Are there any Patriots left out there?

It is imperative that we push forward the Agenda of Accountability to the Obama Administration for the high treasonable crimes committed by the Bush Administration and all the flunkies in Congress who went along for the ride. They left us a world that is filled with hatred toward the United States and its people. While corporate America raped and pillage our natural resources for the bottom line.

If you call yourself a true American, whatever your political leanings you would not hesitate to investigate for yourself the atrocities of these people. Their false flag operation of 911 and the aftermath that has left us and the world far worse off than ever before, it is time to call for action, do not let Obama neglect his duty as the commander and chief of our Nation, He must direct, at once, Eric Holder, the Attorney General to reopen the investigation of 911 and all the misdeeds that led up to it.

The truth is sometimes unpleasant and not easy to accept, but it doesn’t change the fact of its veracity. Our sons and daughters should have never been sent to war for the benefit of the industrial-military complex and all the people who profit from such enterprises. The youtube presentation below is from a Congressional Hearing in 2007 which is just the tip of the iceberg. If you love this country, raise your voice and as one we will be heard. Are there any Patriots left out there?

Advertisements

Bush’s Cohorts indicted and Forced to Resign

Rachel Maddow lists all the Bush’s cohorts who have already been forced to resigned or who have been indicted. It’s a long list and it’s only the beginning, Bush is going to try and pardon most.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

NEW YORKERS NEEDED ASAP

June 17, 2008
Gravelweb
Former Senator Mike Gravel Calls for Independent 9/11 Investigation and Prosecution of President Bush and Vice President Cheney

The former Democratic senator from Alaska discusses his presidential campaign, his role in the releasing of the Pentagon Papers and his support for NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, a grassroots group seeking to place an initiative on the ballot of the November 6th general election allowing registered New York City voters to create a new commission to investigate 9/11.

Guest:

Sen. Mike Gravel, former Democratic senator from Alaska, who served two terms from 1969 to 1981, and a former candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate – $25, $50, $100, More…
Related Links

* 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign

AMY GOODMAN: Former Alaska senator and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Gravel is holding a news conference in New York City today to call for a new independent investigation into 9/11. Gravel will be speaking on behalf of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, a grassroots group seeking to place an initiative on the ballot of the November 6th general election allowing registered New York City voters to create a new commission to investigate 9/11.

The group is looking to appoint between nine and fifteen commissioners on the panel to conduct the investigation. Some of the people who have reportedly already agreed to serve as commissioners include Lori Van Auken, a 9/11 widow, one of the so-called “Jersey Girls”; Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican senator from Rhode Island; Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a pastor in Detroit, Michigan; as well as former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel, who joins us here today.

He has published three books this year: Citizen Power: A Mandate for Change, The Kingmakers: How the Media Threatens Our Security and Our Democracy and A Political Odyssey. His book Citizen Power: A Mandate for Change has a forward by Ralph Nader. He’ll be joining us on the show later in the week.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Senator Gravel.

MIKE GRAVEL: Amy, thank you for having me. But before we launch into the mission of my appearance, I want to comment on this young man you just had on. I’ve got to tell you, the military is in for deep trouble. That this kid felt he wasn’t very educated, wasn’t good student, I mean, I’ve—he’s beautifully articulate. Let me tell you one thing. We lose—we forget history. The First World War ended because hundreds of thousands of people walked off the battlefield. If we’re going to end this war and the strength of the military-industrial complex, it’s through courageous young men like this walking away from the stupidity and the immorality of our political leaders who lead us on fools’ errands of violence and war. And so, I want to applaud what this kid is talking about and his experience. And boy, now that is Courage with a capital C. And I just wanted to articulate that for you.

AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t you lead the initiative to end the draft in Vietnam?

MIKE GRAVEL: Oh, yes. Well, I’m very proud. It’s one of my accomplishments. I forced it. I forced the end of it. And that—

AMY GOODMAN: How?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, it was a five-month filibuster that Mansfield made possible without anybody realizing it.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Michael Mansfield.

MIKE GRAVEL: Yes, who was the Majority Leader at the time. So he bought into it, and I didn’t even realize what he was doing. He set up a two-track system on legislation. So I started in May, and then by—and, of course, you were there when Ellsberg, myself and West, at the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists, had a rollicking good time talking about this whole history, and you moderated it. And I can’t tell you how, as long as I live, I’ll never forget what a wonderful time we had piecing this together what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, that, I was asking you about ending the draft. You’re talking about the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

MIKE GRAVEL: That’s right, but I got the Papers because I was filibustering the draft. [inaudible]

AMY GOODMAN: So you went on the floor of the Senate…

MIKE GRAVEL: And tried to filibuster. I failed it, because I was too nice to the staff, and so I had to use another device, which was to—and I was a freshman. So I was chairman of Buildings and Grounds, so I used the precedent, you won’t believe, House Un-American Activities Committee, where I could call at a moment’s notice a hearing and, as a result of that, turned around and got testimony from a Congressman Dowd from New York, Upper New York, who came and testified, and he wanted a federal—

AMY GOODMAN: You mean you called an emergency hearing—just to be clear, you called this man, what was it, out of bed? And you said, “You know that building you’ve been asking for? If you come and testify right now about why you need this building, we will commence the hearing.” That enabled you to hold the hearing.

MIKE GRAVEL: That’s right. And we held a hearing. And then, when he said—he said, “I want a federal building,” I says, “Well, I’d love to give you a federal building, but we don’t have the money, and the reason why we don’t have the money is because we’re in Southeast Asia. Now, let me tell you how we got into Southeast Asia.” And I started to read the Pentagon Papers. That’s how—and then I started sobbing after an hour of reading. I’m dyslexic, so I read terribly.

AMY GOODMAN: You had gotten those Papers from the Washington Post?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, from Ben Bagdikian, who had gotten them from Dan Ellsberg, and the Post didn’t know that Ben had an extra copy. So Ellsberg had pushed Ben, because Ellsberg was very concerned that he couldn’t get the Papers out.

AMY GOODMAN: That the Times wouldn’t publish them.

MIKE GRAVEL: That’s right, and nor would the Post any further, because of the injunction. And so, as it happened, I released the Papers about six, seven, eight hours before the Supreme Court rendered its decision, and their decision was moot, because the world had the Papers as a result of what I did that night.

AMY GOODMAN: And you ultimately had them published by Beacon Press.

MIKE GRAVEL: Right, courageous Beacon Press, not just Beacon Press. Courageous Beacon Press, because nobody would touch it. Nobody would touch it, because they were at risk. And poor Beacon Press really suffered from government harassment. And as it turned out, I and Dr. Rotberg could have been prosecuted, but then, by that time, Watergate had been exposed, and they weren’t going to charge a religion or a sitting senator. And so, Dan Ellsberg and I never served a day in jail. And the three people within the Justice Department that came after us, they all went to jail. There’s some justice someplace.

AMY GOODMAN: They were…? They were…?

MIKE GRAVEL: They were the Attorney General Mitchell, Mardian, and the other guy I keep forgetting who his name is.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, the Pentagon Papers were the 7,000 pages of secret history of US involvement in Vietnam that Ellsberg had taken out of a safe.

MIKE GRAVEL: Totally. It’s nothing—nothing but history, nothing but history. This stuff should have never been classified, never have been classified. And what I operated on—I’m a layperson—is just very simple: if it’s important for the Secretary of Defense to know how we got into this mess, it’s important for the American people to know how we got into this mess. And this is the same situation we have with Iraq. How did we get there?

And now, this segues us into this commission here in New York. I view this very, very serious. I don’t see the body politic having the guts to go out and make a new—a real new investigation, because the way politicians act, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, “Oh, we’ll investigate a little bit, but let’s not go too deeply, because we’ve got to cover their backside, because they’ll cover our backside,” and it’s too political in nature.

And so, with the commission that we’re talking about 9/11 here in New York City, now that’s a commission that’s going to be a real commission. And that commission now can make a true investigation as to what happened on 9/11, but not just 9/11, because the war is tied with that. And so, this will give us an opportunity to vertically go into all the backup to this data and have subpoena powers to have people testify. Now, if a person perjures themself here with the New York commission, it’s perjury, so it’s a crime. And so, maybe, maybe this will give us an opportunity to have justice, and we can begin subpoenaing the President of the United States—at that time, he’ll be the former president—and the Vice President and go on down into the boughs of the intelligence and a whole host of areas to get to the truth. We don’t know the truth.

AMY GOODMAN: And how advanced is this ballot initiative?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, it’s very serious right now, because there’s windows. When you do an initiative, there’s a window that you have to comport to. And so, they need upwards of 50,000 signatures to be real safe, and they’ve only got 10,000 signatures. And so, they’ve got about four weeks left.

AMY GOODMAN: They have to all be New Yorkers?

MIKE GRAVEL: Yes. Oh, yeah, they do. And I can’t even—I was going to try to go out and collect signatures, but legally I can’t. So I’m going to be part of a press conference, and I’ve done several initiatives myself as a sitting senator. And as you know, with my efforts with the National Initiative, I believe in this concept. What the government can’t do, the people can do through the initiative process. And so, we’ve got to get those signatures in the next forty—thirty, forty days, and it’s going to depend on people hearing my voice, hearing you, because you’ve spoken about this before and the importance of this.

And so, there’s a telephone number I want to give: (646) 537-1755. That’s (646) 537-1755. And that’s a hotline. And today, at St. Mark’s Church, that’s at Second Avenue and 10th Street—

AMY GOODMAN: Here in New York City.

MIKE GRAVEL: Here in New York City. If people will come there, we’re going to have a get-together at 7:30. It’s going to be a reception. There will be some light refreshments, and then we’ll be talking about this. Sign the guest book. Give us your address. And then what you can do is log on to our website, and that website will permit you to download a petition, and then you’ll be able to circulate the petition. But it’s key to call this phone number.

AMY GOODMAN: Mike Gravel, did you ever raise this, for example, in the debates that you were able to participate in?

MIKE GRAVEL: About the commission? Not this particular commission, because I was—keep in mind, I was shut out in September of ’07 after I had challenged the Democratic Party and Hillary, particularly, on the Lieberman 2 resolution which gave George Bush the power to invade Iran, which is still a threat that looms over our heads.

I was with Ramsey Clark over the weekend, and Ramsey joins me in feeling very, very frightened over the possibility that George Bush may go crazy again and do something significant between now and the term. Remember when Sarkozy asked him, “Well, Mr. President, you’ve did a—you know, you’ve done a fine term of office.” He said, “I’m not done yet!” Well, by “not done,” what’s he got in his mind? What more could he do?

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Gravel, when you say we don’t know the truth about 9/11, what do you mean?

MIKE GRAVEL: Government—90 percent of what the government does is held secret. It’s a whole cult. And that’s the thing that is really strangling our democracy, that we just don’t know what’s going on. And so, you need to rip off the scab and see the wound of what the government is damaging. And so, it’s a cult. And I don’t know how I can phrase it. I’ve written about the subject.

When I was—here, best example I can give you. When I was twenty-three years old, I was in a communications intelligence service. I was an agitant of the communications intelligence service, and I was a top-secret control officer. I was twenty-three years old. Now, I’m forty-two years old, I’m a United States senator, and I could not go in and take notes and read the Pentagon Papers, because they were under guard in the Senate. Now, does it get any stupider than that? And that—and I didn’t even go in. When that was—Nixon sent them to the House, sent them to the Senate, and no staff could read it or senator could read it, couldn’t even take notes. I mean, we are so steeped in this.

And when you hear—and keep this in mind, Amy, any member of the Congress could release any secret about the government’s activities right today, because the court case, the Supreme Court ruled in my case 5-4 that a senator, under—or a House member, under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution of the United States, could not be held accountable. I was talking to Congressman Moran, and he had made the statement, “Well, you know, George Bush is about to do something in Iran.” I said, “My god! Say something about it. They can’t touch you.”

AMY GOODMAN: Jim Moran of Virginia.

MIKE GRAVEL: Of Virginia, and who’s a tough hombre.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe there’s another set of Pentagon Papers around 9/11 and Iraq?

MIKE GRAVEL: There’s no question about it, but how do you get your hands on it? If some—see, not every—there’s not that many Ellsbergs around. We’ve got Sibel Edmonds and others who—what people learn, and Ellsberg knew this walking into it, he was trying to find somebody in Congress. George McGovern wouldn’t do it, Fulbright wouldn’t do it. He needed the umbrage, the legal status of a member of Congress doing it.

He didn’t know I was alive until the Times wouldn’t act or the Post wouldn’t act. Then, all of a sudden, there’s this freshman who’s out there filibustering the draft. And so he called me up, “Would you release?” “Of course, I’d release it.” And I don’t know—people say, “Oh, you’re so courageous.” I’m not courageous; this is just the way I’m made. And that’s the reason why I admire this young kid, this Chiroux, that you just had on. This is what makes a difference in society, when people step up at any level of life.

AMY GOODMAN: You ran for the Democratic nomination for president.

MIKE GRAVEL: Yes, right.

AMY GOODMAN: But then, you just lost the—

MIKE GRAVEL: Libertarian.

AMY GOODMAN: —Libertarian nomination for president to Bob Barr.

MIKE GRAVEL: Right, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you run there?

MIKE GRAVEL: As a Libertarian? Well, very simple. The Libertarian is not a war party. The Democratic Party is a war party. The Republican Party is a war party. My god, you’ve got to look around. The Green Party is not a war party. The Libertarians are not a war party. And I fancy myself very much—when people would say, “Well, Gravel is a misfit. He was a maverick,” what does that mean? It means that I didn’t fit into the Democratic Party. Now, there’s a lot of things that I like about what they do, but there’s a lot more things that I like about what the Libertarians—I believe in freedom.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are you endorsing for president?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, I’m keeping my mouth shut. I’m going to vote, obviously, for the lesser of evils, but I’m not going to do it—

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll have Ralph Nader on next week, Independent candidate for president. What do you think of his run?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, I like Ralph—

AMY GOODMAN: This week. We’ll have him on this week.

MIKE GRAVEL: Yeah, and I like Ralph. Ralph and I are good friends, as you can tell. He wrote the—

AMY GOODMAN: Forward to your book.

MIKE GRAVEL: He wrote the foreword to my book, but he never talked to me about running for president. He was my competitor until I got out of the race. Now I’ve got out of his way. But no, Ralph is a great, great American. There’s no question about it. His chances of becoming a president—but it’s a good place to put a protest vote if you want to put it. And so, we’ll see what happens. But we need people to articulate the alternative. I’ve not given up. I’m going to give an account of myself the rest of my life on all these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of another Democratic candidate, Dennis Kucinich, you were on the debate floor with, introducing these articles of impeachment against President Bush?

MIKE GRAVEL: I think—and, of course, Ramsey Clark is leading that battle outside of the Congress. I think it’s important, because it sets the stage. It creates an appetite for people. But it’s not going anywhere.

And I really resent the identity politics that we have today. You know, you’ve got to have a woman be our president or a black person president. That’s fine. But I—very candidly, I was very excited when Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker, but I—reflecting on it, I don’t know of any woman in Congress, by and large, who is that much different from any male member of Congress. Oh, there are some that are courageous, but a lot of them are just normal. And Nancy Pelosi is no different than any male Speaker that I’ve seen in my career.

And so, she’s the one that took the impeachment deal off the table. That’s a tragic mistake. And I know why they did it: they’re playing politics. Now, from my point of view, impeachment is not what George Bush deserves. He deserves to be prosecuted. He and Cheney need to go to the Hague and stand in the dock like they had Milosevic and others. What they did was criminal. 4,000 Americans have died as a result of their fraud on the American people and—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you support Vincent Bugliosi, the Charles Manson prosecutor, who got him behind bars, his call for—we had him on on Friday. He’s written the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

MIKE GRAVEL: Oh, there’s no question about it. In fact, I have great regrets over the fact that we never put Richard Nixon in jail. I mean, everybody around him went to jail, and he got off and rehabilitated himself. The sooner we put a president or a vice president or a secretary in jail for crimes that they commit against humanity, the sooner leaders will shape up.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. Senator Mike Gravel, I want to thank you very much for being with us, former Democratic senator from Alaska who served two terms and ran for president of the United States this past year.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

The Legal Framework for the Prosecution

That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. -Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

No living Homo sapiens is above the law. -(Notwithstanding our good friends and legal ancestors across the water, this is a fact that requires no citation.)

With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I’ve been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for “the little guy”), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain’s run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I’m giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That’s almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That’s just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he’d still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

Let’s look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush’s cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about “the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war.” Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn’t Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?

Al Franken on the David Letterman show said, “Bush lied to us to take us to war” and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying “Bush lied to us in his budget.”

Senator Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that “Bush’s distortions misled Congress in its war vote” and “No President of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war.” But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?

The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, “the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/ 11, . . . inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans.” But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn’t say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.

In a November 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that “the president and his top advisers . . . did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons and his terrorist connections.” But if it’s “obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans” in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you’re just going to go on to the next paragraph?

I’m not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.

In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush “intentionally misled” the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush’s position on global warming or immigration. Didn’t the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.

If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren’t speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that “someone should put a bullet in his head.” That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.

Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting — that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom — many have argued that “Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes” (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.

*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.

**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life (“Please don’t kill me,” Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis “Scooter” Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.

In Bush’s two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush’s perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.

The above is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Published by Vanguard Press; May 2008;$26.95US/$28.95CAN; 978-159315-481-3
Copyright © 2008 Vincent Bugliosi

Impeachment Now or Apocalypse Later?

By Bernard Weiner

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

The political noose seems to be tightening on the key members of the remaining miscreants down in the White House bunker — mainly Bush, Cheney, Rice, Addington and Mukasey. (Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Powell and Tenet were pushed out the door earlier.) But will the Democrats, having been provided with smoking gun-type evidence of these officials’ high crimes and misdemeanors, take the next logical step to end this continuing nightmare of law-breaking at the highest levels? Consider:

TORTURE AUTHORIZED FROM ON HIGH

After eight years, the multiple examples of ethical and felonious crimes of the Bush Administration are now abundantly clear and beyond rational dispute. Most compelling among them is the crime of authorizing torture as state policy.

In recent days, we’ve learned that Geoge W. Bush signed orders authorizing torture, ( click here ) and admitted that he approved of ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/blog/2008/04/14/BL2008041401428.html ) the deliberations by his National Security Council’s Principals Committee on the torture regime being set up for a few high-value prisoners. (Which, of course, filtered down to how thousands of suspected terrorists were maltreated.)

Bush has conceded that his Principals (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet) kept him apprised of their deliberations on which suspected terrorists would undergo which forms of torture, according to ABC News’ recent blockbuster story. (
click here )

The meetings of the Principals, according to ABC, took place in early 2002 at least four months before the Administration’s famous Bybee/Yoo memos were issued that retroactively sought to provide legal justification for the torture. (Short version of those memoranda: The President is above all U.S. laws and international treaties.)

During those Principals’ meetings, Dick Cheney was a driving force behind the use of “harsh interrogations” of the prisoners in U.S. care. Other members were more worried about what they were doing. In the ABC story, according to a top official, John Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Advisor, aggressively chaired the Principals’ torture meetings. Despite some occasional misgivings voiced by Ashcroft and Colin Powell about the “enhanced interrogation” techniques being employed, Rice told the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.” ( click here )

TRYING TO MAKE TORTURE “LEGAL”

Torture, as commonly understood and defined, is illegal under both U.S. law and international treaties that American governments have ratified over the decades. Bush&Co. had to come up with a way to torture suspects but not to appear to be doing so. Here’s how it worked: Officials felt they could honestly assert that the Administration didn’t approve of or authorize torture because under the new definition supplied in the Bybee/Yoo memos, it was torture only if the prisoners were near-death or their internal organs were about to fail as a result of their treatment. In other words, the Administration simply made everything else legal: beatings, near-drownings, electroshocks to the genitals, stress positions, sexual abuse, etc. Only if the interrogators killed the prisoners or were thisclose to doing so would they have crossed over the line. See my “Control the Dictionary, Control the World.” ( http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6w/dictionary.htm )

It turns out that David Addington, Cheney’s then-Legal Counsel who has since replaced Scooter Libby as Cheney’s chief of staff, was at the locus of the cockamamie reasoning behind both the Bybee/Yoo torture memos and the “unitary executive” theory of governance. The latter asserts that the President is in charge of basically everything governmental and can’t be touched; further, the Bybee/Yoo memos assert, the President cannot be second-guessed when he claims to be acting as “commander in chief” during “wartime.”

Of course, there has been no Congressional Declaration of War, as the Constitution requires; the “war” — at an estimated cost of several trillions(!) of dollars — is the “War on Terror,” which, since it’s being waged against a tactic, can never be completely won and thus is never-ending. In short, the President, under this asserted legal cover, can act more or less as a dictator forever, including declaring martial law whenever he deems an “emergency” situation prevails. (Suppose, for example, the ballot-counting books are cooked in November and the Democratic candidate once again has a victory stolen away. There could be mass protests, perhaps even riots, in the streets. A potential “civic emergency” right there.)

MUKASEY’S FALSE TESTIMONY

Michael Mukasey, who promised he would be an independent Attorney General, has turned out to be just as much of a lackey for the Administration as his predecessor Alberto Gonzales. Mukasey seems to feel, as Gonzales did, that he doesn’t work for the public but is there to ensure that his bosses stay out of jail. (Interesting side-note: Barack Obama says that, if elected, he would ask his attorney general to investigate whether Bush and Cheney might have committed indictable crimes while in office. ( http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041508B.shtml )

But what really got Mukasey into hot water in recent days was his assertion that the U.S. knew that a terrorist in Afghanistan was calling someone inside the U.S. prior to the 9/11 attack but the supposedly “outdated” FISA laws wouldn’t permit the Administration to tap that phone call and thus prevent the 9/11 events from happening. Mukasey was using that fallacious argument in 2008 as a scare reason for why the Bush Administration needed Congressional re-authorization immediately of the NSA’s domestic-spying program, complete with built-in amnesty for the big telecom companies working in cahoots with the Administration.

But Mukasey’s explanation is total B.S.

As Glenn Greenwald ( http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/mukasey/print.html ) and others have made clear, under then-existing FISA law the Bush Administration could have eavesdropped on the pre-9/11 call and didn’t really need any more draconian spying programs. (Mukasey has since tried to tapdance away from having misled Congress.)

The whole object of the Bush Administration, in this and every other matter, has been to amass total control of information and intelligence in the White House, cutting out the courts (in this case, specifically the FISA Court) and Congress. They want full freedom to operate outside the law, with nobody — no judges, no legislators, no media reporters — looking over their shoulders at what they might be up to, and telling them what they can or cannot do. It’s possible that at least one aim of the domestic-spying programs is to learn from secret phone-taps and emails what their political enemies are thinking.

THINGS ON AND OFF THE TABLE

OK, so Cheney, Bush, Rice, Mukasey, Addington (and no doubt others not quite as prominent) are dirty, involved in activities beyond and outside the law. In other words, they have engaged, and are still engaged, in high crimes and misdemeanors. What’s to be done? (www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135 )

There’s more than enough documented evidence to justify, at the very least, an impeachment hearing in the House. Potentially, if the committee voted to go forward, there could well be enough support to convict in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans worried about their electoral chances in 2008.

But nothing can happen unless or until the majority Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate make the collective decision to begin the impeachment process with hearings in the House Judiciary Committee.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers are sticking to their guns that impeachment is “off the table.”

THEIR REASONS FOR AVOIDING ACTION

Let’s examine the main reasons why the Congressional Democratic leaders refuse to budge from this policy, and how they might be made to change their minds. Their arguments appear to rest on four basic premises:

1. Breaking the impeachment cycle. The Democrats moved to impeach Republican President Richard Nixon (who resigned before the Senate could try him), then the Republicans impeached Democratic President Bill Clinton and tried him in the Senate (not for treason or malfeasance in office but for lying about a sexual dalliance. He was acquitted). Putting Cheney and Bush on trial in the Senate, according to this reasoning, might be seen as tit-for-tat partisan vengeance.

In this argument, the impeachment option is being over-used for political reasons and risks becoming cyclical each time one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House.

A Democrat may win the Presidency in 2008. Unless the impeachment cycle is broken now, this reasoning goes, a future Democratic President might become the object of a vendetta by forces of the Republican rightwing, anxious for some payback.

2. Impeachment would hamper getting essential Congressional business done. The Democratic leadership says that preparing and conducting impeachment hearings would use up all the political oxygen and energy in Congress, making it virtually impossible to deal legislatively with important matters.

The question is whether the Democrats are having any success right now dealing with these important legislative matters. Looking at the situation realistically, it’s obvious that not much essential business is being conducted, let alone completed.

The Republicans filibuster, or threaten to, at which point the Dems back off their legislation; if a bill by the Democratic majority does manage to sneak through, Bush either vetoes it or issues a “signing statement” saying he won’t obey the new law. Virtually all matters of import are being postponed until after the new President is installed next January.

3. Why rock the boat? Why risk the opprobium of Independent and moderate-Republican voters in November, who might think the Democrats are “piling on” for partisan, electoral reasons, and thus decide to vote for the Republican nominee?

The Democratic leadership’s argument goes: “Look, the Republicans are on the ropes as a result of this incompetent, corrupt, greedy, war-mongering Administration. As a result, we’re well positioned to enlarge our electoral gains in the House and the Senate, maybe to the point of being able to prevent obstructionist Republicans from filibustering needed legislation. And we may well take back the White House. So why rock the boat?

“Let’s just last out CheneyBush’s final months in office [the Dem argument continues]. Since we know that this unpopular pair will continue to earn the disdain and anger of the American public by continuing their extremist ways until Inauguration Day in January, it’s better they remain in office rather than risk firing-up GOP-base passions during the election campaign by putting Bush and Cheney in the impeachment dock. Besides, if we impeached them, the public’s focus would fasten on Bush and Cheney rather than on the Republican nominee and the dangers of a possible McCain presidency.”

In short, the American people, this reasoning goes, want to quickly move away from thinking about the godawful CheneyBush Administration of the past eight years and head to a more optimistic, hopeful future.

4. The fear of being slimed. The Democrats don’t want to be accused of being “unpatriotic” by putting a “wartime” President into the impeachment dock. Even though Bush is the most unpopular president in history, and though more than three-quarters of American citizens think under his leadership the country is “on the wrong track,” the Democrats, anxious for a re-election sweep in the House and Senate, remain terrified of Rovian-type Swiftboating smears that could possibly cost them some votes in November and in the 2010 midterm election.

Realizing that the Bushistas still control the mainstream, corporate-owned media, and thus have all sorts of TV/radio/newspaper organizations that could dump on them big time, the Democrats continue to roll over and make nice to the shrinking but noisy Republican base and their TV/radio pundits. In other words, the Dems are perennial wimps and haven’t yet figured out how best to confront the smash-mouth, take-no-prisoners politics of Rove & Co.

I strongly disagree with these four rationales for inaction, but at least I can understand where they’re coming from. But the Democrats, especially their leaders, are simply ignoring some essential arguments.

REBUTTAL: WHY NOT IMPEACHMENT?

1. Nine months is a longnnnnnnnnnnnnng time. Between now and January 2009, a full nine months from now, CheneyBush are capable of doing a hell of a lot of further damage to the body politic, to the economy, to the Constitution, to the reputation of the U.S. abroad, to the armed forces, to the “enemy” countries in their crosshairs. The propaganda campaign being catapulted against Iran, for example, is nearly a carbon copy of what took place before the U.S. bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq. The neo-cons in the Administration, especially Cheney and Bush, are salivating at the prospect of an enormous air assault on Iran’s military establishment and laboratories, have positioned attack forces near and around Iran, and are ready to rumble. All they need is an acceptable causus belli.

A cornered CheneyBush&Co. down in the bunker may decide, what the hell, to unleash the dogs of war again, even though their two previous unleashings have been disasters. Iraq is a catastrophic quagmire of epic proportions, and a somewhat ignored Afghanistan is heating up again with the Taliban re-asserting control of larger and larger portions of the country.

In addition, John McCain is making it clear that he will be continuing the Administration’s foreign and domestic policies if he were to win in November. He’s said it would be fine for America to stay in Iraq for a hundred years or more, he’s indicated that he’s quite amenable (maybe even eager) to “bomb, bomb, bomb” Iran, he won’t do much to help deal with the consequences of global warming, he has little to offer in the way of solutions for the financial mess the country is in — we’re talking a possible foreign policy/economic/environmental apocalypse here!

2. The danger of a green light. Impeachment is an important and necessary step Americans can take to rein in an out-of-control administration that is endangering the country’s national security with its reckless, extreme misadventures.

Taking the possibility of impeachment “off the table” is to fight the CheneyBush Administration with one hand tied behind the back. Bush&Co. have demonstrated over the past eight years that they understand, and respond to, only one thing: countervailing power that refuses to give in. The ultimate effective weapon in the Legislative Branch’s arsenal is the fear of impeachment and conviction and removal from power, to be followed either by “war crimes” charges internationally and felony and civil-suit prosecutions inside the U.S.

Absent the possibility of impeachment, Cheney and Bush feel they have a green light to do whatever they wish in the time remaining of their tenure. Waxman and Leahy can try to humiliate and embarrass them in their Congresssional one-day hearings, but they will face no real accountability or punishment for their actions. So why not continue the corruption, attack Iran, appoint more ideologues to the courts and into high administrative positions, postpone any global-warming solutions, etc. etc.?

3. The precedent of respecting the law. Whenever leaders are not punished for their unethical policies or criminal misdeeds, the rule of law suffers. Impeachment is mentioned numerous times in the Constitution as the legal and required remedy for extreme misrule. It’s the last option for citizens, through their legislators, to discipline errant leaders.

If the Congress does not impeach this president and vice president, who have nearly taken the country down as a result of their reckless, dangerous, incompetent, authoritarian behavior, then the rule of law stands for nothing. And future elected leaders can legitimately believe that they more or less can also get away with anything they wish to do.

Putting Cheney and Bush into the impeachment dock is to assert the primacy of the rule of law under our system of governance, and would serve as a clear warning shot across the bow of future presidents.

4. Force CheneyBush to play defense. There is one other advantage to initiating impeachment hearings ASAP for Bush and Cheney. The Bush&Co. juggernaut is most effective when on the offensive and their opponents are put on the defensive. The Bushistas don’t like, and don’t do well, when they’re forced to play defense. Tying them up in defending themselves in impeachment hearings and/or impeachment trials might well prevent them from doing more mischief before they give up the reins of power. (Many Republicans were convinced they would never convict Bill Clinton in the Senate but figured the trial was worth doing anyway because it would hog-tie Clinton’s agenda for the rest of his presidency — and they were correct.)

A final side-benefit ( http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32869 ) of impeaching Bush and Cheney: John McCain would find himself on the campaign trail being forced to take positions on torture and signing statements at the heart of the impeachment hearings, and, more often than not, would wind up either defending those unpopular policies or promising never to repeat them.

WILL THE DEMS SURPRISE US ALL?

Will the Congressional Democratic leaders change their attitude toward impeachment?

I think the answer is a clear No unless their constituencies loudly and unwaveringly tell them they have to or risk the consequences at the ballot box, or in the possible establishment of a new, grassroots-engendered party after the November election that will demonstrate the courage and passion for ethical and reality-based government that is so lacking in today’s timid, Bush-enabling Democratic Party.

That, unfortunately, is where we are politically in the Spring of 2008. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor at the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net .

First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 4/22/08.
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays8w/apocalypse.htm

Copyright 2008 by Bernard Weiner.

Authors Website: http://www.crisispapers.org

Authors Bio: Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). ..

IF YOU SIT BACK AND DON’T TAKE ACTION, GET THIS…

There are so many people who are afraid to ask questions about 911, questions that would reveal the truth. They would rather stick their heads in the sand in efforts to keep the boogie man out, than to confront the perpetrators who have cause the biggest false flag operation in the history of the world. Below is a short, roughly 10 minute film that shows you what is going on, can you spare ten minutes for the future of your family, and their families? Once the take over is complete, it will be too late.

BlogRadio CallIn Sunday Morning 10 AM Eastern

Call-in Number  (347) 215-8721. You can also participate via the net.

Learn how we have been deceived, lied to, and conned, costing up billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

The End of the “American Empire”

When George Herbert Walker Bush announced victory in the “Cold War” and a “New World Order” in the 1990’s, he should have brought the American military home. He should also have scaled back the weapons aimed at the once mighty Soviet Union now called Russia. He did not, and in fact continued a series of beefy upgrades to the US military that today, continues under his son George W. Bush. Why is that a problem?

The United States chose a path of dictatorship to deal with the World instead of working for a better World. The threat of military retaliation is not an option to diplomacy.

The Changing World:

China has become the Worlds economic leader with a population and market 5 times that of North America. They have a great friend in Russia who will no doubt go into business with China in terms of energy supply and military alliance. That is already the case.

Today the USA is involved with Pakistan and India, playing one against the other and threatening military response to Pakistan if they do not play by American rules. Large-scale Military exercises in the Indian Ocean by the Americans have turned the heads of China and Russia to focus on a new alliance together.

Russia has resumed military aircraft patrols and increased military spending that rival the cold war days. This time however, the vast oil and gas reserves under Russian soil have paid for a new arms race. The Russians now claim to have invented “The Father of All Bombs”, and have become partners with China to build super rockets for space travel. …All the USA had to do was come home in the 1990’s and focus on building a World together with every other nation, but instead chose to dictate terms.

Self-Imposed Isolation:

The USA has recently installed missiles in the Eastern European countries once controlled by Soviet occupation. The Americans are giving weapons of Aid to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and secretly arming India. (The word “AID” is supposed to be a medical term not a military one.)

The Russians feel threatened and have had enough of American encroachment into their resources. Not surprisingly, Russia has returned to the military race once more. This time however, Russia has a mighty partner called China, and a great potential to include, as an ally, every other sovereign nation that is opposed to current American Policies. Nations such as every Muslim, European, South American, and African nation disenchanted with American Imperialism and military threat.

In other words, the USA has isolated itself from the World through its Imperialist and Fascist approach by declaring a “New World Order” in which it is ruler of all.

The fabricated reasons for the American invasion and War in Iraq, (Weapons of Mass Destruction.) has removed the “Cold War Polarization” in the World to “Isolation of the USA” from everyone else.

Dictatorship:

The designs of a “New World Order” and “ A One World Government” are borrowed from Nazi Germany and Ancient Rome. The World knows this but “George Bush” is fixated on how he will be remembered in history like two other guys that went by the names of “Julius” and “Adolph”. Does George really believe he is in contact with God? Does George really care about humanity?

It seems inevitable that we will have our 3rd World War after all. Considering that the USA is outnumbered man to man, and that they are beginning to lose the technological race, nuclear weapons would ultimately be used in a misguided belief to achieve an advantage.

If the World is to survive the coming holocaust it must return to high moral standards laid down after the 2nd World War and the Nuremberg Trials. The present course that the American President has led the World is to utter destruction!

By following Fascist doctrine and policies, he has single handily declared war on the world by making threats of “You’re either with us or against us”. We all know how this ends…it ends with millions of innocent people dying.

If America really believed in a better World for everyone on the planet they would not dictate policy or abandon the fundamental principals of the “United Nations”. It is only through a strong United Nations that mankind will survive and not through a selfish nation with designs of a “New World Order.”

Stewart

PS: If I were the Prime Minister of Canada, I would hold secret talks with Russia, China, South America, and Great Britain to counter the American threat so that peace would be guaranteed.

PROFESSORS MAKE LEGAL CHALLENGES TO NIST 9/11 REPORT

  by Andrew Johnson    

 Tell A Friend 

7th Sept, 2007 Hot Springs Village – Arkansas, Clemson – South Carolina, Danbury – Connecticut. In separate actions, 2 professors have initiated legal challenges against the report that supposedly explained how and why World Trade Centre towers 1 & 2 were destroyed on Sept 11 2001. Professor Morgan Reynolds, using various points of evidence, challenges the assumption that large jet planes hit the towers. Professor Judy Wood challenges the stated cause (jet impacts and resulting fires) for the destruction of the entire WTC complex. Professor Wood has uncovered various items of evidence which have allowed her to declare that NCSTAR1 is “fraudulent and deceptive”. 

In 2005, a number of reports were issued by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) which were meant to explain how the World Trade Centre towers were completely destroyed.  The challenged report is designated NCSTAR 1 and runs some 298 pages.  Dr. Judy Wood (formerly  Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University) has lodged a Request For Correction, and a subsequent appeal, with NIST, with the help of a Connecticut Attorney Jerry Leaphart. Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Professor (Emeritus) of Economics at Texas A & M University and former Chief Economist in the Dept. of Labor, also with the help of  Jerry Leaphart, has initiated 2 separate actions against NIST.

The first action was initiated in March 2007 by Dr. Wood, in the form of a “Request For Correction” (RFC) which declares that the main NIST WTC report (NCSTAR1) is “fraudulent and deceptive” because it in no way accounts for the profound level of destruction of the WTC towers – as illustrated in a collection of over 65 photographs she has presented. Dr. Wood states that “NIST cannot make a statement that the World Trade Center towers came down in ‘free fall’ on one hand”, and then say “that doing so is a form of collapse.” Wood also states that “Use of the descriptive word ‘collapse’” is incorrect and Wood points out that according to NIST’s own data, their explanation of how the towers were pulverised does not satisfy the laws of Physics. Dr. Wood, concludes from her study, that some type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings. Dr. Wood also points out that Applied Research Associates (ARA) were involved in the production of some aspects of the NCSTAR reports and that they are a manufacturer of Directed Energy Weapons and/or components of same. This therefore would be one example of where there was a “conflict of interest” in producing a truthful report.

Even though NIST was supposed to have responded to each RFC within 60 days, an “extension of review” notification was posted on 29th June 2007 for both Dr. Wood’s and Dr. Reynolds’ RFC’s.

Then, in a letter dated 27 July 2007, Catherine Fletcher of NIST rejected Dr. Wood’s original RFC, stating “NIST has examined the photographs you provided in conjunction with all the other evidence and has found that the evidence does not support a theory involving directed energy weapons.” Fletcher also stated, “…ARA was determined not to have an organizational conflict of interest”. Finally Fletcher stated, “In conclusion, NIST is denying your request for correction because the NIST analysis of the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers was thorough and based on all of the available evidence, and NIST continues to believe that the report is not fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.”

The Data Quality Act, however, includes a “right of appeal” against the decision and Dr. Wood has worked to further document a significant conflict of interest between ARA and some of the analyses NIST used in their reports. In the appeal, dated August 22nd 2007, Dr. Wood makes 6 key assertions and states that “NIST should have known that Applied Research Associates (ARA) is a ‘significant manufacturer of directed energy weapons and/or components thereof’” Additionally, Dr. Wood states “NIST should have detected evidence of the use of such weaponry even in the context of NIST’s intentional and, I assert, improper limitation of its investigation into ‘the sequence of events leading up to the ‘collapse’ of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.’” A response to this appeal is now pending.

Dr. Reynolds’ RFC outlines how NCSTAR1 failed to properly explain the observed damage caused by the supposed plane impacts. He challenges the true nature of the impacts based on a number of points of evidence. Reynolds states that NIST produced plane animations which showed “No significant deceleration as each jetliner entered a tower” and he points out that data used in the associated analysis is inconsistent.

Overall, considering the evidence discussed in NCSTAR1, Reynolds states: “These purported phenomena, [as mentioned above and as] described by NIST and its contractors, are not independently verifiable and do not have a scientifically valid basis for making the assumption that the simulated conditions could actually have occurred. Equally significant, the preparation of simulations that depict conditions that violate scientific principles serves only to mislead and to set the conditions for false conclusions to be enunciated.”

NIST has still not issued a response to Dr. Reynolds’ RFC – some 5 months later (only the “extension of review” notification).

In an action which is directly related to the RFC, Dr. Reynolds, also under the guidance of Jerry Leaphart, has now initiated a Law Suit against NIST. Dr. Reynolds’ “Qui Tam” complaint, filed on 11th  July 2007 in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, lists 81 points in 7 “causes of action”. The 34-page document is framed as Dr.. Morgan O. Reynolds, on behalf of the United States of America vs Science Applications International Corp., Applied Research Associates, Inc., Boeing, Silverstein Properties, American Airlines, United Airlines and others. Its stated aim is to “recover treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 and to recover all available damages and other monetary relief under the common law or equitable theories of unjust enrichment, payment under mistake of fact, recoupment of overpayments and common law fraud.”

The action charges that “defendants knowingly concealed, or failed to disclose, or caused others to fail to disclose material information” and that the reports produced “intentionally did not satisfy, the mandate that NIST had, which was that of determining what caused the destruction of WTC1,2.”

It also charges that NIST’s “documentation serves solely to mislead, obfuscate and provide a vehicle for the intended fraud; namely, that of steering NIST away from a consideration of what caused the destruction of WTC1,2; which, as elsewhere elaborated upon, was the use on 9/11/01 of exotic weaponry known as directed energy weapons.”

Further developments in this case are now awaited.

For more information, contact the named individuals using the details below.

Jerry Leaphart, Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 8 West Street, Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 phone – (203) 825-6265 ,  fax – (203) 825-6256, e-mail: jsleaphart@cs.com

Dr. Judy Wood:  lisajudy@nctv.com, www.drjudywood.com

911 FOREKNOWLEDGE

THE WHITE TEXT ARE HYPERLINKS, CLICK ON IT.The Bush administration had foreknowledge of 911 and did nothing to stop it, the Israel MOSSAD actually assisted the Arabs (UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM) in bringing down the Twin Towers (the owner of which just happens to be Jewish) by planting the explosives that brought down the towers, the implosion. Cheney was put into command of NORAD; the first time in history a non-military ran NORAD. Bush is on tape saying that just before he went into that classroom to read to the kids he watched the first plane hit the tower! THERE WAS NO COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING THE TOWER UNTIL THE NEXT DAY, UNLESS BUSH HAD HIS OWN PRIVATE TAPING OF THEIR HEINOUS CRIME. The towers had many floors that were vacant and that had activity continually for two months going on before their downfall. Anyone who has ever been in a skyrise knows that there are all kinds of service entrances, elevators, and workplaces for the maintenance people; these are the facilities the MOSSAD used in order to plant the thermite that brought down the towers. THERE ARE NUMEROUS WITNESSES WHO HEARD THE INDIVIDUAL EXPLOSIONS THAT BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS. The day of 911 the media was spoon fed the news releases of the day and the people that fed them the feeds actually screwed up. It is on tape when Building 7 was brought down that there are newscasters saying it has collapsed when you can see it still standing in their background coverage! The Jew who owned the Towers is on tape telling them to pull it on building 7, something that can’t be done instantly, implosions take months to plan and implement. WHO WOULD BENEFIT THE MOST FROM OUR DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST? THE ISRAELIS AND THE OIL COMPANIES! OVER 6700 AMERICANS HAVE DIED SO FAR, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT IT TO CONTINUE? TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK NOW! IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH FOR HIGH TREASON! THEN TERM LIMITS AND SHITCAN LOBBYISTS!

In the time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act!

–George Orwell

The people involved with this site are NOT radicals, are NOT nuts, are NOT liberals, are NOT Democrats, are NOT Republicans, they ARE AMERICANS who didn’t believe most of what is on this site, UNTIL they discovered for themselves, be brave LEARN FOR YOURSELF! The gist of this website is to show how the Bushes (and OTHERS), through the auspices of the CIA and the Military-Industrial Complex have been orchestrating diabolical events around the world and in our country in order to promote their agenda of World Domination through Corporate rule, creating an oligarchy, while dismantling our Democracy. Some of these planned events were the Assassination of John Kennedy (44 years ago) and 911 (Sept 1, 2001). There is no Kennedy Curse, except the curse of the Bush family who have systemically removed any potential Kennedy who might prove to be a threat to their plans. Beware, anyone who would have a voice for the people, you are treading on dangerous water. THE EVIDENCE IS HERE, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO TAKE THE TIME TO EXAMINE IT AND ACT!!