Tuesday, March 30
Prosecuting Obushma's Faux-Iraq War (Second Installment)
It's good to know some true Americans like attorney Charlotte Dennett in Vermont still are trying to watch my back against such pandering moral midgets like George Bush and Dick Cheney. From Wapo blogger Steven Lvingston's Political Bookworm 29 March offering:
One woman's quest to prosecute Bush
Attorney Charolotte Dennett is on a mission, and it’s summed up in the title of her book, “The People v. Bush: One Lawyer’s Campaign to Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encounters Along the Way,” published by Chelsea Green Publishing in February. She made headlines in 2008 when she ran for attorney general of Vermont on a platform to prosecute President Bush for murder and signed up Vincent Bugliosi as her special prosecutor if she won. She lost but continues to push her cause. We posed a few questions to her by email.
What is the basis of your charge?
George W. Bush took our nation to war in Iraq on false pretenses, lying to Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was a “great danger to our country” when this was not the case, according to his own intelligence agencies. He absolutely knew death would result from sending troops into harm’s way. At the very least he engaged in an inherently dangerous act with reckless disregard for the consequences and indifference to human life, which constitutes implied malice and 2nd degree murder. Bush is also guilty of war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the 1996 War Crimes Act. As the ultimate “decider,” he authorized severe torture methods on “high level” detainees.
Does any precedent exist?
There are sound legal precedents for trying Bush in a state criminal court (assuming that the political atmosphere in Washington will not be conducive to a federal trial). Those precedents include:
1) the underlying crime of conspiracy to commit murder, which confers jurisdiction to a state provided there is a) agreement between two or more people (i.e Bush and Cheney in D.C.) to b) further the conspiracy by committing an overt act that occurs within the state (lying to the American people in their separate states through a national TV broadcast that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat )
2) The “effects doctrine,” that holds that if a crime occurs outside the state but has a harmful effect on the people inside the state, then the state has jurisdiction (as spelled out in State v Jack, 124 P.3d 311, “the state can extend jurisdiction under the effects doctrine even where the conduct adversely affecting the state takes place …in another country.”)
3) The doctrine of innocent agent, Title 18 U.S. Code § 2(b) whereby a conspirator (here,
Bush in the United States) is criminally liable for setting in motion a chain of events that causes an innocent agent (e.g Iraqi soldiers fighting against a foreign invasion) to commit the unlawful act (the killing of American soldiers).
What has been the response from President Bush?
Bush has never commented on my book or my campaign. After I announced my candidacy for attorney general in 2008, an Associated Press reporter called the White House for a response and was referred over to the Republican National Committee, which promptly denounced my campaign as appealing only to “fringe elements” in American society.By Steven E. Levingston | March 29, 2010; 5:31 AM ET
| Tags: prosecution of bush; charging president bush
Sunday, March 28
Treasonable Profits: U.S. Oil, Gas Companies Developing Iranian Energy Infrastructure
U.S. Enriches Companies Defying Its Policy on Iran
Published: March 6, 2010The federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran, despite Washington’s efforts to discourage investment there, records show.
The New York Times
That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves.
For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions.
But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports and other documents shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.
Many of those companies are enmeshed in the most vital elements of Iran’s economy. More than two-thirds of the government money went to companies doing business in Iran’s energy industry — a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a primary focus of the Obama administration’s proposed sanctions because it oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
Other companies are involved in auto manufacturing and distribution, another important sector of the Iranian economy with links to the Revolutionary Guards. One supplied container ship motors to IRISL, a government-owned shipping line that was subsequently blacklisted by the United States for concealing military cargo.... Read more
Friday, March 19
Are 9/11 Truthers Really This Dangerous?
When President "Yes We Can" Barack Obama visited Egypt last June, he used the occasion to issue a 1-minute caveat, an authoritative warning to 9/11 Truthers, apparently from around the world, to avoid questioning the events of 9/11.
For anyone with IQ's above room temperature who's independently examined the reams of evidence that counters the Official Cover-up, Obama's warning came much too late.
For example, consider this partial list of senior U.S. intelligence officers in Washington's Blog who examined some of that evidence to concluded "these facts" Obama would have us deal with as something else for the cover-up it is.
Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.
The list proves - once and for all - that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.
Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.
- Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).
- A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
- A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).
- A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)
- 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (Robert David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
- A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job"
- The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."
- Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11....
Thursday, March 18
Channel: News and Information
Premiere Date: 03/01/2009
Full Length Movie
Is there room for independent retailers in an American landscape littered with big-box corporate chain stores? Husband and wife TV-news veterans Hanson Hosein and Heather Hughes set out on an epic, 32-state cross-country road trip to see how independent businesses are faring. Their rules: avoid interstate highways and try to patronize only locally owned establishments. In, the process they discover stories of ingenuity, self-reliance, community activism and a growing nationwide opposition to corporate uniformity.