Saturday, June 23, 2007

People to Bush, the GOP and the Congress: the Constitution is not Negotiable

The polls don't lie. Bush is neck and neck with Nixon for the monicker America's most hated "President". But Congress fares even worse. Congressional Democrats didn't get the memo: the people want the war against Iraq to end and they want it to end now; the Constitution is not negotiable; and, finally, it's stupid to create dictatorship in America while claiming that we are fighting for Democracy in Iraq. Democrats might have been in a better position but for the cave-in on funding Bush's tar baby to the tune of $100 billion. Democrats will pay the price for having made a Faustian bargain.

Bush defies Congress and the people with his every signing statement yet Congress seems strangely acquiescent. What reason have we to expect that Bush will suddenly stop defying Congress and the people? And, if he should be impeached, what reason have we to believe he will leave willingly?

The situation is surreal if not unprecedented. Although Bush enjoys the support of only about 28 percent of the American people, he faces no real Congressional opposition. What gives? I am more angry with Democrats than with the GOP. I had higher hopes for the Dems. I know the GOP to be a crime syndicate masquerading as a political party and am never disappointed.

Democrats were given majorities in both houses primarily because the people are sick, tired and disgusted with Bush's ongoing war crime, his Orwellian perpetual war. They are sick and disgusted with Bush's unseemly power grabs, his dumb ass arrogance, the unholy combination of stupidity and venality. Bush poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

Perhaps this is just the calm before the storm. Or worse --there will be no storm. Will we all go quietly into that good night where the Constitution, just a "goddamn piece of paper", is overtly trashed, Congress sent packing, and the high court kept around for the robes and the gravitas they bring to it all?

As Paul Craig Roberts pointed out --the bait-and-switch White House told the American people that the war on Iraq would last three weeks, six weeks --tops! The US has been stuck like flypaper for some six years. Now Bush tells us that the US will build permanent bases. He intends to keep the US in Iraq forever. I don't think so.

Roberts calls the comparison to Korea, a false analogy and so it is. It is said that a permanent US presence is necessary for Iraq's security. But we weren't told that going in and the biggest threat to Iraqis is us, as in, US. Roberts again points out that some 50 years after the "end" of combat in Korea, US troops are still there. US troops are likewise stationed in Europe some six decades after the end of World War II. [See: The neocon threat to American freedom] It's time to reassess the presence of "permanent" bases in Europe. It's a complete waste of taxpayer money, a gesture that means but one thing: US imperialism. To the rest of the world US imperialism means "oursourced murder".

Surely, it was obvious that we are in trouble when the "media" allowed Gen. Hayden get away with lying about the Fourth Amendment. Where are the Edward R. Murrows and Walter Cronkites of this generation? Good night and good luck, indeed! You're gonna need it.

The people have spoken and they are pissed. Bush's war on terrorism has failed to make us safe, yet he wants our Democracy for his sorry efforts. I was tempted to write that Bush should be given an ultimatum: end the war or be impeached! But, in fact, he should be impeached, tried, convicted, jailed and turned over to the Hague for war crimes trials anyway. This is not negotiable. The constitution is not negotiable. American Democracy is not negotiable. The time for making nice-nice is over! We shall not plea-bargain away our rights!

As I wrote recently, the people themselves have a remedy. There is sure to be a Federal Judge friendly to a petition to convene a Federal Grand Jury for the purpose of investigating a smorgasbord of charges against a crime syndicate better known as the Bush administration. Find that judge! Your honor, if you should read this blog, we have a job for you. Convene a grand jury to investigate George W. Bush and his entire, crooked gang. You will have probable cause in spades.

If the Congress will not end this war, this crooked administration, the people must! Enough of this crap is enough!

US: New polls reveal mass opposition to Democrats and Republicans

New opinion polls released this week show mounting discontent within the American population over the war in Iraq and the policies of both political parties.

The problems the nation faces are bi-partisan ones, and will only be solved with bi-partisan ropes around bi-partisan necks, and arguing over which one deserves the tallest tree and the shortest rope is a waste of time. - M. R.
Bush cannot find comfort in the public's recent disaffection with the Democrats in Congress. When politicians learn how to read a poll, they will learn that the people of the US want the war against Iraq ended and they want it ended now! When the people, at last, regain control of a rogue government, the war hawks will be sent to the Hague for war crimes trials. Round-up time on the ranch.

Bush rewrites the laws passed by Congress. He does this by decree, euphemistically called "signing statements". Will the high court strike them down? Possibly, but that will not happen until a case is brought. So sweeping are the powers that Bush has now arrogated unto himself, it is hard to imagine how a single case will make any difference or undo the many harms already done.
This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly --how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.

--Nixon's Enemies List

Bill Clinton is often associated with a Fleetwood Mac song called "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow". But Bush is the living proof that the GOP never stopped thinking about ways to screw their "political enemies". The problem is the GOP made of the American people an enemy.The people are sovereign. What is to be said of a political party that makes of the people, the sovereign, an enemy? The word traitor comes to mind.

The GOP has deteriorated over some 30 years but I have news for them. The Constitution was not negotiable in Nixon's day. It is not negotiable now. The GOP is not a political party. It's a criminal conspiracy. 911 is a gestalt of many crimes among many more.

Congressional Memorandum: Summary of Prima Facie Evidence of Treason

A Summary of the threshold of prima facie evidence is as follows.

I. The attacks of 9/11, as portrayed in the official account, could not have succeeded if standard operating procedures between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, has provided three mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s response, which means that at least two of them are false. Moreover, the third account, articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted by a wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had notified NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been stand-down orders, and these could have come only from the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House.

II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition, and/or of the application of exotic weapons such as land-based, air-based or possible space-based Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down. Nor could al-Qaeda operatives have obtained command and control of advanced Directed Energy Weapons, Microfusion devices (4th generation mini-nuclear weapons), bunker-busters, or other exotic weapons alternatives that are known to be in the deployment or testing phase in the US Defense arsenal. The controlled demolition and/or Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) or exotic weapons application, therefore, had to be the work of U.S. Government and other insiders. That President Bush was one of those insiders is suggested by the fact that his brother and cousin were principals in the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by the removal of evidence (the collapsed steel), which at a crime scene is normally a federal offense. Finally, if the airplane strikes could have occurred only with the consent of the President and the Secretary of Defense (as suggested in the previous point), the coordination of these strikes with the demolition of the buildings - and/or with the use of exotic weapons such as Directed Energy Weapons - implies their involvement in the latter as well.

III. Overwhelming evidence also exists for the conclusion that the attack on the Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story could not be true is evident from many facts: Alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour’s incompetence; the choice of the Pentagon west wing as the target; the impossibility of a commercial airliner’s coming back to Washington undetected and hitting the Pentagon unless permitted; and the lack of physical evidence consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757. That the strike was an inside job is implied by the falsity of the official story, the evidence that the strike was made by a military aircraft, the removal of evidence, and the government’s refusal to release videos of the strike. This operation could hardly have been planned without the involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

9/11 & DU at the Pentagon

In April, 2007, Leuren Moret exposed the U.S. military’s illegal use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons in target practice in Hawaii, in violation of U.S. military environmental regulations. The elevated radiation readings she recorded were carried by ABC-TV news in Hawaii on April 29 & 30, 2007.

Leuren Moret reported similar elevated radiation readings downwind from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Two days after 9/11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed that the Pentagon crash site rubble was radioactive and that the probable contaminant was Depleted Uranium (DU). The entry and exit holes through the Pentagon crash site were the signature of a kinetic energy penetrator, such as a Cruise missile, and the term “punch-out hole” was written by crash site investigators over the exit hole. This is a military term used for kinetic energy penetrators. Major Doug Rokke, former Director of the Gulf War I DU Cleanup Team, reported that an email from the Pentagon 30 minutes after impact confirmed a Cruise missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Recently vast Uranium deposits have been reported in Khazakhstan and Afghanistan. Khazakhstan is expected to out-produce Canada (now the world's top producer) in Uranium production within 12 years. This exposes the economic interests behind the events of 9/11, specifically the unjustified military attack by the U.S. on Afghanistan using 9/11 as a pretext.

IV. Complicity at the highest levels of the federal government is also indicated by President Bush’s remaining at the Florida Elementary school after it was evident---given the truth of the official account---that the United States was experiencing a surprise attack. This behavior makes sense only if Bush and his lead Secret Service agent knew that there would be no attack on the school.

V. The complicity of Vice President Cheney in the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of the 9/11 Commission, under the guidance of administration insider Philip Zelikow, as to when Cheney went to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) and when he issued the shoot-down authorization.

VI. The conclusion from the evidence that members of the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the fact that they had some huge projects---prosecuting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and obtaining funding to accelerate the technological transformation of the military---that would likely be possible only in the event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”

The establishment of an International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal is justified, given that official institutions in the U.S. have failed to assign legal accountability for the False Flag Operation of 9/11. Representative John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and his senior staff personally reviewed the 9/11 Independent Prosecutor Act and Congressional Memorandum following the 2006 U.S. Mid-term Election and Senior Staff met twice with representatives of the 9/11 Independent Prosecutor Act. The Chairman refused to introduce the Act, despite support for the Act by his Senior Staff. The 9/11 Commission failed to take testimony under oath from Bush and Cheney, and reached fraudulent conclusions.

9/11 As A War Crime

The False Flag Operation of 9/11 was the pretext for, and an integral part of the planning and execution of the illegal War of Aggression in 2001 against Afghanistan and of War Crimes committed by the United States in Afghanistan, as found by the Final Judgment, International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan at Tokyo. The Court found the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons in Afghanistan to constitute War Crimes, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and Omnicide. The False Flag Operation of 9/11 is a legal component of these War Crimes, and the perpetrators of 9/11 are guilty Aggressive War, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes.


International 9/11 Citizen's War Crimes Tribunal


9/11 Independent Prosecutor Act - Executive Summary

Congressional Memorandum: Summary of Prima Facie Evidence of Treason

9/11 Disappearing Explosions - Brasscheck TV (Video)

Leuren Moret – Bio

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd - Bio

KITV Hawaii - Depleted Uranium Hawaii (2 Mins 33 Seconds)

Leuren Moret – Expert Testimony at the Tokyo International Tribunal for War Crimes in Afghanistan

DU: Dirty Bombs, Missiles, Bullets by Leuren Moret


Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
Campaign for Cooperation in Space
Tel: 604-733-8134

International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal

Why Conservatives Hate America

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Friday, June 22, 2007

How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush

The people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel will have the power of the subpoena and the indictment.

It's not just 911 that such a panel might investigate. An overwhelming number of those favoring Bush's impeachment say that there is "plenty" to warrant Bush's removal from the office he seized.

But, given the recalcitrance of Congress, how are "the people" to proceed? I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries

In the year 2005, a growing majority of Americans were not only opposing the disastrous war against Iraq, they were opposing Bush on almost every issue from illegal government wiretapping to this government's planned theft of Social Security. It was in that year that a majority of Americans said that they supported the impeachment of George W. Bush. Even fewer support Dick Cheney. Others oppose impeachment and removing Bush simply because it would leave something even worse in his stead: Dick Cheney.

As I write this, Newsweek asks How Low Can He Go?
President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
It's been some two years and nothing has been done. The situation is increasingly dangerous and demands a real investigation followed by impeachment, trial, and removal from office. Depending upon the specific charges, a criminal trial of Bush/Cheney's should begin immediately. Following that trial, Bush should be turned over to the International Tribunal at the Hague to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.

How frustrating it must be for thousands of bloggers, activists, journalists and writers to raise the issue of war crimes and high treason knowing that the odds of anything being done by officialdom are slim to none. Too often I am asked: you may be right but what the hell can we do about it? Too often I am left advising people to educate and agitate. At a time when not only the White House but Congress itself seems complicit in the ongoing war crime in Iraq, my answers are inadequate. Indeed, what can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.

On the other hand, a grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation and the power of the subpoena to back it up. For example, Michael Moore wants the images made by hundreds of cameras trained on the Pentagon released. It would clear up the question: what did strike the Pentagon. Only a guilty government would not want you to know. It occurs to me that a Grand Jury could simply demand those items. Failure to comply is a crime.

Of course, Bushies will cite "national security" as did Nixon in Watergate. Bush prefers brinkmanship and, thus far, the Democrats have always backed down. But a Grand Jury is not the Congress. It does not have to stand for re-election. Would Bush really prefer to stonewall knowing that the issue would go straight to the Supreme Court? Would Bush risk a purely legal decision on the merits of the case?

In most instances, grand juries investigate issues brought to them by a prosecutor. In those cases, charges are returned in an indictment. Some states allow grand juries to act on their own. In those cases, charges are returned in what is called a "presentment". A presentment has the same legal effect and weight as an indictment, that is, both initiate a criminal case.

I want to know why a Federal Grand Jury was not convened to investigate 911 in the first place. Never mind! I know why! Bushco had a cover story to peddle. A real investigation would have only muddied the water. It would have delayed the onset of a war that Bush was hellbent and desperate to wage on behalf of his sponsors. Getting Bush out of the Oval Office is a matter of very real urgency.

There are remedies. The people waited patiently for a Democratic majority. Having got one, we are constantly disappointed. There must be millions, like me, who are sick to death of waiting for justice, millions like me who feel disenfranchised and abandoned by this "government of the people". The people simply must not wait for Congress to begin a real investigation.

Unless every judge in every state, in every county, in every town or city is crooked or, in other ways, bought and paid for by Bush's crooked gang, there may be a way to convene a Grand Jury that will fully investigate the events of 911 and bring charges against administration officials who may have facilitated or helped plan it. Simply, the people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury.

The time has come to brush up on some basics, in this case, the Grand Jury system. Here is a great link: Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. What is often called a "runaway" Grand Jury could be useful right now. As pointed out in the article, Federal grand juries have already played central roles in the investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of two US embassies in Africa.

Grand juries are typically summoned by a court when an attorney general or a district attorney’s motion is granted by the chief judge to empanel the body. But a court may also summons a grand jury upon its own motion and grand jurors are summoned from the same pool as trial jurors.

Abortion-Rights Opponents File Petition For Grand Jury To Investigate Death Of Woman Who Received Abortion At Kansas Clinic

Abortion-rights opponents on Friday submitted a petition with 7,754 local signatures to a Sedgwick County, Kan., court to convene a grand jury to investigate the death of a woman who died three days after undergoing an abortion at the Women's Health Care Services clinic in Wichita, Kan., the AP/Wichita Eagle reports (Hegeman, AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/7). Kansas law allows a grand jury to be formed within 60 days of a petition filed with a state district court if the petition has at least 100 more signatures than 2% of the number of people in the county who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election.
The point being --the people may petition a court to convene a grand jury. Here's an excerpt from just such a petition:
"We, the undersigned qualified electors of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, petition the Court to immediately call a Grand Jury to convene in Oklahoma County for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation into all aspects of the operations of the Police Department of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition to investigate into the offices, affairs, and conduct of the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition, to investigate into any and all other matters called to the attention of the Grand Jury."


From the same case:
14 We cannot determine as a matter of law that the petition for grand jury is a witch hunt based upon speculation or conjecture by the circulators and signers of the petition, nor can we carte blanche impugn their motive. This is the function of the grand jury. While the grand jury may, after investigation, return indictments, ouster proceedings, or otherwise make critical written reports as to the condition and operation of these offices, they may on the other hand submit a complimentary report on those officials and their offices. In any event, the discretion and authority lies with the grand jury as an inquisitorial body.
Grand Juries typically meet in secret and there have been instances in which "runaway grand juries" abused their power and authority. But it was a runaway grand jury in the 1930s that investigated widespread mob corruption in New York and returned a number of bona fide indictments against mafia bosses. Recently, a grand jury in California almost closed down a county when it indicted almost every member of the government.

UPI/Zogby Poll: Majority give Bush Negative Ratings on Keeping U.S. Safe from Terrorism

But half of Americans believe Bush Administration has allowed security measures to trump personal freedoms

More than half of Americans give President Bush 55% negative ratings on his performance in keeping the United States safe from terrorism and give the Department of Homeland Security a similar negative rating (56%) on its efforts. Nearly half of Americans (49%) believe the Bush administration has tipped the balance between personal security and personal freedom too far towards security, depriving the American people of too many freedoms, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Slightly more than half (53%) said they are against the government having the ability to temporarily suspend federal privacy laws to enable agencies to better share counter-terrorism information, including the personal data of American citizens. Americans are divided over the Terrorism Surveillance Program. Half said they have a favorable view of the TSP under which the National Security Agency can monitor the international telephone and email communications of American citizens without a warrant if the communication includes and individual suspected of having ties to a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda. But nearly as many (45%) said they have a unfavorable view of the program. More than half (55%) said the TSP is a necessary and legal tool to protect Americans against terrorist activity, while 42% disagree.

The interactive survey of 5,932 adults nationwide was conducted from April 13-16, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.3 percentage points.
Additional resources:

Why Conservatives Hate America

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Thursday, June 21, 2007

A Banana Republic with Nukes

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The Bush/NEOCON Nexis of Evil has stepped up its attacks on the Bill of Rights and due process of law. Without them, the US descends into dictatorship and tyranny. Is this a Bush legacy you can live with? Fine! Then bend over, pay Bush obeisance and kiss his sorry ass! You are no American! Is this what it comes to? Can the Fourth Reich be just around the corner or is it already a fait accompli?

The Bush administration must surely know that its program of widespread domestic surveillance is illegal, but what Bush is said to have called a "goddamned piece of paper" will not stop them. Bushies have stepped up a war on Due Process of Law and the Fourth Amendment with attacks on the very concept of probable cause. Not mere words on a "goddamned piece of paper", they stand between you and tyranny. They stand between you and Bush!

Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights

by Kurt Nimmo

Imagine my surprise. A “guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution,” Benjamin Wittes, wants to gut the Second Amendment. Wittes told CNSNews “that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.”

Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, however, did not limit his comments to the Second Amendment, suggesting instead that much of the Bill of Rights has “no contemporary relevance.” As an example, Barnett cited the Fourth Amendment. “Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn’t a danger of terrorism and mass murder.” According to the professor, the Fourth Amendment is “archaic [and] we don’t need it anymore.”

Of course, this sort of authoritarian nonsense should be expected, as we have allowed the government to be hijacked by a gaggle of neocons and their neoliberal kissing cousins who favor the sort of government operating in China to a constitutionally limited republic of the sort we had until 1791 when the Federalist Alexander Hamilton set-up the first central bank in America modeled after the Bank of England. In essence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have languished ever since and the neocons are now simply doing away with all pretense, not that most Americans will notice—so long as they remain “free” to shop, consume, and watch American Idol.

Incidentally, it is amusing that CNSNews characterizes the Brookings Institution as “center-left,” a designation deemed to give the impression the place is crawling with Democrats and fence-sitting “progressives.” Never mind such labels are worthless, as the transnational plutocrats and globalists in control of the horizontal and vertical consider such appellations of little use beyond hypnotizing the commoners.

In fact, Brookings is strictly a neocon “think tank,” connected at the hip with the American Enterprise Institute (where Bush gets his “minds,” that is to say psychopaths) and the Wharton Business School, allegedly fronted by the Tavistock Institute. In addition, Brookings hosts the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by Haim Saban, the billionaire former Israeli who proudly declares: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Saban is a Democrat—thus demonstrating you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans without a scorecard. ...
You may recall the famous exchange between Jonathan Landay, a reporter with Knight-Ridder, who queried General Hayden about revelations that Bush had authorized NSA to spy on thousands of American citizens, an apparent and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which is, not surprisingly, under attack by fascists in America.

The exchange began with Landay: "My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures." It was the remainder of the exchange that revealed Hayden to be ignorant of the law and utterly unqualified for the position:
Gen. Hayden: No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.
At this point, I interrupt with the actual text of an amendment of which Hayden was either ignorant or lying, an amendment not taught him in school, an amendment that he obviously never bothered to read.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Landay: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
Gen. Hayden: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
Landay: But does it not say probable ---
Gen. Hayden: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
Of course, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything of the sort.

Later, it was reported that Gen. Hayden continued to insist that "reasonable suspicion" trumps "probable cause". Utter bunkum --proof that our educational system has failed us! Even so, Bush and his criminal gang of traitors and usurpers seem to be making it all up as they go along. Bush has sought and gotten the right to throw you in jail without charges, without the right to call your lawyer, without habeas corpus"

Following, in memoriam, our lost republic:

911 Culprits? Why the Towers Really Fell

There is probable cause to begin an official investigation of George W. Bush in connection with the mass murders of US citizens on 911. In US law, investigations proceed from probable cause that a crime has been committed. Commonly, it refers to a standard by which an officer may make an arrest in connection with a crime. There are other, related senses of the term -but for our purposes here we focus upon the legal standard by which a grand jury may assert that a crime has been committed and that charges may be brought against a person or persons.

We know that a crime was committed on 911. George W. Bush, of course, quashed all investigations before they could begin. Since when are crimes not investigated? Since the ascension of Ronald Regan who similarly got away with Iran/Contra, an act of treason if there ever was one. Treason, in this case, being "aiding and abetting" an avowed enemy of the United States as defined by the US government itself.

It is not too late, however, to begin such an investigation. There is no statute of limitations on mass murder. Congress should appoint and empower a special prosecutor with whatever authority is needed to subpoena George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice et al. Rumfeld, by the way, is already on record referring to the shooting down of Flight 93 and also to a missile --not an airliner --crashing into the Pentagon. Powell, meanwhile, has already apologized for having presented to the UN a pack of lies about Iraq's alleged WMD. Now is the time to pressure a criminal conspiracy that shows many signs of falling apart. Now is the time to go for the jugular -and the truth -about what this partisan, criminal conspiracy has done to subert the rule of law in this nation.

Critics of 911 officialdom need not tolerate quietly the absurd, blanket criticisms of "conspiracy theorists". Aside from being ad hominem attacks, they merely label. Bush "theories", meanwhile, insult the intelligence of every American with the most absurd official conspiracy theories to ever come down the pike.

If "conspiracies" did not exist, most crimes would be petty except perhaps murder and egregious assaults. Conspiracies are rather common. The law books are full of them. Google or Findlaw the word "conspiracy". You will find at least 200 years of precedent and case law having to do with "conspiracies". I daresay most crimes are conspiratorial in nature. What is a gang, if not a conspiracy? Apparently SCOTUS never got the Bush memo that "conspiracies" do not exist. It might have spared the justices a lot of time deciding cases about something that is said not to exist. Even Bushies felt constrained to posit the existence of a vast conspiracy -al Qaeda! Why are Bush theories, full of gaping holes, logical inconsistencies, and misstatements of fact, given such great weight when Bush is known to have lied about everything else?

Read this first: 70 Reasons to Doubt the official conspiracy theory. Then read Maureen O'Farrell.
Sept. 11 commission co-chair Lee Hamilton's prediction that another terrorist attack is all but certain, for example, when combined with concerns about George W. Bush's imperial ambitions, creates the kind of speculation the founding fathers engaged in, long before FOX News was there to pooh-pooh concerns about tyrannical designs.

And though predictions and conspiracy theories are often speculative and contrived, it must be remembered that the term "tin foil hat" has its roots in historical fact and the tendency to tag a "gate" onto scandals proves that some conspiracy theories do, in fact, turn out to be true.

--Maureen Farrell, Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' about George W. Bush, Part 1

Let's make something clear at the outset: probable cause that George W. Bush committed a crime is NOT a "theory" of any sort. It is what it is: probable cause, a minimum legal standard that must be met before an arrest and charge. Secondly, I am less interested in any theory, including the official one, than I am in finding the evidence that only a real investigation can turn up. I am interested in the admissible evidence that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bush is guilty of the crimes that may be charged him should such an investigation proceed. First, the big holes in Bush's set of official and often contradictory theories:
  • Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough or long enough to melt steel. [See: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?]
  • No steel building has ever fallen from fire --but on 911 not one, not two, but three buildings fell into their footprints within seconds of beginning descent.
  • The "hijackers" said to have piloted 757's into the twin towers couldn't even fly Cessnas, let alone airliners.

The 14th-century philosopher William of Occam said multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity. In other words the simplest solution is most probably correct. Logically, the simplest solution is that solution with the fewest number of unproven assumptions. Or, in the words of Dr. John Lienhard of the University of Houston --we should make no more assumptions than we really need to explain anything. This concept is called Occam's Razor for William of Occam who articulated it.

In Bush's case, the official conspiracy theory explains nothing. Official theories are constantly papered over with new but inadequate hypotheses and, in the end, nothing said by the Bush gang explains anything at all. Nothing at all can be verified in any way. Nothing at all said by Bush about 911 can be believed. That nothing at all can be verified is convenient for Bush but it hardly exculpates him. Lack of evidence itself may not be evidence of guilt but lack of evidence because investigations were quashed or obstructed is something else again.

Had there been any truth to the official conspiracy theory, identifiable wreckage and a black box would have been recovered from the Pentagon. Rumsfeld inadvertently told the truth; he referred to a a "missile" [his word] that struck the Pentagon. That would, of course, explain no black box. It would also explain the lack of airliner wreckage. See how simply "truth" explains what is left inexplicable with lies. Simply, no airliner struck the Pentagon. It is the very vindication of William of Occam.

In the meantime, check the official Arlington National Cemetery Web site. None of those buried in connection with 911 were positively identified. Unknown "ashes" were said to have been hijackers! Oh really? Then why did they not show up on the Flight manifest? Show me some admissible evidence that said hijackers were even on board.

It's time for Bush to put up or shut up or, better, give himself up to Federal Marshalls! If Bush and his PNAC buds are innocent, then Investigate 911! What have innocent people to fear from a fair, complete and real investigation? It's time to put Bush, Marvin Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice, and John Ashcroft under oath. There is probable cause now to have the lot of them arrested by Federal Marshalls. There is probable cause to begin an investigation of the Bush White House for the mass murder of US citizens.

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

by Margie Burns

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a 'completion contract' to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center 'up to the day the buildings fell down.'

It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.

McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the US Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in DC that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period.

Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.

It's all an unbelievable series of incredible and fantastic coincidences. I wonder --what are the odds that the brother of occupant of the Oval Office would just happen to be in charge of WTC security at a time when wild al Qaeda "evil doers" were plotting to bring down the very buildings for which which Marvin was responsible.

This just in from the Daily Scare:

New Study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon

By Jim Fetzer

A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission".

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them. ...
A related development. Michael Moore now says that he wants to get to the bottom of 911.

Excellent 9/11 Resources:

The Bush/Cheney Holocaust in Iraq: Criminality, Immorality, Incompetence and Desperation

70 Reasons to doubt

Washington Post and MSNBC Reveal Growing Power, Prestige of the 9/11 Movement

BBC Article Titled "The 9/11 Conspiracy Movement"

Time Magazine Explores 9/11 Conspiracies and Poll Showing Many Believe 9/11 Cover-up

CNN Gives Major Coverage to 9/11 Cover-up in March 2006 With Charlie Sheen, Others

Ex-FBI Chief Accuses 9/11 Commission of Cover-up in Wall Street Journal

New York Times article on 9/11 movement, 9/11 polls, 9/11 convention

Association of Influential Scholars Challenges 9/11 Commission Results - Miami Herald
Los Angeles Times Questions Official 9/11 Story in Revealing Interview

ABC News: US Military Planned to Orchestrate Terrorism Against US Citizens as War Pretext
What some have called War corporatism, I call fascism or Nazism. It goes far beyond mere "conspiracy theories", a label designed to confuse and distract. The real culprit is called the Project for the New American Century. As pointed out, their goals are hardly secret but that does not excuse them any more than Hitler's boast that he had waged war on the Jew in full view of the world could have expiated him from the execution that most surely awaited him.

My definition of "war corporatism" is simple: Bush, indeed the US government, is in the death business. Just as Adolf Hitler partnered with the likes of I.G. Farben, Thyssen and Krupp, the US government has partnered with the big defense contractors to make of war a racket. Face up to the undeniable implications: the US government, under Bush, is a criminal enterprise. That, not a raggedly band of terrorists up in the hills, is why the towers fell on 911.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Impeach and Convict Bush and Cheney for High Treason

It is an extraordinary subversion of the [US] Constitution to send people to die...on the basis of a lie.

- Elizabeth Holtzman, Rep., NY

I can't improve on that. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the gang subverted the Constitution to carry out a war of naked aggression, itself a war crime, and, under US Criminal Codes punishable by death. But it's worse than that. It is an aggravated crime as Rep Elizabeth Holtzman makes abundantly clear.

This is a case of high treason. Treason is defined as a betrayal of one's sovereign. In time's past "sovereignty" was most often embodied in a person, a monarch, a king or queen. Louis XIV summed up the very concept succinctly: L’État, c’est moi! The various plotters against the life of Elizabeth I were accused of treason.

But what of a democratic, constitutional Democracy. In the US sovereignty resides with the people themselves, a principle established up front by the founders:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-Preamble, US Constitution

Bush and Cheney have betrayed their "sovereign" by hoaxing the sovereign, lying to the sovereign, and, at last, betraying the sovereign by leading US troops into harm's way upon a pack of malicious lies. Lies known by Bush and Cheney to have been lies at the time the lies were told. In Elizabethan times, that would have gotten your head cut off.

The Impeachment of George W. Bush

Elizabeth Holtzman

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office.<

As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.<

At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.
And, again, about a year later:

Impeachment: The Case in Favor

Elizabeth Holtzman

Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush's prior claims that it could not were untrue.<

Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton's impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush's constitutional misconduct. <

Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President's poll numbers continue to drop.

These facts should signal a propitious moment for impeachment proceedings to start. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table." (Impeachment proceedings must commence in the House of Representatives.) Her position doesn't mean impeachment is dead; it simply means a different route to it has to be pursued. Congressional investigations must start, and public pressure must build to make the House act.

This is no different from what took place during Watergate. In 1973 impeachment was not "on the table" for many months while President Nixon's cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again.

Congressional and other investigations that previously found serious misconduct in the Nixon White House made the public's angry reaction to the firing of the special prosecutor--and the House response with impeachment proceedings--virtually inevitable. Early in 1973, once it appeared that the cover-up might involve the White House, the Senate created a select committee to investigate. The committee held hearings and uncovered critical evidence, including the existence of a White House taping system that could resolve the issue of presidential complicity. The Senate also forced the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Other committees looked into related matters. None of the investigations were prompted by the idea of impeachment. Still, they laid the groundwork for it--and the evidence they turned up was used by the House impeachment panel to prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon.

The same approach can govern now. Senate and House committees must commence serious investigations that could uncover more evidence to support impeachment. The investigations should ascertain the full extent of the President's deceptions, exaggerations and lies that drove us into the Iraq War. (They can simply in effect resurrect Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous questions about Richard Nixon: "What did the President know and when did he know it?") Congress should also explore the wiretapping that has violated the FISA law, the President's role in mistreatment of detainees and his gross indifference to the catastrophe facing the residents of New Orleans from Katrina.

Investigations should also be conducted into Vice President Cheney's meetings with oil company executives at the outset of the Administration. If divvying up oil contracts in Iraq were discussed, as some suggest, this would help prove that the Iraq War had been contemplated well before 9/11, and that a key motivation was oil. Inquiries into Halliburton's multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts should also be conducted, particularly given Cheney's ties to the company.

White House documents about Katrina that have not already been turned over to Congress should be sought to document further the President's failure to discharge his constitutional duty to help the people of New Orleans.

Our country's Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.

Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, "Absolutely, we are winning" the war in Iraq--a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.

There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.
In some ways, the word treason is overworked. It almost fails to convey the magnitude of the heinous crimes that the US government has perpetrated upon the people of the US. Revolution is long overdue.

Additional resources:

Why Conservatives Hate America

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine