American officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law, which, as Mr. Gonzales noted, carries the death penalty. The Gonzales memorandum to Mr. Bush said that accepting the recommendations of the Justice Department would preserve flexibility in the global war against terrorism. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians," said the memorandum, obtained this week by The New York Times. The details of the memorandum were first reported by Newsweek. Mr. Gonzales wrote that the war against terrorism, "in my judgment renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Mr. Gonzales also says in the memorandum that
[CTRL] Justice For All Or Justice For None
-Caveat Lector- Justice For All Or Justice For None By Lynn Stuter August 24, 2003 NewsWithViews.com In establishing the Constitution of the United States of America, our Founding Fathers set out to do what no nation had ever done before, or ever has done since: establish liberty, justice, and order for all. It became readily apparent to these men that to do this, rule must be by law a constitutional republic, rather than rule by man according to his own passions and opinions democracy; that the rights of the minority must not be at the whim of the majority but the rights of each and all, whether part of the majority or the minority, must be equal under the law. These men also knew that in order for rule by law to continue to exist as a governance structure, man must choose to govern self, as an individual, according to a morally acceptable and socially responsible creed finding basis in and acceptance in not only the immediate community of which the individual is a part, but the larger community as well. With all due consideration of the aforesaid, John Adams wrote: Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other. James Madison expanded on the words of John Adams when he wrote: We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. James Madison made apparent the morally acceptable and socially responsible creed upon which man must base self-governance if the constitution was to be maintained as the supreme law of the land. At the state level, every individual, elected by secret ballot to represent the people, before taking office, takes an oath to uphold the state constitution, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. As such, every elected representative of the people has taken an oath to uphold the law, to provide equal access under the law, and to provide equal protection under the law. Thus it is that every individual is guaranteed equal rights and equal protection under the law. Today, we are bombarded daily with the notion that our nation is a democracy. Speaking of democracy, James Madison had this to say in Federalist No. 10: ... Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Why is this? Because, in a democracy, rule is by the majority with the rights of the minority at the whim of the passions and opinions of the majority. Under such a governance structure, rights become arbitrary and capricious, civil unrest ensues, leading to revolution and civil war between those of the majority and those subject to the passions and opinions of the majority: the minority. No where in the transformation of America from a constitutional republic to a democracy is this more apparent than in the justice system. Very few people have any conception or understanding of how corrupt the American justice system has become. Rule by law and equal protection under the law no longer exist. Whether the law is enforced has become arbitrary and capricious, at the whim of the passions and opinions of those wielding power. In this same vein, it is doubtful that our Founding Fathers intended justice to be at the mercy of the almighty $$$. Justice in America today is not dependent on facts, justice in America today is dependent on whether people have the money to pay an attorney. At the same time, the people can only pray that the attorney they hire will represent them and not the state bar association of which they must be a member, and the court of which they are an officer. Too many people have learned the hard way that too many attorneys are beholden to the state bar association and the court, a stacked deck making justice impossible to attain under any circumstance. Not only this, but the court system has become so convoluted that no man can adequately represent himself as facts, the law and the constitution are not the basis of proceedings and justice is not the goal. The system is there to make money for attorneys and increase the power and position of the courts. Unfortunately, when justice is not the goal and facts, the law, and the constitution are not the basis, the result is the loss of rights which, over time, undermines the rights of the people. Justice for some results in justice for none and tyranny prevails just as it did in the time of the Declaration of Independence. James Madison spoke of the necessity of the Declaration of Independence as follows: The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise,
[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] Justice Department To Attempt Shut Down of 9/11 Evidence Friday
-Caveat Lector- http://indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=191632group=webcast On June 20, Bush Administration officials quietly informed a New York judge of their intention to commence legal actions...to control access to all evidence and documents related to all private litigation...regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- citing grave national security concerns as their motivation. Justice Department To Attempt Shut Down of 9/11 Evidence Friday by Tom Flocco July 11th, 2002 On June 20, Bush Administration officials quietly informed a New York judge of their intention to commence legal actions likely to be far- reaching in their constitutional, political, and individual rights implications pertaining to current lawsuits and government secrecy related to the attacks on September 11, 2001. The moves were revealed in a letter obtained from a confidential source, with two other sources corroborating its existence, adding additional information. U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Robert D. McCallum, Jr. and United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York James B. Comey advised U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, also of the Southern District of New York, that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will intervene to control access to all evidence and documents related to all private litigation before Hellersteinâs court regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- citing grave national security concerns as their motivation. The McCallum and Comey correspondence advised Judge Hellerstein of their intention to seek [court] entry of a global discovery order [effectively controlling evidence obtained from any country], requiring that 1) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) be served with [have prior access to] all requests for party and non-party discovery, 2 defendants and non-parties submit all proposed discovery responses that may contain âsensitive security informationâ (SSI) to the TSA prior to releasing such material to plaintiffs, and 3) TSA have the necessary opportunity to review such material and to withhold âsensitive security informationâ [from victim-family attorneys]. One victim family plaintiff -- speaking off the record -- told Scoop Media that family members and their attorneys have not yet sought internal memos, electronic mail, facsimiles, and documents which would shed public light upon what had to be extraordinary legal maneuverings. However, added high stakes related to the publicly undisclosed contents of the controversial August 6, 2001 Presidential intelligence briefing prior to the attacks, and a secret July, 2001 FBI memo -- said to be 50 times more significant than the August 6 briefing, by a Congressional investigator (New York Times, 5-18-2002), will only serve to heighten the importance of the June 20 letter. Will We Ever Know What Really Happened? The victim family source complained to Scoop Media that now the White House is trying to control or block the evidence we need to prove our negligence cases in court. The source then added that offices of United Airlines defense firm Mayer-Brown and lead attorney Michael Feagley, TSA, Bush Attorney General John Ashcroftâs Justice Department, Judge Hellersteinâs District Court, and the White House Counselâs office were all likely involved in the legal machinations. The resumes of TSA Director, John McGaw, and his personnel security chief, David Holmes, are already controversial enough to draw probing questions on many fronts; but plaintiff attorneys for the victim families may find the Administration's TSA appointee attempts to exert government control over their clients' private cases to be the proverbial last straw. The DOJ letter to Judge Hellerstein reveals that Bush Administration officials at TSA have also been contacting witnesses already subpoenaed by attorneys for the plaintiff families, telling them that they should send all Plaintiff-subpoenaed evidence and documents to the TSA for initial inspection, prior to directly cooperating with family plaintiff attorneys and Judge Hellerstein's Court in New York. Thus, constitutional questions arise as to why the New York District Court is permitting Bush Administration bureaucratic appointees to tamper with witnesses and evidence in the private civil actions of American citizens. Some 33 families have already chosen to forego financial awards from the congressionally authorized victim compensation fund in favor of seeking justice and accountability. Their lawsuits are attempting to recover damages for negligence, ticket contract safeguards, and failure to prevent the attacks, even as more evidence regarding prior knowledge of the terrorism recently leaked out from Capitol Hill -- from congressmen and senators themselves. The letter also disclosed that Ashcroftâs Office will push for the appointment of lead counsel, effectively exerting a consolidated supervisory role over all victim
[CTRL] Justice for Sale
-Caveat Lector- Ashcroft Queried Over MS Contributions - The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24086.html Lindows.com Opens 'Windows' Case - InternetNews http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_975171,00.html 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] JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HIDING SECRET WEEKLY REPORTS TO A.G.
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495article=18863 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HIDING SECRET WEEKLY REPORTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL by Michael Ravnitzky , [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a reporter who works full time for a well-respected national news organization in the Washington, DC area. My news organization publishes more than 25 national and regional magazines and newspapers, primarily in the area of business and law, and at least two (Legal Times and The National Law Journal) primarily devoted to the activities of the justice system and of federal government agencies. Last year I learned that the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs (DOJ OLA) provided weekly legislative activity (i.e. DOJ lobbying) reports to the Office of the Attorney General. These reports are usually 2-3 pages in length. I asked for a few of these reports under the Freedom of Information Act; those were provided in their entirety. Then I sent a letter, again citing FOIA, and requested a couple of years worth of these reports (still only a couple of hundred pages in all). Soon afterward, the roof fell in. The news organization I work for routinely reports on Justice Department activities in several magazines and newspapers. Nevertheless, DOJ decided that I am no longer a representative of the news media. As a result, they declined to process our request without our payment of hundreds or thousands of dollars in search fees. Under the FOIA law, reporters should not be charged any search or review fees. I found out soon afterward what had happened. A small office in DOJ called the Office of Information and Privacy runs training seminars for government FOIA managers in a variety of agencies. At one training session in November, 2001, the question came up of how to handle troublesome requests, including my request for legislative weekly reports to the Attorney General. The DOJ representative said that they were going to deny my status as a representative of the news media, despite the fact that I work full time for a national news organization and actively cover agency matters. I learned this from a FOIA Manager who was in attendance at the seminar, and who also spoke to the group criticizing this decision. This manager told me that he thought their decision-making was highly improper. Despite letters to the DOJ from the editor in chief of our news organization, as well as inquiries from our company General Counsel, the Justice Department is standing firm and suppressing the release of these reports by insisting that a reporter is not a reporter. The Justice Department is now considering spreading this technique of hiding government documents to other agencies. If it is not halted now, this approach could keep reporters from learning about the activities of the government. This matter is too important to keep within the confines of a newsroom. Apparently these documents which I requested are highly embarrassing or sensitive, since they are taking such extraordinary steps to prevent their release. If I withdraw my request for these documents, which date back at least as far as the mid-1980s, they will undoubtedly be shredded under the Justice Department's document destruction schedules. What can you do about this? FIRST of all, these reports should be requested to prevent their immediate shredding. Once records are requested, the agency is obliged to retain the records until the request has been processed. If anyone else is interested in these reports, you can request them, specifying the years that you are interested in , by sending a letter simply mentioning the Freedom of Information Act, and asking for THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS WEEKLY REPORTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE YEARS - . (as of last month, they had these reports going back at least 15 years) to: Office of Legislative Affairs -- Requests for Office of Legislative Affairs records should be addressed to: Melanie Ann Pustay, Deputy Director Office of Information and Privacy Suite 570, Flag Building Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530-0001 PHONE: 202: 514-FOIA FAX: 202-514-1009
[CTRL] Justice Department looking more like secret police
-Caveat Lector- Danger Zone: Justice Department looking more like secret police http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1030811 Sept. 3, 2001 Houston Chronicle To some, it will no doubt sound like journalists whining over the treatment of other journalists and trying to curry some special favor from society. To most, however, it will hopefully sound like what it is, a true and legitimate alarm over the U.S. Justice Department's handling of First Amendment rights that profoundly affect how we all find out what our government is up to. First, as most Houstonians now know, came the strange case of Vanessa Leggett, who sits in federal detention here for refusing to let her notes and tapes, gathered for a book about a River Oaks murder case, fall into the hands of federal prosecutors. If the feds succeed in making Leggett, in essence, a surrogate investigator for the government it will have a dangerous and lasting chilling effect on the way information gets gathered and disseminated in this supposedly free and open society. And now comes the case of Associated Press reporter John Solomon in New Jersey. The Bush Justice Department has subpoenaed and acquired Solomon's home telephone records, both incoming and outgoing calls during a five-day period in which he investigated and reported on New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli's 1996 campaign. Even more frightening, the Justice Department subpoenaed the bookstore purchase records of eight people, including those of Toricelli and an individual purported to be a central witness in the investigation. The Justice Department must immediately stop its attempts at threatening and intimidating journalists and writers, says Ray Marcano, president of the Society of Professional Journalists and managing editor of the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News. Someone at Justice needs to be held accountable for these outrageous acts. Observers are also concerned because the Justice Department has refused detailed comment on either Leggett's or Solomon's cases. What's going on here? Why the reluctance on the part of the government to at least explain itself? Targeting journalists for simply doing their jobs. These secret police tactics are more appropriate for some Third World, fascist regime. No journalist is above the law, but the jobs they do play a special role in our society that needs to be safeguarded not for the sake of journalists, but for the sake of knowing what the government is doing and to whom. The press may not be popular, and our excesses may anger many people. But a pattern of government agents raiding citizens' personal records and clamping down on information (and information gatherers) about what they are doing without explanation ought to scare the devil out of us all. 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] Justice - just leave it to Big Brother
-Caveat Lector- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/today/aug15/Leaders/justleave.shtml Belfast Telegraph 15 Aug 01 Justice - just leave it to Big Brother By Eamonn McCann ANY time we are tempted to believe that the Bush or Clinton administrations have been genuine in their declarations of concern about peace and justice in Northern Ireland, we need only think of Israel. The hallmarks of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people are blithe disregard for international agreements, open contempt for United Nations resolutions, the deliberate murder of unarmed civilians and the persecution of whole communities for the supposed misdeeds of individuals. The key reason the Israelis get away with this atrocious behaviour is that successive US administrations have given them unconditional support. We are not dealing here with mere generalised support for a regime which happens to carry out assassinations but with explicit support for the policy of assassination. On July 31, Israeli forces killed eight people in a missile attack in the Palestinian town of Nablus. Six were members of Hamas, two were children under 10. Asked to comment, US vice-president Richard Cheney declared: In Israel, what they've done over the years, occasionally, in an effort to preempt terrorist activities, is to go after the terrorists, and in some cases I suppose it is justified. Cheney clearly regarded it as irrelevant that, under international law, UN resolution and the 'Oslo Accords' negotiated under close US supervision, Nablus is in Palestinian territory, where the Israeli defence forces have no right to be, much less ambush local people in a missile assault. But then, Israel's criminality has never concerned the US. Israel long ago hired itself out to the US as its enforcer in the Middle East and in return was given carte blanche for butchery. Resolution 446 of the UN Security Council declares that the 'policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace'. Yet, day in and day out, in broad daylight and under the gaze of television cameras, the Israelis not only build and add to existing Jewish settlements but send in bulldozers, guarded by tanks, to destroy Palestinian settlements whose moral and legal validity is unquestionable. And there isn't a cheep of protest from governments which, when it suits them - which is to say, when it suits the US - palpitate with passion about the inviolability of UN resolutions. Could double standards go any deeper? Well, yes. On a single day in June, Bush's most faithful follower, Tony Blair, welcomed one, the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic by the UN War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague, and two, Ariel Sharon to 10 Downing Street. Sharon is a serial mass murderer, his crimes dating back at least to 1953 when he personally took part in the killing of 60 Palestinians in the village of Qibya. As Defence Minister in 1982, he sanctioned the chopping to death of up to 2,000 Palestinian civilians, men, women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on the outskirts of Beirut. His thirst for blood whetted, as Prime Minister he now sends in the cut-throats and helicopter gun-ships to keep up the kill rate. There are UN tribunals to deal with war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but none to reflect even a transient interest in the war crimes of Israel. Everybody knows why: any move at the UN to bring Israel within the remit of international law would instantly, automatically, be vetoed by the US. Every time our own peace process lurches into crisis, there's speculation that the White House might intervene and put pressure on this side or that in an effort to secure a fair outcome. All the pro-Agreement parties accept Bush as an honest broker. They say a lot about themselves in so doing. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/today/aug15/Leaders/justleave.shtml 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
[CTRL] Justice Department Opposes Microsoft
Wonder Which OS Do They Use? Justice Department Opposes MicrosoftAssociated PressStopping just short of accusing Microsoft of stalling, the JusticeDepartment asked an appeals court to deny the company's request tore-examine whether the software maker illegally mixed software code fortwo products. Microsoft's challenge is "clearly erroneous, repeating thesame arguments it made in its principal brief on appeal," the JusticeDepartment told the court Thursday. "Microsoft also treats its petitionfor rehearing as an occasion to expound upon a variety of topics, mostof them irrelevant to the issue at hand."http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/news.findlaw.com/ap/ht/1700/7-27-2001/20010727011554380.htmlThe Government Response To Microsoft's Petition For A Rehearing [PDF]http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/microsoft/appelleesrsp72601.pdf Regards,Peter E Luke Diversions? Or what's really happening?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Diversionz
Re: [CTRL] Justice tempered with mercy?
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 06/07/2001 4:00:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now these people were very humane - if at first you don't succeed - well, maybe they should find an old Westinghouse Electric Chair? Wonder if Bill Clinton has plans for visiting Afghanistan - or is this why he is scared of Osama bin Laden? As I always said, Saba, he didn't lie. He didn't have sex with that woman. Sodomy is very different (check Webster). I don't believe anyone is going to Afghanistan this year. Prudy 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] Justice tempered with mercy?
-Caveat Lector- Now these people were very humane - if at first you don't succeed - well, maybe they should find an old Westinghouse Electric Chair? Wonder if Bill Clinton has plans for visiting Afghanistan - or is this why he is scared of Osama bin Laden? Saba BBC News Online: World: S/W Asia Three Afghans survive death sentence for sodomy Thursday, February 26, 1998 Published at Three Afghans survive death sentence for sodomy Reports from Kandahar - the headquarters of the Afghan Taleban movement - say that three men have survived a death sentence imposed for sodomy, and have had the penalty commuted. Under the Taleban interpretation of Islamic law, sodomites have to be crushed to death under a pile of mud or bricks. The reports from Aghanistan say a tank pushed a large wall over on top of the three men. But - because they were still alive after thirty minutes - by Koranic law they were automatically granted a reprieve. The men are now said to be recovering in hospital in Kandahar. [Barney Frank Take Note] From the newsroom of the BBC World Service Summaries In this section Huge crowds watch Taleban punishment Finance ministers discuss ditching dollar BJP win back Uttar Pradesh Bomb blasts in Bombay Four more dead in second Pakistan explosion Bangladesh holds Burmese Muslims prisoner Security tightened in Srinagar Floods hit Afghanistan Afghanistan: Taleban chief talks to the BBC Afghan anti-Taleban leader reportedly returns from Iran Second public amputation in Afghanistan in a week The West gives Afghanistan over $31m in aid Head of Iranian judiciary calls for more press restrictions Iran denies spying in Kazakhstan Burmese authorities burn illegal drugs Burmese dissident released in Bangkok Refugees return to Bangladesh Investigation launched into Sonia Gandhi death threat allegations Tajik opposition leader returns from exile World Contents Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East S/W Asia Analysis From Our Own Correspondent Letter From America Monitoring Front Page | UK | World | Business | Sci/Tech | Sport | Despatches | On Air | Cantonese | Talking Point | Feedback | High Graphics | Help | Site Map | Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | © 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] Justice Department Wants McVeigh Delay
-Caveat Lector- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010511/aponline105907_000.htm Friday, May 11, 2001; 10:59 a.m. EDT Justice Department Wants McVeigh Delay By Ron Fournier AP White House Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Justice Department lawyers have recommended that Attorney General John Ashcroft delay the execution of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh for 30 days, two government officials said Friday. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Attorney General John Ashcroft was expected to approve the request later Friday. The recommendation came one day after the FBI disclosed that it had failed to turn over documents to McVeigh's defense. McVeigh, 33, is scheduled to die Wednesday at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind. The belated uncovering of the documents embarrassed the government and angered victims and their families. But it was not immediately clear whether McVeigh -- who had waived appeals in the past few months and claimed responsibility for the bombing -- would himself now seek a delay. We needed this death penalty, said Aren Almon Kok, whose baby daughter came to symbolize the 1995 blast through a photograph of her lifeless body in the arms of a firefighter. For someone to make this mistake ... to find them less than a week before he dies ... is unbelievably unfair, she said in Oklahoma City. The Justice Department handed McVeigh's lawyers 3,135 documents it said should have been provided during the discovery phase of his 1997 trial in Denver. The existence of the documents was disclosed Thursday by CBS. Kathleen Treanor, who lost her 4-year-old daughter and in-laws in the April 19, 1995, bombing, criticized the FBI as bungling the case and giving McVeigh the chance to extend his life. I'm appalled, she said. The FBI knew from the very beginning that this was a huge case. How could they have possibly made a mistake this huge? In a letter to McVeigh's attorneys, the Justice Department said the documents consist of FBI reports, including interview notes known as 302s, and photocopies of physical evidence such as photographs, written correspondence and tapes. The documents came from 45 FBI offices in the United States and one in Paris. A lawyer familiar with the case told The Associated Press that the materials contain information generated by thousands of phone calls made to the FBI after the bombing. They range from identifying a composite drawing of a possible suspect known as John Doe No. 2 to claims of seeing McVeigh elsewhere on the day of the bombing. Legal analysts said the mistake could delay what would be the first federal execution since 1963, though it was unlikely to overturn McVeigh's conviction. An attorney for McVeigh said the materials may prompt a request for a stay. We're considering all our options, McVeigh lawyer Nathan Chambers said after the documents were delivered to his office in Denver. Chambers spoke to McVeigh about the documents, but he declined to elaborate except to say he couldn't rule anything out yet. Asked Friday on CBS' The Early Show whether McVeigh would seek a stay, he said: The honest question to that is we don't know at this point. There are a number of options that may be available to Mr. McVeigh, and we have a lot of work to do. He gave a similar answer when asked if McVeigh would fight if the government sought a stay. Another McVeigh attorney, Rob Nigh, arrived Thursday night in Indiana. In a recently published book, McVeigh claimed sole responsibility for the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which killed 168 people and injured hundreds. Since December, when he first asked to end his appeals, he had not shown any interest in fighting his conviction or death sentence. McVeigh's trial judge, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch of Denver, could not be reached for comment. Court clerk James Manspeaker said the defense would have to go to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also in Denver, to file a motion to consider new evidence. Matsch planned no action unless an appeal is filed. If something is filed he'll take a look at it, Manspeaker said. The legal standard for granting such a motion requires the court to determine the verdict could have been different if the jury had been allowed to see the documents. The prosecution proved everything to me, said McVeigh juror Doug Carr, 45. If there was something left out that's in those files, I don't think it was that significant. McVeigh's former trial lawyer, Stephen Jones, said he wouldn't be surprised if the execution was stayed until the documents are reviewed. There could be a benign interpretation and it could all be irrelevant, Jones said. On the other hand, it could be a malignant failure to turn over. The Justice Department said the
[CTRL] Justice Served In Jesse Dirkhising Murder Case
-Caveat Lector- URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/ WASHINGTON, DC "The conviction of homosexual sadist Joshua Brown for the torture, rape, and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising, is a relief to those of us in the pro-family community," said Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition. "Brown has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for raping Jesse, but still faces life in prison on the murder charge." Rev. Sheldon is encouraged by the speed of the justice system in Arkansas and is looking ahead to Brown's homosexual lover receiving a similar penalty for his role in Jesse's torture and suffocation death. Brown's lover, Davis Don Carpenter's trial begins on May 7. "This was a heinous crime involving two homosexual men who seduced, drugged, and tortured a young boy as he choked to death on his own underwear," said Sheldon. "This kind of sado-masochistic activity is commonplace among many homosexuals." TVC notes that the mainstream news media, which made Matthew Shepard a household name, has been strangely silent on the murder of Jesse Dirkhising by homosexual sadists. A report in the Washington Times on March 23, 2001, indicates that none of the major networks, except Fox, have covered the Dirkhising murder trial. The New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today have also neglected to cover this story. "One can only wonder how the media would have covered a story involving two heterosexual men who tortured and murdered a homosexual teenager," observed Sheldon. "Why is the death of Jesse Dirkhising of less importance than the death of Matthew Shepard at the hands of two killers? Is it because discussing the perverted lifestyle of Jesse's murderers isn't politically correct?" "The murder of every person is a great tragedy," said Sheldon. "The media should not pick and choose which murders to cover depending upon the sexual orientation of the killers. Jesse's torture and murder is as great a tragedy as Matthew Shepard's death." -- Best Wishes The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc (English Socialism), and being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, IN SHORT, MEANS PROTECTIVE STUPIDITY. But stupidity is not enough... Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. ~~George Orwell, 1984 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
Re: [CTRL] Justice Denied
-Caveat Lector- It's not the S Court the is 'besmirched', it's the 'House' down the street. On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:50:28 -0800 radman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Caveat Lector- Justice Denied http://www.ourfuture.org/readarticle.asp?ID=702 by Robert L. Borosage, Campaign For America's Future 12/13/00 In a brazen decision, a partisan majority of five Supreme Court justices trampled precedent, law and common sense to reach the result that they wanted: blocking a fair count of the votes in Florida. As Mr. Justice Scalia indicated in his revealing opinion justifying the five when they stopped the count, the five partisans assumed that if the votes were counted Al Gore would win Florida and the election. This would do "irreparable harm," Justice Scalia said in an understatement, to the "legitimacy" of George W. Bush taking office. Losing generally has that effect. And so, the five partisan conservative activists chose instead to sacrifice the Court's reputation and besmirch its tradition in order to protect Gov. Bush's usurpation. It is particularly outrageous that the five conservative activists summoned up a newfound concern for equal protection to justify their lawless decision. Somehow the common sense standard that election officials should count ballots by hand looking to see if there is a mark that would indicate how the voter cast his or her vote a standard that has sufficed in handcounts determining elections for years raised equal protection concerns. The court was in essence ruling that if a machine did not count a ballot for whatever idiosyncratic reason that ballot need not be counted. But the reality of Florida and many other states is that precincts with poor and minority voters get the oldest and least accurate machines. If you were wealthy and white in Florida, you voted on machines that rejected far fewer ballots than if you were poor or black. This was not "voter error," or more offensively, Republican claims of voter ignorance. It was machine error, and institutionalized discrimination against black and poor voters. This was the true equal protection concern that the Supreme Court should have been focused on. It is understandable why George Bush did not want these rejected votes counted: the poor and minorities tend to vote against him. But it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court would block the counting of votes, given the discriminatory distribution of modern as against outmoded machines. There was ample precedent to order a full count and ample time to do so. Instead the Court elevated an arbitrary deadline that made a count impossible. It stopped the count to avoid "irreparable harm" to George W. Bush. And then it ruled that its stay had done irreparable harm not just to Al Gore, but to the voters whose votes were never counted. Justice Stevens was surely right that a big loser in this case was the society's confidence in the judge as a neutral arbiter above politics. But the bigger loser was our democracy itself. A candidate who lost across the country and in Florida will capture the office of the presidency by having employed every means necessary from a partisan election official, to Republican paid demonstrators, to backstage threats, to a partisan legislature, to a partisan 5 person majority on the Supreme Court, to block a fair count of the votes. This will be remembered. It will be remembered by African Americans whose voting rights were trampled by a Court that once prided itself on defending them. It will be remembered by Democrats who had the election stolen from them. But the true danger is that it will be remembered by the Bush crowd themselves. Aware that they lost, they will work tirelessly to weaken the coalition against them, even as they seek to expand their own. We are likely to witness a desperate return to race bait, class based wedge politics with the vicious edge that was displayed in Florida. And it is clear that there is no law, no rule, no standard of decency which they will allow to limit them in their pursuits. Progressives must insure that this injustice does not stand. An immediate reform drive should be launched to challenge the institutionalized discrimination against working people and minorities in the election system. In January, a massive voter registration drive should be launched, fueled by the outrage of Florida. Al Gore may be forced to concede, but we should not. Bush should be challenged from day one, his political machinations revealed, his class and racial politics exposed. The Florida vote should be investigated, particularly the detailed allegations of purposeful suppression of the black vote. Democrats should stand up against any attempt of Bush to institutionalize this conservative usurpation through judicial or regulatory appointments. Democratic Hall of Shame Whatever you
[CTRL] Justice Denied
-Caveat Lector- Justice Denied http://www.ourfuture.org/readarticle.asp?ID=702 by Robert L. Borosage, Campaign For America's Future 12/13/00 In a brazen decision, a partisan majority of five Supreme Court justices trampled precedent, law and common sense to reach the result that they wanted: blocking a fair count of the votes in Florida. As Mr. Justice Scalia indicated in his revealing opinion justifying the five when they stopped the count, the five partisans assumed that if the votes were counted Al Gore would win Florida and the election. This would do "irreparable harm," Justice Scalia said in an understatement, to the "legitimacy" of George W. Bush taking office. Losing generally has that effect. And so, the five partisan conservative activists chose instead to sacrifice the Court's reputation and besmirch its tradition in order to protect Gov. Bush's usurpation. It is particularly outrageous that the five conservative activists summoned up a newfound concern for equal protection to justify their lawless decision. Somehow the common sense standard that election officials should count ballots by hand looking to see if there is a mark that would indicate how the voter cast his or her vote a standard that has sufficed in handcounts determining elections for years raised equal protection concerns. The court was in essence ruling that if a machine did not count a ballot for whatever idiosyncratic reason that ballot need not be counted. But the reality of Florida and many other states is that precincts with poor and minority voters get the oldest and least accurate machines. If you were wealthy and white in Florida, you voted on machines that rejected far fewer ballots than if you were poor or black. This was not "voter error," or more offensively, Republican claims of voter ignorance. It was machine error, and institutionalized discrimination against black and poor voters. This was the true equal protection concern that the Supreme Court should have been focused on. It is understandable why George Bush did not want these rejected votes counted: the poor and minorities tend to vote against him. But it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court would block the counting of votes, given the discriminatory distribution of modern as against outmoded machines. There was ample precedent to order a full count and ample time to do so. Instead the Court elevated an arbitrary deadline that made a count impossible. It stopped the count to avoid "irreparable harm" to George W. Bush. And then it ruled that its stay had done irreparable harm not just to Al Gore, but to the voters whose votes were never counted. Justice Stevens was surely right that a big loser in this case was the society's confidence in the judge as a neutral arbiter above politics. But the bigger loser was our democracy itself. A candidate who lost across the country and in Florida will capture the office of the presidency by having employed every means necessary from a partisan election official, to Republican paid demonstrators, to backstage threats, to a partisan legislature, to a partisan 5 person majority on the Supreme Court, to block a fair count of the votes. This will be remembered. It will be remembered by African Americans whose voting rights were trampled by a Court that once prided itself on defending them. It will be remembered by Democrats who had the election stolen from them. But the true danger is that it will be remembered by the Bush crowd themselves. Aware that they lost, they will work tirelessly to weaken the coalition against them, even as they seek to expand their own. We are likely to witness a desperate return to race bait, class based wedge politics with the vicious edge that was displayed in Florida. And it is clear that there is no law, no rule, no standard of decency which they will allow to limit them in their pursuits. Progressives must insure that this injustice does not stand. An immediate reform drive should be launched to challenge the institutionalized discrimination against working people and minorities in the election system. In January, a massive voter registration drive should be launched, fueled by the outrage of Florida. Al Gore may be forced to concede, but we should not. Bush should be challenged from day one, his political machinations revealed, his class and racial politics exposed. The Florida vote should be investigated, particularly the detailed allegations of purposeful suppression of the black vote. Democrats should stand up against any attempt of Bush to institutionalize this conservative usurpation through judicial or regulatory appointments. Democratic Hall of Shame Whatever you thought of Al Gore as a candidate or a leader, he deserved support as he fought to have the votes counted. It is truly unforgivable that some Democratic politicians did not have the basic decency or simple courtesy to allow him to digest the Court's opinion and make his own
[CTRL] Justice Department - the Clintons' Caretakers
-Caveat Lector- Justice Department - the Clintons' Caretakers Neal Boortz Thursday, Dec. 21, 2000 Here's more proof that the Justice Department under Bill Clinton has existed primarily to keep criminal investigations and embarrassment away from the Clintons. Do you remember Adelaide Abankwah? She is the woman who appealed for asylum in the United States, claiming to have been chosen "queen mother" of her tribe back in Ghana. She said, too, that if she returned there, she would be forced to undergo female circumcision because she is not a virgin. Politicians, pretty celebrities and human rights activists hopped on the bandwagon. Luminaries such as Hillary Clinton, Julia Roberts and Vanessa Redgrave supported her case. Abankwah eventually won asylum in a federal appeals court. Now it turns out to be a lie. Another fraud endorsed by feminists and other leftists. The truth is that this woman's genitals were in no danger whatsoever from any ritual in Africa. An investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service revealed that Abankwah is actually Regina Norman Danson, a former hotel worker from Ghana. She made up the "queen mother" story after she was caught entering the United States in 1997 with a stolen passport. She's a criminal, not a queen. The real Adelaide Abankwah is a former college student who lives near Washington. Her passport was stolen in Ghana four years ago. Time for the Justice Department to step in and prosecute, right? Wrong. It's not time for prosecution, it's time for cover-up. It's time to sweep this all under some convenient rug somewhere. Why is Danson not being prosecuted or deported for illegally entering this country with a stolen passport? Well, because it might embarrass some people, that's why. The Washington Post reports that Clinton Justice Department officials were reluctant to prosecute Regina Dawson because they didn't want to embarrass Hillary Clinton or the Clinton administration. And they didn't want to embarrass all of those wonderful leftists/feminists who came to her rescue. Hillary was running for the U.S. Senate and there was no sense in Justice giving any ammunition to her opponent, right? Snowmen Are Men and That's Politically Incorrect A British professor isn't too keen on snowmen. Yes, the professor is a woman, Tricia Cusack, an art historian from Birmingham University in England. Art historian - now, there's a stunning career choice. Anyway, Cusak says snowmen reinforce gender stereotypes by portraying men in prominent public roles. In promotional literature from the university, Cusack writes that "the snowman's location in the semi-public space of garden or field reinforces a spatial-social system marking women's sphere as the domestic-private and the men's as the commercial-public." What kind of an idiot walks around talking about "spatial-social systems"? People who wouldn't have a prayer of earning a decent living in the private sector, that's who. People who are so impressed with their own so-called intelligence that they have no hope of ever identifying with real-world people living and working outside the hallowed fantasy world of academe. Bottom line: This lady thinks snowmen reinforce the old idea that a woman's place is in the home. Yeah, that's what I think when I see a snowman. I think he's just an instrument of male oppression against women. Not only that, he's made out of white snow! That means he's also an instrument of white male oppression against women and minorities. That snowy bastard! Then again, we are talking about merry old England, where political correctness runs rampant. So, are we going to ban snowmen? Can't Afford to Travel? That's Because of the Taxes! The Libertarian Party issued a press release yesterday with some figures tabulated by the Americans for Tax Reform. They took a look at local, state and federal government taxes on hotels and lodging, fuel, bus, train and airline tickets, and other travel-related items. And they discovered that the tax bill adds about 41 percent to the overall cost of your trip. No misprint there - 41 percent of your travel costs! Just look at the savings you'd realize without the taxes: · A $400 airline ticket would cost only $240. You'd save $160 in federal excise taxes, passenger facilities charges, fuel taxes, arrival and departure taxes, air traffic control surcharges, customs, immigration, and agricultural inspection fees, and the additional taxes airlines pay directly to the government. · An $80-a-night hotel room would cost $45.60. Forty-three percent of the cost of a hotel room comes from states' sales and use taxes, occupancy taxes and tourism taxes - combined with all the employment, income, and property taxes the hotel owner pays directly to the government. · That $50 restaurant bill would cost $36.20, if not for sales taxes on food and drinks, plus taxes on alcohol, property taxes, income taxes, and payroll taxes. · A $20 tank of gasoline would cost
[CTRL] Justice O'Connor Upset When Seemed Gore Won -Report
-Caveat Lector-
Sunday December 17 2:12 PM ET
Justice O'Connor Upset When Seemed Gore Won -Report
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
(news - web sites) was upset during an election-night party when she heard
Florida was first called for Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites),
exclaiming, ''this is terrible,'' according to a report in Newsweek magazine
released on Sunday.
The report said O'Connor made the comment at about 8 p.m. on Nov. 7,
and declared that meant the election was ``over'' because Gore had also
won two other key states.
Quoting two eyewitnesses to her comments, Newsweek said that O'Connor
then walked off to get a plate of food, and her husband, John, explained to
friends and acquaintances that she was upset because they wanted to
retire to Arizona and a Gore presidency meant they would have to wait
another four years because she did not want a Democrat to name her
successor.
Not long after Florida was called for Gore, news organizations retracted the
call and said Florida was too close to be awarded to either candidate. The
state was then called for Bush, but again that call was retracted and the
race remained in limbo for five weeks.
O'Connor, 70, had been Republican majority leader of the Arizona State
Senate before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web
sites) by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
The magazine said in its edition due out on Monday her remarks would
likely fuel criticism that high court justices ''sought to influence'' election
returns in their ruling in George W. Bush (news - web sites) v. Albert Gore
Jr. that ended the impasse over the presidential election.
Bush, the Republican governor of Texas, won the White House when Gore,
who had sought a hand recount of thousands of contested ballots in
Florida, conceded defeat on Wednesday, one day after a 5-4 Supreme
Court ruling that prevented any new recounts from going forward.
Newsweek, seeking a response from Justice O'Connor to the accounts of
her election-night comment, said that a high court spokesman said she had
no comment.
In its story, Newsweek noted that Justice O'Connor had no way of knowing
when she let her guard down that the networks' early call that Gore won
Florida's key 25 electoral votes was premature and that five weeks later
she would play a direct and decisive role in the election of his Republican
rival.
The magazine added that O'Connor could not possibly have foreseen that
she would be one of two swing votes in the court's 5-4 decision.
The Newsweek report came a day after the magazine released a poll that
said Americans remained deeply divided over the Supreme Court's ruling
that gave the presidency to Bush, and nearly two out of three thought
politics played a role in the decision.
While 51 percent said the court's decision that hand counts of contested
ballots in Florida could not resume was fair, 44 percent considered it unfair,
Newsweek said.
Sixty-five percent of those surveyed believed politics or partisanship played
a role in the U.S. Supreme Court justices' decision, according to the poll.
A larger proportion -- 81 percent -- saw politics playing a role in the
decisions of Florida state courts, which in some cases ruled in favor of
Gore during the legal battle to determine the 43rd U.S. president.
}}} ANOMALOUS RADIO {{{ - Techno, Ambient, Talk (33k+)
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=anomalous
}}} RADIO ANOMALY {{{ - Techno, Ambient, Jazz (Cable, DSL)
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=stevew168
Anomalous Images and UFO Files
http://www.anomalous-images.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] Justice Scalia's Legal Vision is Blinded by his Ambition
-Caveat Lector-
--- Forwarded message follows ---
Date sent: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:41:05 -0800
From: "eWarrior (Kurt Jonach)" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Justice Scalia's Legal Vision is Blinded by his Ambition
To: Steve Wingate [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-12-11/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-91901.asp
JUSTICE SCALIA'S LEGAL VISION IS BLINDED BY HIS AMBITION
New York Daily News Online
December 11, 2000
Justice Scalia's Legal Vision Is Blinded by His Ambition
Jim Dwyer
Earlier this year, Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice
who now is all but serving as the attorney for George W. Bush,
let it be known that if Democrats won the presidency, he'd
quit the court.
He would leave because under a Democratic administration, he
would have no shot at being named chief justice by Al Gore,
according to the March issue of the Washingtonian magazine.
Now, Scalia has taken charge of the election case for George
W. Bush and will try to herd the conservatives this morning
for the result he apparently wants: a Bush presidency, and,
perhaps, the job of chief justice when William Rehnquist
retires in a few years as is expected.
Normally, judges disqualify themselves from cases in which
they have a personal interest; if the naked ambition to be
the court's chief was accurately attributed to him, then he
has no business deciding this fight.
Scalia, however, could not have been bolder in his advocacy
for Bush's cause, and, by extension, his own.
During oral arguments two weeks ago, he took shots at the
Florida courts, which had said the most fundamental right in
a democracy is the vote.
No way, Scalia said.
"There is no right of suffrage under Article II," he declared.
In plain English, he said that the citizens have no constitutional
right to vote for President. His reason is that the Constitution
places that power in the hands of the state legislatures,
although he did not mention that all 50 state legislatures
submit the question to a popular vote. (Some transcripts of
the Supreme Court session attributed this remark to Rehnquist,
but Scalia apparently was the actual speaker.)
Over the weekend, he took matters even further.
Scalia wrote that Bush would suffer "irreparable harm" if
votes were counted "by casting a cloud upon what he claims
to be the legitimacy of his election."
You have may seen that moment in "A Few Good Men" when Tom
Cruise is defending a soldier at a military trial.
"I want the truth!" says Cruise, during cross-examination.
Jack Nicholson looks up at him with contempt.
"You can't handle the truth," snarls Nicholson.
The legality of the votes worries Scalia."Count first and rule
upon legality afterward is not a recipe for producing election
results that have the public acceptance democratic stability
requires," Scalia wrote.
We've gotten by for two centuries on precisely that recipe.
That is what is done on every Election Day in this country.
First we vote. Then come the challenges, if any, which end up
in court, and are decided there. This is not new. To have
disputed ballots decided by courts doesn't "change the rules
of the game." Those are the rules of the game. To do otherwise
changes the law, the customs and the practice in every single
state.
No one can possibly argue that it is the best interests of
Bush or Gore that the votes not be counted.
There was talk yesterday -- unfortunately, it proved to be
untrue -- that the Florida courts were going to ship uncounted
ballots up to Washington. Those ballots, for better and worse,
are the only evidence about the results of this election.
To exclude them from this decision is like saying that a murder
weapon seized from a suspect can't be shown to a jury because
of a legal technicality.
But Scalia says that we -- the nation -- can't handle the truth
of counting those ballots, that the results might damage a Bush
presidency if they show that he really didn't win.
So we hide the facts for the good of the country.
Or is it really for the good of Antonin Scalia, the chief
justice wanna-be?
--- End of forwarded message ---
}}} ANOMALOUS RADIO {{{ - Techno, Ambient, Talk (33k+)
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=anomalous
}}} RADIO ANOMALY {{{ - Techno, Ambient, Jazz (Cable, DSL)
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=stevew168
Anomalous Images and UFO Files
http://www.anomalous-images.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
Re: [CTRL] Justice | ecitsuJ
-Caveat Lector- I just read in the paper a couple of days ago that Janet Reno was inducted into the International Women's Hall of Fame. For the first time in my life, I actually wished I were a man.. shrug __ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.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] Justice | ecitsuJ
-Caveat Lector- From http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=printArticleID=commentary- 2000109164758 }}Begin The Washington Times www.washtimes.com In the name of justice James Bovard Published 10/9/00 H.L. Mencken quipped in the 1920s that the name "Justice Department" was an oxymoron. Attorney General Janet Reno has vindicated Mencken and given solace to cynics across the land. In July, controversy erupted over "Carnivore," the FBI's e-mail wiretap software that reportedly can vacuum up vast amounts of private e-mail regardless of whether the feds have a search warrant. FBI officials "explained" the program's ominous name by stressing that they never thought the public would learn of the program's existence. Janet Reno took charge by announcing she would require the FBI to change Carnivore's name. The Justice Department also promised to appoint independent experts to evaluate the program and to issue a report showing it posed no threat to privacy. Several top academics snubbed the feds, doubting the review could be bona fide. Late last month, the Justice Department proudly announced that a team affiliated with the Illinois Institute of Technology would conduct a thorough evaluation of Carnivore. The Justice Department is scheduled to release this independent expert report exonerating the Carnivore system in December. But glitches happen. The Justice Department posted an information file, including the contract proposal, on the project on its Website. Key parts of the researchers' resumes were blacked out or so the Justice Department thought. Computer buffs at www.cryptome.org easily opened the documents and learned that among the "independent" experts is a top adviser to Mr. Clinton's 1992-93 transition team who performed several studies for federal agencies in recent years, a former Justice Department lawyer, some consultants for the Internal Revenue Service, and others who had top security clearances from the National Security Agency and the Pentagon. The proposal promised that two of its key experts would "be of special assistance in the public comment phase of the project. . . . to help the public overcome popular myths and understand the limitations associated with Carnivore." Declan McCullagh, Wired News' ace reporter, noted "the irony of public disclosure of personal information, by the very people who are in the midst of claiming they can be trusted to protect it." On the other hand, perhaps the hefty list of the Carnivore reviewers' government connections merely proves they are "independent enough for Clinton administration work." The same charade occurred with the "independent" company hired to evaluate the film footage of the re-enactment of the FBI's final assault at Waco held earlier this year at Fort Hood, Texas. The Justice Department endlessly repeated that the Vector Data Systems is an independent British company. However, Vector is actually owned by Anteon, a large American corporation whose web page brags of its contracts with 50 federal agencies including the White House Communications Agency, the Pentagon and the Justice Department. Perhaps the Justice Department assumes the best measure of the independence of a company is how many federal contracts they have snared and hope to receive in the future. Not surprisingly, Vector provided the correct answers thus seeking to absolve the FBI of some of the most serious charges against it at Waco. The recent "independence scams" should be no surprise. The Justice Department has no concerns about conflict of interest because the government is presumed to be incapable of committing any wrong. In a 1996 speech to government prosecutors, Miss Reno declared: "All of you public lawyers are but little lower than the angels, and I salute you." Miss Reno showed her belief in angels in 1994 when she decreed that federal prosecutors would no longer be bound by the ethics guidelines of state bar associations. Miss Reno's power grab for federal prosecutors was unanimously condemned by the Conference of Chief Justices, representing all the state supreme courts. The longer Miss Reno clings to office, the more convinced she becomes that she personifies justice. Consider her flip-flop on the independent counsel law. Miss Reno urged Congress in 1993 to renew the independent counsel law because "there is an inherent conflict whenever senior executive branch officials are to be investigated by the department and its appointed head, the attorney general." But the longer she served as attorney general, the more contemptuous she became of public confidence in the justice system. Last year, she flipped and told Congress that the existing law should be replaced with a system that gave any attorney general unfettered authority to veto any indictments and to fire any special counsel at any time on any pretext, thereby perpetually politicizing investigations of wrongdoing by high-ranking government officials. Miss Reno illustrated how
Re: [CTRL] Justice not likely to prosecute in King killing
In a message dated 09/05/2000 6:15:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WASHINGTON (AP) - Although a civil jury has concluded there was a conspiracy to kill the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a 1 1/2-year-old Justice Department investigation is not likely to produce any criminal charges, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder said today. Unfortunately it takes a real crime to move Justice. You know, something like sexual harassment. Murder and conspiracy to commit murder just do not have the "gravitas" the Washington media and our Congress require before they take real action. Prudy 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] Justice not likely to prosecute in King killing
http://www.foxnews.com/news/national/1209/d_ap_1209_331.sml Justice not likely to prosecute in King killing 11.55 a.m. ET (1707 GMT) December 9, 1999 By Michael J. Sniffen, Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Although a civil jury has concluded there was a conspiracy to kill the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a 1 1/2-year-old Justice Department investigation is not likely to produce any criminal charges, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder said today. Declining to release specific findings of the probe by the department's civil rights division, Holder told reporters: "I would not expect that there would be any criminal prosecution out of our report.'' Holder said the report on the new field investigation ordered by Attorney General Janet Reno in August 1998 is almost complete and could be released within weeks. Because the Justice inquiry was limited to examining two conspiracy allegations that emerged in recent years, including the one examined by the civil jury in Memphis, Tenn., Holder said he doubted the report would put to rest speculation about the 1968 assassination of the civil rights leader. The Justice report "is not a very broad-based look at all the possibilities,'' Holder said. "I suspect that given the verdict yesterday, this will renew interest the King assassination, and I suspect plant in the minds of many people doubts about some of those conclusions that were reached earlier.'' A King son, Dexter King, told a news conference in Atlanta today: "We don't care what the Justice Department does. Because of information that come out in the Memphis trial, he said, "We believe that this case is over. ... We know what happened. This is the period at the end of the sentence.'' Although Justice conducted a criminal investigation, statutes of limitation would bar prosecution of many crimes that are 30 years old, with the possible exception of an ongoing conspiracy. Holder did not say whether Justice investigators found no conspiracy or found no crimes previously unknown. Meantime, the King family finally has what it has sought for years - a jury verdict saying the civil rights leader was the victim of a conspiracy, not of a lone gunman. "I'm just so happy to see that the people have spoken. This is what we've always asked for,'' Dexter King said Wednesday after a jury ruled in his family's favor on a wrongful-death lawsuit. [an error occurred while processing this directive] The Kings had sued Loyd Jowers, a retired Memphis businessman who claimed six years ago that he paid someone other than confessed killer, James Earl Ray, to kill King. The trial for the first time gave a jury the opportunity to hear theories of a murder conspiracy in the 1968 assassination at a Memphis motel. Ray pleaded guilty to the murder in 1969, so he did not go to trial. He tried for 30 years to take back the guilty plea and died in prison of liver disease last year. His plea was upheld eight times by state and federal courts. The six blacks and six whites on the Chancery Court jury deliberated only about three hours before returning Wednesday's verdict and awarding the Kings $100 in damages. The Kings has asked for minimal damages, saying they were more interested in a verdict that would support their belief of a conspiracy. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., an associate of King, told WSB-TV in Atlanta that he will ask President Clinton and Reno for a thorough investigation of the assassination. The King family stressed the desire for closure. "We are prepared now to move on with our lives and hope that other people will join us in this process so that the nation can move on with the healing that is so necessary,'' King's widow, Coretta Scott King, said today on CNN. The suit named Jowers and other "unnamed conspirators,'' so the verdict did not identify anyone else who might have been involved. A civil court jury finding a defendant like Jowers at fault requires only a preponderance of evidence. In a criminal case, a defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. William Pepper, a lawyer who represented Ray and now represents the Kings, told jurors that Jowers, 73, was part of a vast conspiracy involving the Mafia and agents of the federal government. He said King was targeted because of his opposition to the Vietnam War and plans for a huge "poor people's march'' on Washington. He asserted that a cover-up following the assassination involved the FBI, CIA, the news media and Army intelligence, as well as many state and city officials. Juror Robert Tucker said the assassination was too complex for one person to have carried out. He noted Pepper's assertions that King's police guard was pulled back shortly before the murder and that Army agents had King under surveillance at the time he was felled by a single rifle shot. "All of those things added up, it wasn't just one guy acting alone,'' Tucker said. A U.S. House committee concluded in 1978 that Ray was the killer but may have had help before
[CTRL] Justice Department was ignoring reliable evidence
Fund-Raising Probe Sparks Debate By Pete Yost Associated Press Writer Tuesday, June 6, 2000; 3:54 p.m. EDT WASHINGTON In a memo kept secret for 212 years, FBI Director Louis Freeh warned that the Justice Department was ignoring "reliable evidence" that conflicted with Al Gore's accounts of his fund-raising activities. Freeh sent the November 1997 memo, written by staff at his request, to Attorney General Janet Reno to urge appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Democratic fund raising. "In the face of compelling evidence that the vice president was a very active, sophisticated fund-raiser who knew exactly what he was doing, his own exculpatory statements must not be given undue weight," the Freeh memo said. It preceded a better-known, and more scrutinized, memo by the chief prosecutor in the case, Charles LaBella, who urged the same action and also accused his Justice Department superiors of contorting their investigation to avoid triggering an independent counsel. The memos were released by a House committee today as Republicans in both chambers of Congress examined why a special prosecutor was never appointed. "Can you blame the American people or many in Congress for being cynical?" House Government Reform Committee chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind., asked after reading from the memos. The FBI director said the Justice Department's preoccupation with bit players should be replaced by a top-down investigation starting with President Clinton and a "core group" of aides under the theory that "most of the alleged campaign abuses flowed directly or indirectly from the all-out efforts by the White House and DNC (Democratic National Committee) to raise money." Freeh's memo focused in part on fund-raising phone calls Gore made from his government office. The vice president denied that he intended to raise "hard money," which is regulated by federal laws prohibiting solicitations on federal property. The director's memo suggested the Justice Department was "relying almost exclusively on the vice president's own statements to draw inferences favorable to him even where those statement are contradicted by other reliable evidence." "If the attorney general relied primarily" on Gore's "statements to end this investigation, she would be inviting intense and justified criticism," the memo said. In a memo responding to that allegation, Lee Radek, the chief of the department's public integrity section who dealt with independent counsel issues, said the Justice Department didn't rely solely on Gore's word. The conclusion that Gore's phone calls were to solicit "soft money," outside the scope of the law, was based on "hundreds of interviews with those who participated in the calls, and the examination of scores of documents," Radek wrote in a memo also released today. And the law in question is seldom prosecuted, he said. In his own 94-page memo, prosecutor LaBella complained that his Justice Department superiors were "intellectually dishonest" and practiced "gamesmanship" to avoid an independent counsel investigation of President Clinton's and Gore's 1996 fund raising. Radek called those allegations "preposterous." "The authors' attribution of bad faith to those of us who have disagreed with them on various issues is nothing short of shocking," Radek wrote. LaBella's memo also said the re-election campaign "was so corrupted by bloated fund raising and questionable 'contributions' that the system became a caricature of itself." He wrote the memo on July 16, 1998, as he was preparing to leave as head of the campaign fund-raising task force. Word of LaBella's memo leaked to the media a week after he wrote it, but Reno resisted demands from congressional Republicans to release it until recently, saying investigative documents should be kept confidential. LaBella and Freeh argued that the Justice Department had failed to adequately investigate allegations by the government-reform group Common Cause that Clinton controlled a Democratic Party advertising campaign and used it illegally to support his re-election. Those "arguably are the most serious" allegations," Freeh's memo said. LaBella wrote that the department's handling of the Common Cause allegations "has been marked by gamesmanship rather than an evenhanded analysis." He said Justice officials were "hostile" to the idea of seeking an independent counsel and "had to find a theory upon which we could avoid conducting an investigation." Radek responded that Reno addressed the Common Cause issue "squarely" and decided the law wasn't broken. = Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to
[CTRL] Justice, FBI officials to testify about 'pressure' on probe
May 23, 2000 Justice, FBI officials to testify about 'pressure' on probe By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES Senate and House committees have asked a top Justice Department official and a key FBI executive to testify this week on their 1996 conversation on whether "pressure" was applied to scuttle a probe of campaign-finance abuses in the 1996 election. Lee Radek, head of Justice's office of public integrity, and FBI Deputy Director William J. Esposito are set to testify tomorrow before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee and on Thursday before the House Government Reform Committee. Both panels are investigating campaign-finance abuses. According to a Dec. 9, 1996, memo by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, Mr. Radek told Mr. Esposito he was "under a lot of pressure not to go forward with the investigation" and that Miss Reno's job "might hang in the balance." The memo said Mr. Freeh met with Miss Reno and personally suggested she and Mr. Radek recuse themselves from the probe. "Perhaps now we are a little closer to understanding why the attorney general fought so hard against an independent counsel," said Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican and House committee chairman. "When compared to what actually happened over the last three years, the Radek comment is not surprising," Mr. Burton said. "Radek's participation in the campaign-finance investigation has raised many questions." Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary administrative oversight and courts subcommittee, said he may seek sanctions against Miss Reno and Mr. Freeh for not disclosing documents related to his panel's probe. Mr. Specter said Miss Reno and Mr. Freeh should have produced the Freeh memo long ago, but turned it over only in response to a subcommittee subpoena. "I'm very dissatisfied with the attorney general's performance and said so many times, and I think the director has an explanation to make as to why he did not inform the public of the contents of his memo," he said. The House committee also has asked that Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. "produce, in person, documents related to the Department of Justice decision not to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the 1996 campaign-finance scandal." Mr. Burton said a three-year investigation by the committee uncovered "significant evidence" that the Justice Department had blocked efforts for an independent counsel probe into 1996 campaign-finance abuses. "To this day, the Justice Department continues to stonewall our investigation by not turning over documents," he said. "This is not about national security matters or matter of executive privilege. This is about the Justice Department obstructing justice by withholding documents from our committee documents that have been under subpoena for two years. "The American people have a right to expect that the Justice Department works for the people, not as defense counsel for politicians and a political party," he said. The Freeh memo, according to Senate sources, suggested that Mr. Radek's public integrity section could not conduct a thorough investigation and that Miss Reno and Mr. Radek should allow aggressive outside investigators whom he referred to as "junkyard dogs." In a second memo, the sources said, Mr. Freeh said the Justice Department had sought to sidestep the use of FBI agents for the campaign-finance probe. That memo said the department wanted to use investigators from the inspector general's office at the Commerce Department instead. Mr. Radek has denied telling anyone he was under any undue pressure, describing the accusations as having "no basis in fact." Miss Reno said last week she did not recall being told by Mr. Freeh of the comment or his request that she and Mr. Radek step aside. The FBI has declined comment on the memo, which was turned over under a subpoena to Senate and House investigators for an investigation of Justice's handling of the campaign-finance probe. After the 1996 presidential election, there was speculation Miss Reno would not be named for a second term. White House aides sought to dump her because of her willingness to investigate White House officials and appoint several independent counsels. In her second term, she resisted an independent prosecutor for the fund-raising scandal. = Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER ==
[CTRL] Justice Taken Too Far - Re: What is behind the Elian case?
.. From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]: Conspiracy Shopping Cart: http://a-albionic.com/shopping.html From: American Patriot Friends Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: American Patriot Friends Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Justice Taken Too Far - Re: What is behind the Elian case? Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 5:23 PM Justice Taken Too Far - Re: What is behind the Elian case? http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1075995MyNum=956695980P=YesTL=956691424 or APFN MESSAGE BOARD: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1075995 Justice Taken Too Far Constitution Opinion (Published) Source: NY Times Published: April 25, 2000 Author: LAURENCE H. TRIBE Some are wildly comparing the armed seizure of Elin Gonzlez to the roundup of innocents by the Gestapo. Others think Attorney General Janet Reno showed admirable patience in dealing with a group of zealots using the boy as a pawn in its war with Fidel Castro. But the partisan squabbling over these caricatured views threatens to obscure a vital question: Where did the attorney general derive the legal authority to invade that Miami home in order to seize the child? The fact is, even on the assumption (which I share) that under applicable legal and moral principles Elian should ultimately be reunited with his father, the government's actions appear to have violated a basic principle of our society, a principle whose preservation lies at the core of ordered liberty under the rule of law. Under the Constitution, it is axiomatic that the executive branch has no unilateral authority to enter people's homes forcibly to remove innocent individuals without taking the time to seek a warrant or other order from a judge or magistrate (absent the most extraordinary need to act). Not only the Fourth Amendment but also well-established constitutional principles of family privacy require that the disinterested judiciary test the correctness of the executive branch's claimed right to enter and seize. Although a federal court had ordered that Elian not be removed from the country pending a determination of his asylum petition, and although a court had ruled that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could exercise custody and control of Elian for the time being, no judge or neutral magistrate had issued the type of warrant or other authority needed for the executive branch to break into the home to seize the child. The agency had no more right to do so than any parent who has been awarded custody would have a right to break and enter for such a purpose. Indeed, the I.N.S. had not even secured a judicial order, as opposed to a judicially unreviewed administrative one, compelling the Miami relatives to turn Elian over. The Justice Department points out that the agents who stormed the Miami home were armed not only with guns but with a search warrant. But it was not a warrant to seize the child. Elian was not lost, and it is a semantic sleight of hand to compare his forcible removal to the seizure of evidence, which is what a search warrant is for. To be sure, our courts have allowed immigration officials to obtain areawide warrants to search workplaces for illegal aliens, and Congress has by statute empowered immigration officials to search, interrogate and arrest people without warrants in order to prevent unlawful entry into the country. But no one suspects that Elian is here illegally. In fact, it's hard to see any significant immigration-related or other federal interest in whether Elian was reunited with his father now or after asylum is denied (if that is the outcome). And, should asylum be granted, Elian's father might still be granted custody and could then take the boy to Cuba with him if he so chose; asylum only means permission to stay in the United States and is not a requirement to stay. Either way, Ms. Reno's decision to take the law as well as the child into her own hands seems worse than a political blunder. Even if well intended, her decision strikes at the heart of constitutional government and shakes the safeguards of liberty. Laurence H. Tribe is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. Fwd from: Jon Roland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cuban playmates get U.S. OK to visit Elian http://orlandosentinel.com/news/ --- SEE UPDATES: AMERICAN PATRIOT FRIENDS NETWORK .More terror in America! http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terrorin_america.htm A THOUGHT TO PONDER! If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by ten thousand commandments! Traitor Within The Gates http://knobby.home.texas.net/ Please post to APFN MESSAGE BOARD: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1075995 Shop for Cars On-Line: http://a-albionic.com/ads/srch.html Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not
[CTRL] Justice adviser on Gonzalez case has long ties to Clinton (fwd)
April 20, 2000 Justice adviser on Gonzalez case has long ties to Clinton By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES A New York doctor who advised the Justice Department that Elian Gonzalez was in "imminent danger" at the home of his Miami relatives is a longtime associate of President Clinton who served on first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's secret health care task force. Dr. Irwin Redlener, president of community pediatrics at Children's Hospital at Montefiore in New York, also headed a group of prominent physicians who endorsed Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign. Dr. Redlener, president of the Children's Health Fund, is the second longtime Clinton supporter and adviser to surface as a key player in the Elian Gonzalez saga. Gregory Craig, one of Washington's highest-paid lawyers and a prime defender of Mr. Clinton's in the impeachment trial, represents Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez. On Monday, Dr. Redlener said in a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno that Elian was in a "state of imminent danger to his physical and emotional well-being" in a home he considered to be "psychologically abusive." He said there was "no justification" for leaving the boy at the Miami home, saying he continued "to be horrendously exploited in this bizarre and destructive ambiance. It has gone on far too long." "It appears the government could have done a better job at picking a consultant for this case based on Dr. Redlener's political connections," said former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova. "I believe he is a poor choice and I question the government's judgment in naming him." Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson called on Vice President Al Gore to repudiate Dr. Redlener, who he said was "neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist and who has never examined the young Cuban refugee." "Al Gore says he understands that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno are wrong on this issue," Mr. Nicholson said. "He says he understands that a family court . . . should decide what is best for Elian." Dr. Redlener was not at his office yesterday and was unavailable for comment. As a member of the first lady's health care task force, the doctor served as the vice chairman of the Health Professionals Review Group. Two years later, after the proposal failed, he was among several health care and White House officials who met to discuss why the program was rejected and how a pared-back proposal might be promoted the following year. The president's Health Security Act failed to win congressional approval in part because of concerns over the secrecy the White House used in developing the 1,400-page package. In 1997, a federal judge said the White House and lawyers defending the first lady had lied in an effort to keep the task force and its papers secret. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth also accused administration officials at "the highest levels of government" of engaging in a "cover-up" and pressuring the Justice Department to defend its "dishonest" actions. In recent months, Dr. Redlener has met with the first lady concerning her run for the U.S. Senate in New York. He also has been publicly critical of New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, chastising him for withdrawing the city's money from a multimillion-dollar asthma education and treatment initiative in the Bronx a $2.3 million program endorsed by the first lady. Dr.
[CTRL] Justice Dept. Lied!
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- Justice Dept. Lied! US attorney Denied tests show weapons fire. Confidential sources say weekend tests prove Government murdered Davidians. by William Cooper Copyright 2000 VERITAS News Service All Rights Reserved VNS Exclusive March 21, 2000 A US Attorney spokesman for the Justice Department blatantly lied during a press conference Monday when he said the Waco FLIR tests conducted over the weekend support the governments position that the flashes seen are glints, or reflections, of light off of debri around the Davidian Church. Confidential sources inform me that the test videos do not reveal light glints, or reflections but instead prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the government attacked and intentionally murdered the Branch Davidians when they attempted to flee their burning Church. The government has always denied any shots were fired by any government personnel on April 19, 1993. Furthermore the Justice Department has claimed that the flashes on the FLIR videos are not gunfire but are glints, or reflections. All independent experts who have examined the tapes have confirmed that indeed it can only weapons fire directed at the Davidian Church by someone who was working for the United States government. Here is the kicker. While night vision scopes will see light, FLIR or Forward Looking Infra Red cameras cannot and do not ever see or capture any light from any source or reflection whatsoever. FLIR can only see or pickup the infrared or heat portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. You see, the government has been lying all along in hopes of convincing the ignorant amongst us, and yes that includes judges and Branch Davidian attorneys, that the gunfire is really flashes of light captured on the video tapes... an impossibility where FLIR is concerned. Confidential sources, Patriots in government, tell me that military personnel from Delta Force, upon orders of the President of the United States, entered the Branch Davidian Church on April 19, 1993 and executed everyone that they could find who was still alive. Members of Delta Force in support of armored vehicles, and FBI snipers, murdered all of the Davidians who attempted to flee the fire. Only those Davidians were allowed to survive who escaped on the side of the building which was in the direct view of reporters using telescopic lenses. The government began their lies on February 28, 1993. They have never stopped lying about what really transpired in Waco, Texas ever-since. They lied in the affidavit used to obtain the warrant. They lied about the true reason for the raid on the Church. They lied about who fired the first shot. They lied to the American public and to the Branch Davidians during the seige. They lied to the Governor of Texas to justify the use of military personnel and equipment. They lied about what Branch Davidians said and did during the 51 days of the seige. They lied about what they intended to do on April 19, 1993. They lied about what they actually did on that infamous day. They lied about who started the fire. They lied when they said they never fired a shot on April 19th. They lied about what was found in the ashes. They manipulated evidence. They made evidence disappear. They turned off electricity to the coolers in which bodies were stored in order to insure decomposition before examination. They intimidated and controlled the press. They intimidated and controlled the medical examiner and coronor to manipulate the results of the autopsys. And they lied about a lot of other things. They have lied, and lied, and lied. And now they lie about so-called glints or reflections of light off of junk around the Church... light that could not ever have been captured on video by FLIR. Light that FLIR does not and cannot see... --end article-- The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments. -- Senator Henry Clay (Whig, Kentucky), 1834 --- "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." -G. Gordon Liddy, radio show, 8/26/94 --- Anthrax Vaccine Info: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/6060/ *[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Patriot Resource Center: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/ Online Patriot Internet Radio: http://www.geocities.com/aresister_2000/ **Live Free or Die!* A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and
[CTRL] Justice Department to review evidence after acquittal in Diallo case (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- Justice Department to review evidence after acquittal in Diallo case Albany, N.Y.(CNN) -- The Justice Department announced it will review the evidence in the trial of four white New York City police officers who were acquitted on Friday of all charges in the death of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed black man who was hit by 19 of 41 shots fired at him in the vestibule of his Bronx home last February. The Justice Department released the following statement on behalf of Mary Jo White, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York: "Ms. White announced that, as in cases of this kind, her office, in conjunction with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, will review all of the available evidence with respect to the death of Mr. Diallo, including the evidence available to the District Attorney's Office in Bronx County, to determine whether there were any violations of the federal criminal civil rights laws." The statement came shortly after the acquittal of the defendants -- Kenneth Boss, Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon and Richard Murphy -- who had all pleaded not guilty to the charge of second-degree murder in the 1999 killing of Diallo, a 22-year-old immigrant from the West African nation of Guinea. Jurors also were allowed to consider lesser charges, including first-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and reckless endangerment. Before the verdicts were read, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi issued a warning against any emotional outbursts in the courtroom and ordered everyone to remain seated until all motions were heard. Several officers wiped back tears as they heard the jury exonerate them. Carroll gripped a rosary as he listened to each decision from the jurors. The families of the officers and Diallo's mother were in the courtroom to hear the verdicts. Diallo's mother was silent but wept and gripped the hands of her brothers as the verdicts were read. Teresi thanked the jurors and told them the state of New York had strict laws protecting their privacy and that they were under no obligation to explain their decision. Jurors refused to comment after they left the courtroom. During the third day of deliberations, the judge reread -- at the jury's request --the legal guidelines under which the officers could justify the shooting of Diallo as an act of self-defense. Jurors also requested a reading of testimony from criminologist James Fyfe, who said the officers followed proper procedures when they asked Diallo to speak to them and approached him. The officers testified Diallo did not respond to police commands. And for the second time during their deliberations, jurors asked to hear a reading of testimony from officers Carroll and McMellon, who were the first to approach Diallo and who each fired 16 shots. Juror dismissed Jurors, who were not sequestered until deliberations began, were instructed every day by State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi not to discuss the trial outside the jury room. Just before deliberations began Wednesday, Teresi said he dismissed a white woman juror and replaced her with an alternate, a white man, after an investigation by state police revealed she had talked about the case outside the courtroom. The judge said the dismissed juror apologized for her actions, saying if she had it to do over again, she would not have talked about the case. The judge described the woman as "very embarrassed" about it. The re-configured jury consisted of four black women, one white woman and seven white men. The trial was moved from the New York City borough of the Bronx to Albany, New York -- 150 miles away -- because of intensive pretrial publicity. Closing arguments Defense attorneys said in closing arguments Tuesday that jurors should appreciate the fear of the officers the night they shot Diallo, as they faced someone they thought was a dangerous man. "They made a mistake," John Patten, attorney for officer Carroll said. "But they honestly believed this guy was shooting at them." Diallo was struck by 19 of 41 bullets fired at him by the defendants on February 4, 1999. Eric Warner of the Bronx District Attorney's office asked jurors to put themselves into Diallo's shoes, describing what he said the immigrant must have felt as he was approached by the four white police officers. "There wasn't a hint of justification. Who wouldn't be afraid, faced with four big men with guns?" he said. But defense lawyers told jurors that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the four officers were not justified in firing their weapons at Diallo as he stood in the vestibule of his apartment building. Officers: Diallo was 'acting suspiciously' The officers had testified that Diallo was acting suspiciously and did not respond to their commands when they approached him. Defense lawyers said an object Diallo pulled out of his pocket was perceived to be a
[CTRL] Justice official not prosecuted in leak (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- February 14, 2000 Justice official not prosecuted in leak By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Justice Department did not prosecute the former head of its intelligence division despite his admission to investigators that he disclosed classified information, The Washington Times has learned. Richard Scruggs, a friend of Attorney General Janet Reno's, who brought him to Washington, provided secret information to two reporters about an electronic eavesdropping FBI operation against the Japanese group Aum Shin Rikyo in 1995, according to Justice Department officials familiar with the case. Justice Department officials disclosed some aspects of the investigation into unauthorized disclosure on condition of anonymity. It is the first time information has been disclosed from the secret court set up under the 1979 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Justice Department's downplaying of the Scruggs findings is similar to the CIA's limited response to former director John Deutch, who was caught mishandling classified documents but not prosecuted. In both cases, government officials have charged that security infractions were covered up to protect senior personnel. Mr. Scruggs, currently the chief of the public corruption section for the U.S. Attorney's Office in southern Florida, said in an interview with The Times that he "indirectly confirmed" the classified information presented to him by the two reporters. He denied being the original source for information on the FBI surveillance of Aum Shin Rikyo obtained by reporters Jim McGee and Brian Duffy and disclosed in their book "Main Justice." The investigation was launched following publication of a book on the Justice Department and an excerpt that appeared in the Sunday magazine of The Washington Post on June 23, 1996. Myron Marlin, Miss Reno's spokesman, said in an interview: "Because of the Privacy Act we are not in a position to acknowledge the [Office of Professional Responsibility] investigation, but in such investigations, when the department determines the appropriate disciplinary action, it does not consider the relations someone has with the attorney general." Mr. Duffy declined to comment on the matter and said he was unaware of the probe of Mr. Scruggs. Mr. McGee could not be reached for comment. Mr. Scruggs worked with Miss Reno when she was a prosecutor in Florida and was offered a job on her Justice Department staff in the early 1990s. He was placed in charge of writing the 350-page "after action report" on the Justice Department's handling of the Branch Davidian standoff. The report was submitted in October 1993, six months after the incident. The Waco matter is currently being investigated again by a special team of investigators headed by former Sen. John C. Danforth. That probe was called after new information surfaced last year questioning the role of FBI agents at the site during a 51-day siege. Some officials suggested Mr. Scruggs was not punished for disclosing intelligence because of his friendship with Miss Reno and because he helped protect her from criticism after the Waco affair. Mr. Scruggs also was singled out for criticism in a recent internal Justice Department report on the department's mishandling of the case of fired Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, who is suspected of passing nuclear weapons secrets to
[CTRL] Justice in the Tank--NYTimes (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- February 10, 2000 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE Justice in the Tank Loeb's delicatessen on 15th street serves the best hot corned beef sandwich in town. It was there I ran into Lee Radek, who for years has been successfully making certain that no investigation of illegal Asian money poured into the Clinton-Gore campaign touches any of the higher-ups. Munching a pickle, I asked how come the current trial of Maria Hsia -- the longtime Gore fund-raiser charged with using Buddhist nuns as conduits for $140,000 in illegal contributions -- was being held in Washington, rather than near the Hacienda Heights, Calif., temple, scene of the alleged crime. "We thought this would be a better venue," the chief of the cover-up replied. From his concealing standpoint, he's right -- the nation's capital is far better for acquittal or most lenient sentencing of the defendant. Reno Justice wants none of the Clinton-Gore Asian funny-money traffickers such as John Huang, Pauline Kanchanalak and Charlie Trie to face punishment that might induce them to involve any of the famous recipients of China's largess. In moving the trial of Hsia (pronounced shaw) to Democratic D.C., Reno Justice was certain it would get a Clinton-appointed judge. That's because in all the "Asian Connection" cases here, the chief federal judge bypassed the normal random assignment procedure to direct all those cases to Judge Paul Friedman. After this liberal jurist relieved Clintonites in 1998 by dismissing as "Alice in Wonderland" five of six felony counts against Hsia, the Court of Appeals overruled him, reinstating the charges whose prosecution he so reluctantly oversees today. (Feeling the heat of criticism about being the repeatedly chosen instrument of the cover-uppers, Friedman last week got the chief judge's egregious assignments stopped.) Reno's Radek not only has a demonstrably anti-prosecution Democratic judge but the usual 90 percent Democratic D.C. jury. Hsia's lawyer reminded it this week that the defendant "is a minority, supports Democrats and has all her life." Witnesses against Hsia? Not to worry. John Huang, having been given a walk and thus under no coercion to talk, will remember nothing about Clinton-Gore involvement. Two potentially incriminating Buddhist temple money handlers, given immunity by Justice in return for promises of testimony, have fled overseas. (It just didn't occur to ever-trusting Radek to pick up their passports.) The judge won't allow the absent witnesses' grand-jury testimony to be used at the trial. No wonder Justice considers D.C. the best place to pretend to be prosecuting the Clinton-Gore milking of Asian money sources. Only here can it safely point to Maria Hsia as the evil mastermind of a secret plot -- and portray the vice president and members of his staff who were present at the Buddhist temple fund-raiser as the innocent victims of her nefarious scheme. This argues that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also present with his hand out, was duped as well. Reno Justice thus dumps everybody's guilt on Maria Hsia's head, treating her as the Dragon Lady of money-laundering -- all the while confident of her acquittal or (if the jury surprises) sure of her gentle treatment in sentencing, or (if the judge suddenly wants to learn the truth) relying on her presidential pardon right after Election Day. About that awful word, "truth": At first Gore said the fund-raiser was merely "community outreach"; months later, he amended that to knowing only it was "finance-related." But Gore's 10-year relationship with Hsia was always based on her fund-raising; Harold Ickes sent him a memo that John Huang was organizing the temple event to raise $250,000; and there stood fund-raising Maria in a golden robe when he walked in. Yet he still denies he knew he was raising Asian-generated money in a Buddhist temple. But Gore has never denied it to the Justice Department. That's because no prosecutor, no grand jury, no F.B.I. agent has ever dared to ask the vice president. Janet Reno protected him as Maria Hsia will protect him. Gore has broken no law because -- as we have seen all too often in the Clinton administration -- there is no law against misleading the public. = Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot
Re: [CTRL] Justice in the Tank--NYTimes (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- In a message dated 02/10/2000 3:03:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Gore has broken no law because -- as we have seen all too often in the Clinton administration -- there is no law against misleading the public And for that Mr. Safire should be delighted as well. Prudy A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives 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://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ 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] Justice War
-Caveat Lector-
From
{{Begin}}
REPORT ON THE 25 OCTOBER 1999
PARIS CONFERENCE ON
" J U S T I C E A N D W A R "
A dozen speakers from seven countries presented a devastating case against
NATO's illegal war against Yugoslavia at the international conference on
"Justice and War" held in Paris on Monday, October 25. The speakers included
jurists, experts and activists who have closely studied the background of the
Yugoslav conflict and NATO intervention.
Alternatives to War
Jan Oberg, director of the Transnational Foundation for Future and Peace
Research based in Lund, Sweden, attacked "the one biggest myth of the war":
that there was "nothing else to do" about the Kosovo problem. Oberg, who before
the NATO bombing had carried out some three dozen peace missions to Kosovo and
acted as advisor to the Kosovo Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova, presented a long
list of sensible, practical things that could have been done to help solve the
Kosovo problem in a peaceful way. None had been tried by the Western powers.
Instead, the United States chose war and backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
chieftain Hashim Thaqi, "the Albanian equivalent of Arkan" (the notorious Serb
gangster), said Oberg.
Oberg stressed that none of the Western officials dealing with the Yugoslav
problems had any understanding of peaceful reconciliation methods. The first
thing to do to help solve a conflict, he stressed, is to listen to both sides,
to understand their needs and their fears. This was never done. American
journalist Diana Johnstone, who co-chaired the conference, accused the Clinton
administration of aggravating and exploiting the Kosovo problem in order to
inaugurate NATO's new mission of "humanitarian intervention". The
"humanitarian" pretense is the public relations cover for NATO expansion
eastwards for economic and strategic reasons.
Professor Raju George Thomas of Marquette University in Wisconsin (USA) warned
of the extremely negative impact on international relations of NATO's illegal
attack on a sovereign nation that had not committed any act of aggression.
Other powers will be encouraged to emulate NATO's aggressive behavior in
defense of their own national interests, while fear of NATO's unpredictable
expansion is certain to trigger a new worldwide arms race. An American citizen
of Indian origin, Professor Thomas stressed that India, like most of the world
(with the exception of NATO countries), did not believe the "humanitarian"
pretext for the NATO bombing and sympathized with Yugoslavia as the victim.
International Law and NATO Aggression
Roland Weyl, speaking on behalf of the International Association of Democratic
Jurists, denounced NATO's "open contempt" for the United Nations and the post-
World War II system of international law aimed at banning war. The bombing had
no legal basis and would be unjustifiable even if the United States succeeded
in turning the United Nations Security Council into a pliant rubber stamp to
approve NATO military operations.
Two contrasting views of the ambiguous concept of "self-determination", in
relation to Kosovo, were presented by Catherine Samary of the University of
Paris and Barbara Delcourt, who teaches international law at the Free
University of Brussels. While Samary tended to favor self-determination for
Kosovo Albanians, Delcourt pointed out that under existing international law,
self-determination did not imply secession except in regard to decolonization.
If the right of self-determination is to be broadened, this should be done
systematically by international convention, rather than ad hoc, Delcourt
argued. Today we are no longer in the period of decolonization, but in a
recolonization period where the "right to self-determination" mainly favors
nationalists and great power manipulations.
On the subject of a hypothetical "law of humanitarian intervention", Olivier
Corten, professor of international law at the Free University of Brussels,
noted that any such law is open to differing interpretations as to when it is
applicable. The purpose of a legal system is to provide procedures to mediate
between differing evaluations. There is no law without procedure, he stressed.
We are in danger of reverting to the 19th century practice of Great Powers
which regularly invoked "natural rights" to justify use of military force.
Toronto lawyer Christopher Black explained that the ad hoc "International
Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY)" in The Hague is not a step
toward a real international criminal tribunal (a project that has encountered
U.S. opposition), but something quite contrary: a political tribunal instigated
by the United States for political purposes. The ICTY receives funding and
personnel from the United States government and private corporations, its chief
justice describes U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as "the mother of
the tribunal", it ignored a brief presented by an international group of
lawyers calling for indictment of NATO
[CTRL] Justice for People or to Make Lawyers Rich? [a must]
-Caveat Lector- Are you tired of a so called "Justice System" that has no regard for justice? Are you tired of courts that are set up to make lawyers rich at the expense of the rest of us. Well I sure as hell am and I'm ready to do something about it. It's time that the people take back the courts from the lawyers and insist on justice over profit. Everyone has either been screwed over by the courts or know someone who has. Before it gets any worse than it is we need to put a stop to it. That's why I, Marc Perkel have decided to put a stop to it and I'm forming People before Lawyers and hoping that somehow we can reverse the deterioration of the American court system. So what am I going to do about it? How am I going to overthrow the corrupt justice system and bring integrity back to our courts? I don't know. I haven't figured that out yet, but I'm working on it. I do have some ideas which I'll get into later. And if you have any ideas, let me know. The first thing though is to understand the problem and what it's all about. It is my strongly held conviction that the government is here to serve the people and not the people to serve the government. That the court system is here to provide justice for the citizens and not to give lawyers the opportunity to rape people using the courts as a weapon against the people. Judges are our servants, not out rulers. And this concept is supported in the Rules of the Supreme Court which states as follows: From the preamble to Supreme Court Rule 4 "The legal profession's relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar." We must always remember that the name says it all. When they cry like a stuck pig about what a great burden it will be on the legal community to have ethics imposed on judges and lawyers, we must never forget that the right of the public take precedents over the profits of attorneys. The Declaration of Independence starts with the words We the People. That's what America is about, it's about US. The court system is OURS. They are here to serve US. WE are not here to serve THEM. The courts are here for citizens to resolve our differences as quickly, efficiently, and inexpensively as possible. The courts are not here to suck the wealth from society and give it to lawyers. We must Stop Welfare for Lawyers. FOR MORE: http://www.perkel.com/pbl/ Bard DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ 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] Justice Dept. Pushes For Power to Unlock PC Security Systems - Covert Acts Could Target Homes, Offices
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/20/144l-082099-idx.h tml"Justice Dept. Pushes For Power to Unlock PC Sec /A - Justice Dept. Pushes For Power to Unlock PC Security Systems Covert Acts Could Target Homes, Offices By Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 20, 1999; Page A01 The Justice Department wants to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to obtain search warrants to secretly enter suspects' homes or offices and disable security on personal computers as a prelude to a wiretap or further search, according to documents and interviews with Clinton administration officials. In a request set to go to Capitol Hill, Justice officials will ask lawmakers to authorize covert action in response to the growing use of software programs that encrypt, or scramble, computer files, making them inaccessible to anyone who does not have a special code or "key," according to an Aug. 4 memo by the department that describes the plan. Justice officials worry that such software "is increasingly used as a means to facilitate criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, terrorism, white-collar crime, and the distribution of child pornography," according to the memo, which has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and other agencies. Legislation drafted by the department, called the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act, would enable investigators to get a sealed warrant signed by a judge permitting them to enter private property, search through computers for passwords and install devices that override encryption programs, the Justice memo shows. The law would expand existing search warrant powers to allow agents to penetrate personal computers for the purpose of disabling encryption. To extract information from the computer, agents would still be required to get additional authorization from a court. The proposal is the latest twist in an intense, years-long debate between the government and computer users who want to protect their privacy by encrypting documents. Although Justice officials say their proposal is "consistent with constitutional principles," the idea has alarmed civil libertarians and members of Congress. "They have taken the cyberspace issue and are using it as justification for invading the home," said James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group in the District that tracks privacy issues. Police rarely use covert entry to pave the way for electronic surveillance. For example, federal law enforcement agencies obtained court approval just 34 times last year under eavesdropping statutes to install microphones, according to the 1998 wiretap report issued by the Administrative Office of the Unites States Courts. David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, predicted the number of secret break-ins by police would soar if the proposal is adopted because personal computers offer such a tantalizing source of evidence for investigators -- including memos, diaries, e-mail, bank records and a wealth of other data. "Traditionally, the concept of 'black bag' jobs, or surreptitious entries, have been reserved for foreign intelligence," Sobel said. "Do we really want to alter the standard for physical entry?" The proposal follows unsuccessful efforts by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and other Justice officials to secure laws requiring computers or software to include "back doors" that would enable investigators to sidestep encryption. Those proposals, most notably one called Clipper Chip, have been criticized by civil libertarians and have received little support in Congress. In a snub of the administration, more than 250 members of Congress have co-sponsored legislation that would prohibit the government from mandating "back doors" into computer systems. "We want to help law enforcement deal with the new technologies. But we want to do it in ways that protect the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who originally sponsored the legislation, known as the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act. Goodlatte said the Justice Department's proposal might upset the "very finely tuned balance" between law enforcement power and civil liberties. But Justice Department officials say there is an increasingly urgent need for FBI agents and other federal investigators to get around encryption and other security programs. "We've already begun to encounter [encryption's] harmful effects," said Justice spokeswoman Gretchen Michael. "What we've seen to date is just the tip of the iceberg." The proposed law also would clarify how state and federal authorities can seek court orders to obtain software encryption "keys" that suspects might give to others for safekeeping. Although few people share such keys now, officials anticipate that they will do so more often in the future. Administration officials
[CTRL] Justice Department Mulls Covert-Action Bill
-Caveat Lector- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/business/daily/aug99/encryption20.htm Justice Department Mulls Covert-Action Bill By Robert OHarrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 20, 1999; Page A1 The Justice Department wants to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to obtain search warrants to secretly enter suspects' homes or offices and disable security on personal computers as a prelude to a wiretap or further search, according to documents and interviews with Clinton administration officials. In a request set to go to Capitol Hill, Justice officials will ask lawmakers to authorize covert action in response to the growing use of software programs that encrypt, or scramble, computer files, making them inaccessible to anyone who does not have a special code or "key," according to an Aug. 4 memo by the department that describes the plan. Justice officials worry that such software "is increasingly used as a means to facilitate criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, terrorism, white-collar crime, and the distribution of child pornography," according to the memo, which has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and other agencies. Legislation drafted by the department, called the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act, would enable investigators to get a sealed warrant signed by a judge permitting them to enter private property, search through computers for passwords and install devices that override encryption programs, the Justice memo shows. The law would expand existing search warrant powers to allow agents to penetrate personal computers for the purpose of disabling encryption. To extract information from the computer, agents would still be required to get additional authorization from a court. The proposal is the latest twist in an intense, years-long debate between the government and computer users who want to protect their privacy by encrypting documents. Although Justice officials say their proposal is "consistent with constitutional principles," the idea has alarmed civil libertarians and members of Congress. "They have taken the cyberspace issue and are using it as justification for invading the home," said James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group in the District that tracks privacy issues. Police rarely use covert entry to pave the way for electronic surveillance. For example, federal law enforcement agencies obtained court approval just 34 times last year under eavesdropping statutes to install microphones, according to the 1998 wiretap report issued by the Administrative Office of the Unites States Courts. David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, predicted the number of secret break-ins by police would soar if the proposal is adopted because personal computers offer such a tantalizing source of evidence for investigators -- including memos, diaries, e-mail, bank records and a wealth of other data. "Traditionally, the concept of 'black bag' jobs, or surreptitious entries, have been reserved for foreign intelligence," Sobel said. "Do we really want to alter the standard for physical entry?" The proposal follows unsuccessful efforts by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and other Justice officials to secure laws requiring computers or software to include "back doors" that would enable investigators to sidestep encryption. Those proposals, most notably one called Clipper Chip, have been criticized by civil libertarians and have received little support in Congress. In a snub of the administration, more than 250 members of Congress have co-sponsored legislation that would prohibit the government from mandating "back doors" into computer systems. "We want to help law enforcement deal with the new technologies. But we want to do it in ways that protect the privacy rights of law- abiding citizens," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who originally sponsored the legislation, known as the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act. Goodlatte said the Justice Department's proposal might upset the "very finely tuned balance" between law enforcement power and civil liberties. But Justice Department officials say there is an increasingly urgent need for FBI agents and other federal investigators to get around encryption and other security programs. "We've already begun to encounter [encryption's] harmful effects," said Justice spokeswoman Gretchen Michael. "What we've seen to date is just the tip of the iceberg." The proposed law also would clarify how state and federal authorities can seek court orders to obtain software encryption "keys" that suspects might give to others for safekeeping. Although few people share such keys now, officials anticipate that they will do so more often in the future. Administration officials played down the potential impact on civil liberties. In interviews, two officials said the law would actually bolster privacy protections by
Re: [CTRL] Justice Department Mulls Covert-Action Bill
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 8/20/99 3:43:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Justice Department Mulls Covert-Action Bill By Robert OHarrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 20, 1999; Page A1 The Justice Department wants to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to obtain search warrants to secretly enter suspects' homes or offices and disable security on personal computers as a prelude to a wiretap or further search, according to documents and interviews with Clinton administration officials. I know I shouldn't find this INCREDIBLE considering the nature of the Police State of America, BUT REALLY! How FAR do they intend to go? Why not just slip in tear gas or knock out gas, BEFORE you are a suspect to see IF you may have done something wrong, THEN get a search warrant and THEN and ONLY THEN bust down your door at 3:00 AM with a no knock warrant. All the while congratulating themselves on a job well done and pocketing the forfeited possessions of the people involved. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ 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] Justice Dept. Ignoring Evidence On Chinese Campaign Contributions (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- Fox News-8.08 p.m. ET (0008 GMT) July 27, 1999 Justice Dept. Ignoring Evidence On Chinese Campaign Contributions By Carl Cameron A Justice Department task force investigating alleged illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic Party has possessed potentially incriminating documents since the fall of 1997, Fox News has learned. The documents bank records from Citibank, which has branches in New York, Los Angeles and Hong Kong indicate that big-time Democratic donor Johnny Chung received $300,000 from Chinese government officials. Sources say Chung in 1997 turned over the records, which show he received a wire transfer from Citibank's Hong Kong branch from Liu Chaoying, a vice president at China Aerospace, a firm that helps loft satellites into orbit on Chinese rockets. China Aerospace has worked numerous times with U.S. satellite makers Hughes Electronics and Loral Space Communications, whose chief executive, Bernard L. Schwartz, was the top donor to President Clinton's re-election campaign, contributing almost $1 million. Liu Chaoying, who is also a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army, introduced Chung to the head of Chinese military intelligence, Gen. Ji Shengde, who arranged to have $300,000 wired to Chung, who has since said he gave only a small portion of that money to the Democrats. Gen. Ji was recently demoted from his position, reportedly because of the transfer of funds. Chung has pled guilty to campaign finance violations and is cooperating with government investigators. His appearance before Congress in May was the first voluntary appearance by more than 100 people with connections to alleged Chinese attempts to influence the 1996 elections. Sources say the Justice Dept. never bothered to pursue the bank records, a simple piece of evidence that would have revealed that the origin of Chung's cash was one of China's top spies. A senior DOJ task force source said investigators chose to concentrate on other leads and in recent months have run into problems with Citibank's reluctance to supply additional information. The DOJ source said both U.S. and Chinese banking regulations made pursuing the lead very difficult. More Leads Ignored There is also a battle raging within the Department of Justice campaign finance task force over how to proceed with the plea-bargained sentencing of long-time Clinton friend and fund-raiser Yah-Lin Charlie Trie, who has pleaded guilty to fund-raising violations. Sources familiar with Trie's DOJ cooperation say some FBI investigators want to hold off on Trie's sentencing in order to pursue his allegations that top Democratic National Committee and White House officials were aware of and on at least two occasions encouraged illegally funneled foreign contributions to the Democratic Party during the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. Sources close to Trie say he has been trying to tell investigators about several alleged illegal contributions from a mysterious Macao businessman named Ng Lap Seng. Also known as Mr. Wu, Seng, who has ties to Asian organized crime, allegedly funneled several hundred thousand dollars to the DNC through various illegal means. Sources with knowledge of Trie's testimony say, however, that top-level Justice Dept. political appointees have expressed little interest in Trie's revelations and want the case wrapped up. Sources say Johnny Chung, too, is telling friends he offered the Justice Dept. new details of White House and DNC knowledge of foreign fund-raising impropriety, but investigators "did not want to hear it." One senior Justice Dept. prosecutor expressed his frustration to Fox News, saying there is "fertile ground" to till and that he is being pressed to ignore it. Chung, meanwhile, is trying to get a book deal. Sources say he has been turned down by several publishers because he is seeking a million-dollar advance. = Kaddish, Kaddish, Kaddish, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not
[CTRL] Justice Dept. Ignoring Evidence On Chinese Campaign Contributions (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- Justice Dept. Ignoring Evidence On Chinese Campaign Contributions Source: Fox News 9.39 a.m. ET (1339 GMT) July 27, 1999 By Carl Cameron A Justice Department task force investigating alleged illegal foreign contributions to the Democratic Party has possessed potentially incriminating documents since the fall of 1997, Fox News has learned. The documents bank records from Citibank, which has branches in New York, Los Angeles and Hong Kong indicate that big-time Democratic donor Johnny Chung received $300,000 from Chinese government officials. Sources say Chung in 1997 turned over the records, which show he received a wire transfer from Citibank's Hong Kong branch from Liu Chaoying, a vice president at China Aerospace, a firm that helps loft satellites into orbit on Chinese rockets. China Aerospace has worked numerous times with U.S. satellite makers Hughes Electronics and Loral Space Communications, whose chief executive, Bernard L. Schwartz, was the top donor to President Clinton's re-election campaign, contributing almost $1 million. Liu Chaoying, who is also a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army, introduced Chung to the head of Chinese military intelligence, Gen. Ji Shengde, who arranged to have $300,000 wired to Chung, who has since said he gave only a small portion of that money to the Democrats. (Gen. Ji was recently demoted from his position, reportedly because of the transfer of funds.) Chung has pled guilty to campaign finance violations and is cooperating with government investigators. His appearance before Congress in May was the first voluntary appearance by more than 100 people with connections to alleged Chinese attempts to influence the 1996 elections. Sources say the Justice Dept. never bothered to pursue the bank records, a simple piece of evidence that would have revealed that the origin of Chung's cash was one of China's top spies. A senior DOJ task force source said investigators chose to concentrate on other leads and in recent months have run into problems with Citibank's reluctance to supply additional information. The DOJ source said both U.S. and Chinese banking regulations made pursuing the lead very difficult. More Leads Ignored There is also a battle raging within the Department of Justice campaign finance task force over how to proceed with the plea-bargained sentencing of long-time Clinton friend and fund-raiser Yah-Lin Charlie Trie, who has pleaded guilty to fund-raising violations. Sources familiar with Trie's DOJ cooperation say some FBI investigators want to hold off on Trie's sentencing in order to pursue his allegations that top Democratic National Committee and White House officials were aware of and on at least two occasions encouraged illegally funneled foreign contributions to the Democratic Party during the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. Sources close to Trie say he has been trying to tell investigators about several alleged illegal contributions from a mysterious Macao businessman named Ng Lap Seng. Also known as Mr. Wu, Seng, who has ties to Asian organized crime, allegedly funneled several hundred thousand dollars to the DNC through various illegal means. Sources with knowledge of Trie's testimony say, however, that top-level Justice Dept. political appointees have expressed little interest in Trie's revelations and want the case wrapped up. Sources say Johnny Chung, too, is telling friends he offered the Justice Dept. new details of White House and DNC knowledge of foreign fund-raising impropriety, but investigators "did not want to hear it." One senior Justice Dept. prosecutor expressed his frustration to Fox News, saying there is "fertile ground" to till and that he is being pressed to ignore it. Chung, meanwhile, is trying to get a book deal. Sources say he has been turned down by several publishers because he is seeking a million-dollar advance. = Kaddish, Kaddish, Kaddish, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's
[CTRL] Justice
Dear Andre,
The punishment is not supposed to fit the crime.
Punishment is supposed to prevent the crime from happening.
Prevention is better than cure. Why do you think
America built a nuclear deterrent. So it wouldn't have to use it.
Enough said?
Peace be upon you,
JAH.
P.S. Who do you think knows most about Justice and
what is best for you and America ("In God we trust"), you; the founding fathers;
or God? Serious question. Does America really trust in God or is that just a
another trendy cliche?
[CTRL] Justice Department Probes CIA For Possible Leaks
-Caveat Lector- Justice Department Probes CIA For Possible Leaks Copyright © 1998 Nando Media Copyright © 1998 The Associated Press WASHINGTON (December 5, 1998 7:39 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) -- The Justice Department is conducting an obstruction-of-justice probe of CIA officials who passed along to a satellite contractor sensitive information about a Senate investigation into technology transfers to China. Government officials reached late Friday said the criminal investigation centers on information passed by the intelligence agency to Hughes Electronics Corp., maker of both commercial and spy satellite systems. At issue is whether that information compromised a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into allegations that Hughes and other U.S. companies violated federal export laws by sharing restricted technology with China as part of commercial satellite export deals. There is no dispute that the CIA passed information on to Hughes -- the CIA has acknowledged as much to both the Senate committee and the Justice Department. The question being examined by the department is whether the CIA broke the law in doing so. "The CIA is cooperating fully with the investigation," said an agency spokesman. The probe was first reported in today's editions of The Washington Post and the New York Times . U.S. officials familiar with the investigation said it focused on two incidents in which information connected with the Senate investigation was passed by CIA officials to counterparts at Hughes. The CIA told Hughes officials that one of the agency's analysts, Ronald Pandolfi, had told Senate investigators that he had concluded as early as 1995 that Hughes had become too aggressive in marketing technology to China. CIA officials also advised Hughes that some company officials might be called before the Senate panel. The agency further sought to make available to Senate investigators the names of Hughes executives who were familiar with the technology transfers to China and could give their version of the disagreements with Pandolfi. When the CIA informed the panel it had told Hughes that company officials might have to testify, committee staffers and some senators were furious, according to officials familiar with the case. Several CIA officials, including general counsel Robert McNamara, are scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the CIA's role in the Hughes case. The potential case against the CIA appears to boil down to one of interpretation. Some on the intelligence committee argue that the CIA may have obstructed justice by revealing to Hughes information about the committee investigation. The CIA, according to U.S. officials familiar with the case, argues that the information passed on to Hughes was shared in the normal course of business and that the committee was informed of the information sharing. "At worst, this could be viewed as a miscommunication among government agencies," said one U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Several investigations -- both by the Justice Department and Congress -- have focused on concerns that China received valuable information useful in improving ballistic missiles from U.S. contractors who were ostensibly working with China on commercial satellite projects. By JOHN DIAMOND, Associated Press Writer Steve Wingate California Director SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL Today's Midi: http://www.anomalous-images.com/Black_Friday.mid Anomalous Images and UFO Files http://www.anomalous-images.com DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. 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
