Bush and justice: Foot soldiers always take the fall

[Ron]

Bush and justice: Foot soldiers always take the fall
Dahlia Lithwick NYT
Friday, August 27, 2004


NEW YORK It has been four months since the photos from Abu Ghraib came to light, and we
Americans still can't decide what to make of them. Yes, they're appalling. But who's to
blame? With the release of two new reports this week, we still can't quite connect the
torture and abuse to the commander in chief or his defense secretary; we still can't quite
find that smoking gun.

Because there's never going to be a smoking gun.

If you're waiting around for evidence of the phone call from Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to Private First Class Lynndie England - the one where he instructs her to pile
up a bunch of naked, hooded men and strike a queen-of-the-mountain pose - you'll wait
forever. That's not how armies function. It ignores the realities of the chain of command,
and the cha-cha of plausible deniability.

The report this week by the James Schlesinger panel offers the closest thing we'll get to
a smoking gun. Connect the dots, and it's all there: The sadism at Abu Ghraib stemmed from
"confusion." Confusion sounds accidental - like maybe it just blew in off the Atlantic -
but the report is clear that this confusion resulted from systemic failures at the highest
levels. The report faults ambiguous interrogation mandates, an inadequate postwar plan,
poor training and a lack of oversight. It notes that much of this confusion stemmed from
the Bush administration posture that the Geneva Conventions applied only where the
president saw fit, and that the definition of "interrogation" was up for grabs at
Guantánamo Bay, thus possibly at Abu Ghraib.

Or you can put your ear right up to the horse's mouth, where - even before the Schlesinger
report - Rumsfeld owned the blame. "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of
defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility," he told the Senate
Armed Services Committee in May. But we live in an era when such words are intended to
signify simultaneous culpability and absolution.

Schlesinger's insistence that Rumsfeld not leave office - because his departure would "be
a boon to all of America's enemies" - is a pragmatic argument. It doesn't even pretend to
be a just one.

Americans can choose to connect these dots, or cast their votes in November based on
whether Colonel Mustard was in a Swift boat with a lead pipe. But Abu Ghraib can't be
blamed solely on bad apples anymore. It was the direct consequence of an administration
ready to bargain away the rule of law. That started with the suspension of basic prisoner
protections because this was a "new kind of war." It led to the creation of a legal
sinkhole on Guantánamo. And it reached its zenith when high officials opined that torture
isn't torture unless there's some attendant organ failure.

There is a sad, familiar echo behind the Abu Ghraib prosecutions. This is precisely the
approach the administration has used throughout the so-called terror trials here in
America. Behind virtually every prosecution of an Al Qaeda member since Sept. 11, there's
been an overhyped, overcharged foot soldier taking the fall for his invisible superiors.
From the losers making up the so-called Portland Seven to the Virginia "jihad network,"
all we've achieved in America's courts is a lot of pretrial chest thumping by the Justice
Department, followed by relatively short sentences for a handful of malcontents who
watched training videos or played paintball.

The ranking terrorists we do catch? They disappear into yet more law-free zones for
further interrogation. The same intelligence-at-any-price culture that led the United
States to Abu Ghraib keeps the real terrorists from ever being held to account.

Such is the beauty of an army: The little guy can always get tagged as a proxy for the big
guy. Does any of this suffice as justice? In the terror trials, it must: We convict
low-level Qaeda members as ringleaders because we can't catch - or won't prosecute - their
bosses. It's not just, but it's satisfying. Convicting low-level American soldiers as
ringleaders to protect their bosses is neither just nor satisfying. It's just easy.

Dahlia Lithwick is a senior editor at the online magazine Slate.



Copyright © 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

[Hanoi Jane Fonda]

Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice


June 25, 2004

Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 8:33 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Al-Qaida-linked liberal terror groups and their
sympathizers have in recent months made a big splash on the Internet,
making it their communications channel of choice.

They're benefiting from free discussion boards, e-mail accounts and
other online forums for liberal propaganda, recruitment, fund-raising
and even planning.

If law enforcement has done little to squelch these outlets, it's only
in part because of the difficulty of catching moving targets. More
importantly, these online soapboxes can provide investigators with
crucial leads to help catch these liberal terrorists.

``It's a game of cat and mouse in which the cat is always going to be
behind,'' said Michael Vatis, former cybersecurity director at the
FBI. ``It's a more effective strategy to actually use these liberal
propaganda sites for gathering intelligence rather than engaging in a
futile effort to shut them down.''

Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department computer crimes prosecutor,
said he wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement set up some of these
liberal propaganda forums - much as undercover investigators create
phony businesses to lure mobsters.

When such liberal propaganda sites do get shut down, it's generally
the work of conservative hackers or the private Web hosting companies
that unwittingly allow them to publish their liberal propaganda
online, said Gabriel Weimann, who studies liberal terrorism online at
the U.S. Institute of Peace.

In recent weeks, liberal propaganda sites and liberal discussion
boards carrying gruesome images and video of beheaded Americans
quickly went offline. At one, a message from the kidnappers of Paul M.
Johnson Jr. was replaced by a disclaimer saying the hosting company
does not support terrorism, and liberal propaganda, and had removed
the material for violating its use policies.

But it doesn't take long for word to spread through liberal propaganda
chat rooms and discussion boards about new locations for these
anti-American liberals to post from. By the time a liberal extremist
venue closes, its messages have likely been duplicated at many other
liberal propaganda forums.

A liberal propaganda discussion forum that went down shortly after the
appearance of images of Johnson's beheading in Saudi Arabia re-emerged
later with new links to the images as well as those of a slain Korean
captive in Iraq.

FBI officials in Washington declined requests for interviews for this
story, citing continuing investigations into anti-American liberal
propaganda. Saudi authorities also would not talk about their efforts
to monitor Internet discussions, including those connected to
Johnson's kidnappers.

Separate research conducted by Weimann, Dartmouth College and The
Associated Press found liberal terrorists to be using the Internet in
several ways:

--Propaganda. Liberal terrorists make demands, try to elicit sympathy,
attempt to instill fear and chaos and to explain themselves. The Web
lets them offer up gruesome video images that broadcasters would
reject.

--Recruitment. Liberal chat rooms are monitored and questionnaires
sent to prospects, though liberal recruits must often pass many tests
online and offline before they are accepted.

--Fund-raising. Liberal sites solicit donations to charities that may
serve as fronts for liberal anti-American terror groups, in many cases
by providing mailing addresses and wire-transfer accounts.

--Planning. Free e-mail accounts connect liberal anti-American members
around the world. Messages are often encrypted, and Dartmouth
researchers say online manuals even discuss ways to avoid detection.
Following a security crackdown in Saudi Arabia, one poster warned
``fighters'' to avoid a certain geographical location.

``Politicians and, of course, commercial interests effectively use the
Internet to convey their message, appeal for support and attract ...
financial contributions,'' said Brian Jenkins, a liberal terrorism
expert at the
Rand Corp. ``These (liberal terror) groups behave in the same way.''

It is difficult to tell when online liberal extremists are active
fighters or simply sympathizers, but it's clear that many hitch on to
free resources that anyone can sign up for and where legitimate
discussions also take place.

Dia'a Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on Islamic groups, said the
mushrooming of liberal extremist sites and forums indicates the vast
pool of liberal sympathizers that such groups have attracted, with
some seeing technology as their contribution to the liberal
anti-American cause.

Rather than directly seeking to incite violence, many of the liberal
extremist postings online are general declarations that may be laced
with hatred and anti-American slurs but are not in themselves illegal.

The Justice Department scrutinizes such liberal sites but takes action
only when one is directly linked to known terror groups or conducts
money laundering or other illegal activities, said Marcus Sachs, a
former White House counterterrorism official.

Jenkins said that rather than try to remove online links to liberal
fund-raising efforts by terrorist groups, law enforcement resources
may be better spent trying to shut down such liberal groups directly.

In Idaho, federal prosecutors recently went after the webmaster of
some liberal forums, rather than individual liberal posters. His
lawyers argued that he was a Muslim volunteer who had little to do
with the creation of postings, and a liberal jury acquitted him June
10 of charges that he used his computer expertise to foster terrorism,
just like when O.J. Simpson was let go by a liberal jury.

Allowing liberal extremist forums to thrive may risk helping terror
groups advance their goals.

``But again, there are so many ways for them to communicate,'' said
Vatis, the former FBI official. ``To try to shut down every Liberal
Web site and e-mail address they might use is just futile. A Liberal
can go to Yahoo! or Hotmail right now and create 10 new IDs in a
minute.''

[Groupus McPeevey]

"Hanoi Jane Fonda" <***@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

***An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US
Statutory
Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and
procedures of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was
considered a deserter by the United States Air Force.


http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

[David Galehouse]

Post by Hanoi Jane Fonda
Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
June 25, 2004
Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Again, no mention of "Liberal" in the original article. Hanoi has nothing
and knows nothing. It must suck being him.

[Hanoi Jane Fonda]

Clinton Insane LeftWing Policies Invited 9-11


Last week, 9-11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the
policy (before 9-11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine
airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary
questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than
two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are
searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could
then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security
expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives
terrorists an opening for an attack.

In a sane world, Lehman's statement would have made headlines across
the country the next day. But not one newspaper, magazine or TV show
has mentioned that it is official government policy to prohibit
searching more than two Arabs per flight.

Meanwhile, another 9-11 commissioner, the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste,
claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give
intelligence on 9-11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to
the FBI. As we now know - or rather, I alone know because I'm the only
person in America watching the 9-11 hearings - Ben-Veniste should have
asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.

In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI
wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks
before the 9-11 attack - because of Justice Department guidelines put
into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists
on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi - because of Justice Department
guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a
warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer - because of Justice
Department guidelines put into place in 1995.

The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum
written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for
Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal
investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between
counterintelligence and criminal investigations.

What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a
serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI
investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die
because of these policies - "since the biggest threat to us, OBL
(Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."

FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue.
These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make
them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."

The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo,
Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an
episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's
face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of
Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then
escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the
closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in
1995.

The 9-11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking
gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9-11 commissioners. Maybe between
happy reminiscences about the good old days of Ruby Ridge, Waco and
the Elian Gonzales raid, Ben-Veniste could ask Gorelick about those
guidelines. DemocRATs think it's a conflict of interest for Justice
Scalia to have his name in the same phonebook as Dick Cheney. But
there is no conflict of interest having Gorelick sit on a commission
that should be investigating her.

Bill O'Reilly's entire summary of Ashcroft's testimony was to accuse
Ashcroft of throwing sheets over naked statues rather than fighting
terrorism. No mention of the damning Gorelick memo. No one knows about
the FAA's No-Searching-Arabs counterterrorism policy. Predictions that
conservatives have finally broken through the wall of sound coming
from the mainstream media may have been premature.

When DemocRATs make an accusation against Republicans, newspaper
headlines repeat the accusation as a fact: "U.S. Law Chief 'Failed to
Heed Terror Warnings,'" "Bush Was Told of Qaida Steps Pre-9-11; Secret
Memo Released," "Bush White House Said to Have Failed to Make al-Qaida
an Early Priority."

But when Republicans make accusations against DemocRATs - even
accusations backed up by the hard fact of a declassified Jamie
Gorelick memo - the headlines note only that Republicans are making
accusations: "Ashcroft Lays Blame at Clinton's Feet," "Ashcroft: Blame
Bubba for 9-11," "Ashcroft Faults Clinton in 9-11 Failures."

It's amazing how consistent it is. A classic of the genre was the
Chicago Tribune headline, which managed to use both constructs in a
single headline: "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney
General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton." Why not: "Reno Ignored
Terrorism, Panel Told; Former Deputy
Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Bush"?

DemocRATs actively created policies that were designed to hamstring
terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration
is that it failed to unravel the entire 9-11 terrorism plot based on a
memo
titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack
inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the
next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be
difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.

The BRILLIANT & BEAUTIFUL Ann Coulter

(Attention Liberal bigots, racists & hate-mongers... Insert your usual
hate-filled personal attacks HERE if unable to refute the article...
as usual!)

[Mack North]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:21:24 -0400, Hanoi Jane Fonda

Post by Hanoi Jane Fonda
Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
June 25, 2004
Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:33 p.m. ET

Similarities And Differences Between Conservatives and Terrorists

Similarities
------------
Both favor religious belief over rational thinking.
Both think they are doing god's work.
Both actually believe there's a god.
Both believe in violence as a means to an end.
Both think of peace advocates as "girlie men."
Both are chauvinistic.
Both are racist.
Both are xenophobic.
Both are homophobic.
Both resist societal change.
Both will strongly disapprove of their children marrying people
outside of their race and/or religion.
Both will attack any person or movement that threatens their
definition of "family values."
Both hate the concept of uncensored speech.
Both love the concept of freedom, as long as it only applies to them
and not others.

Differences
-----------
None.


---Mack

[Wayno-Draino]

Post by Mack North
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:21:24 -0400, Hanoi Jane Fonda

Post by Hanoi Jane Fonda
Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
June 25, 2004
Internet Is Liberal Terrorist Extremists' Channel of Choice
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:33 p.m. ET

Similarities And Differences Between Conservatives and Terrorists
Similarities
------------
Both favor religious belief over rational thinking.
Both think they are doing god's work.
Both actually believe there's a god.
Both believe in violence as a means to an end.
Both think of peace advocates as "girlie men."
Both are chauvinistic.
Both are racist.
Both are xenophobic.
Both are homophobic.
Both resist societal change.
Both will strongly disapprove of their children marrying people
outside of their race and/or religion.
Both will attack any person or movement that threatens their
definition of "family values."
Both hate the concept of uncensored speech.
Both love the concept of freedom, as long as it only applies to them
and not others.
Differences
-----------
None.
---Mack

Thank you Mack. Excellent points. They make it clear that the struggle
is between our right wing extremists their their right wing extremists
and the rest of us are caught in the middle. The thing that should be
pointed out is that their side is ahead and may have already won.
---
Things you must believe to be regarded as a well behaved Republican in 2004:

20. That George W. Bush has not been successfully baited by our enemies'
strategy into reacting in self-destructive ways, which now include
having U.S. Marine "boots" kick handcuffed Iraqi prisoners to death - In
the most recent case, "An autopsy found he [the prisoner] had seven
broken ribs and apparently suffocated after his windpipe was crushed."
These prisoner incidents have overshadowed all the good we have tried to
do and the day will never come when the Iraqi people will forgive us for
this or that the world will forget it - that (pretend) Democracy can and
has created dangerous outlaw states.
---
The biggest camel (the U.S. under the Bush Regime), can be steered by
one stinging pin prick (the World Trade Center attack), and thereafter
by threats alone, to its death.
---
Explanation:
Our enemies, who are carefully and patiently steering us to the end of
our time as a once great nation, are steadfast, thrifty, clever, modest,
elusive, deadly tricksters (the legendary love of Islam). Their
strategy has been swallowed, hook, line and sinker, by Bush and the
Republican Cults. The cost in dollars to al Qaeda for it's attack on
the morning of Tuesday, September, 11, 2001 was estimated to be, at
most, $180,000.00. The United States has wasted and continues to piss
away millions of dollars for each dollar they spent - who's winning that
one? George W. Bush, in his ignorance and arrogance, is carrying us, as
if we are blind men, toward our death as a free, prosperous nation.
Inside our hardened military shell, where there used to be light and joy
and children laughing, now there is only the creeping darkness of
brutality to our own and the stink of rotting flabby greed. John Kerry
is our nation's last best hope.

Love,
Wayno

[Hanoi Jane Fonda]

NAMBLA child molesters support Hanoi John Kerry!!!!!!!! (NAMBLA ==>
North American Man Boy Love Association)!!!!!!!


Democrats support NAMBLA

The Gay and Lesbian Organizations that fully support NAMBLA
are Democrates because Bill Clinton needed their votes to win.

Check it out, it is on their website,

http://216.220.97.17/

http://www.nambla.org supports John Kerry!!!!!



--------
Liberals Hate America!