Saturday, November 11, 2006

Santorum, GOP Calls for Impounding of Touch-Screen Machines in PA

Rick Santorum and the Pennsylvania GOP wrote a letter to state officials on Tuesday afternoon demanding touch-screen systems in 27 counties be impounded after reports of votes flipping from Republican to Democrat. I applaud the aggressive, pro-active stance. Even from Santorum. Dems should have done the same long ago with every report of Dem to Rep votes flipping. This is just one of the reasons I mentioned previously that Santorum shouldn't have conceded.

Martial Law Empowered by Bush and Congress - H.R. 5122ENR

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) [H.R.5122.ENR]
Became Public Law No: 109-364 [GPO: Text, PDF]

According to "Bush Moves Toward Martial Law," by Frank Morales, Toward Freedom, 26 October 2006:
"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions."

Wikipedia entries on Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act give helpful perspective, e.g.:
On June 22, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."
The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."
Some see the new changes as a movement towards martial law, because the circumstances under which the President may declare martial law are now so broad that nearly anything could be interpreted to justify it. They feel that Bush wants these powers, because of growing public opposition to his administration.There's a lot of information at, and here are some other relevant references. The first one covers matters of action to repeals this nightmare.

Here is the exact wording of that new law, i.e., Section 1076 of HR 5122. It is cause for concern.
(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
'Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order 331'.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:
`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.
(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies
`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.
`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.
`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--
`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and
`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.
`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.
`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.

Here are relevant references. The first one covers matters of action to repeals this nightmare.
-"Martial law, Section 1076, and Finger: v1029.2" by Major Danby, October 29, 2006:
-"Bush Guts Posse Comitatus, Grabs National Guard" by Major Danby, Wed Oct 18, 2006 at 06:10:33 PM PDT
-"The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 14, 2006
-"Recent Contract Awards", Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8;
-"Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," by Peter Dale Scott, New American Media, January 31, 2006.
-"Hill's National Guard Advocates Hold News Conference To Protest DOD Bill's Proposed Decisions On National Guard," by Senator Patrick Leahy,, Sept. 19, 2006:
-"Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 Conference Report," Senator Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, Sept 29, 2006
-See Section 1076, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," of HR.5122: search for "HR.5122.ENR" at

National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007
Conference Report - Congressional Record - September 29, 2006
Contact: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
Mr. President, I rise to express my grave reservations about certain provisions of the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report. This legislation poorly handles key provisions related to the National Guard, ... longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.
Combined, these moves amount to a double punch against the National Guard. The National Guard has done so much to protect the security and safety of our country. Yet the Authorization Bill sends the signal that we are not interested in truly supporting them.
The Guard’s Accomplishments
Let’s review what the 500,000 men and women of the National Guard do for the country. The National Guard is essential to the military’s missions at home and abroad. More than 10,000 members of the National Guard are currently called up for domestic operations, most along the border and involved in counter-drug operations. Almost 60,000 citizen-soldiers are deployed overseas, almost 40,000 involved in Iraq deployments. Over 6,000 members of the Air Guard are deployed. And let’s remember, that at the high-water mark, the Guard made up almost 40 percent of the troops on the ground in Iraq.
The Need for Empowerment
Given the fact that the National Guard is one of the country’s most valuable and needed forces, one would think that our leaders in the Department of Defense would be spending significant time developing policies and budgets plans that truly support the Guard. Further, since September 11th, a torturous debate has developed in the Pentagon whenever the National Guard is needed for a large-scale operation at home, such as during Hurricane Katrina. We have learned that the Guard works optimally at home when it serves under the command-and-control of the nation’s governors, with federal reimbursement, under Title 32 of the federal code. This Title 32 status ensures that locally elected officials remain in control of military forces operating at home. Because the National Guard comes directly out of these local communities, posse comitatus statutes do not apply.
There seems to be some kind of reflexive reaction within the Department of Defense against having the Guard and the Governors remain in control of operations at home. In fact, a sizeable contingent exists within the Pentagon to have the active duty military control the National Guard and other military personnel and assets. So, every time there is a natural disaster or other emergency, the Pentagon engages in a lengthy debate back-and-forth about control of the Guard. To date, these debates have led to sensible outcomes.
Finally, the National Guard has little influence at the senior ranks within the Army and the Air Force. The number of high-ranking officers is completely imbalanced between the Guard and the active forces.
Empowerment: A Sensible Move Ahead
Our original legislation, S. 2658, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006, would have additionally placed the Guard Bureau chief on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and given the National Guard separate budget authority. Though we still believe these provisions are important to empowering the National Guard fully, we listened and understood the objections of other senators. We dropped those provisions in the amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to reach a consensus where even more members would agree to the amendment, beyond the already 40 senators who are co-sponsoring the baseline legislation.
The Defense Authorization Conference: Outcome, Argument Against, And Explanation
The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.
While the Conference made hasty changes to the Insurrection Act, the Guard Empowerment Bill was kicked over for study to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which was established only a year ago and whose recommendations have no real force of law. I would have never supported the creation of this panel — and I suspect my colleagues would agree with me — if I thought we would have to wait for the panel to finish its work before we passed new laws on the Guard and Reserve. In fact, we would get nothing done in Congress if we were to wait for every commission, study group, and research panel to finish its work. I have been around here over 30 years, and almost every Senator here knows the National Guard as well as any commission member. We don’t need to wait, and we don’t need to study the question of enhancing the Guard further. This is a terrible blow against rational defense policy-making and against the fabric of our democracy.
Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point.
Governor Blanco rightfully insisted that she be closely consulted and remain largely in control of the military forces operating in the State during that emergency. This infuriated the White House, and now they are looking for some automatic triggers — natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or a disease epidemic — to avoid having to consult with the governors.
A Final Summary
And there you have it -- we are getting two horrible policy decisions out of this Conference because we are not willing to use our Constitutional powers to overcome leadership that ranges from the poor to the intemperate in the Pentagon and the White House. We cannot recognize the diverse ways that the Guard supports the Country, because the Department of Defense does not like it — simply does not like it.
Because of this rubberstamp Congress, these provisions of this conference report add up to the worst of all worlds. We fail the National Guard, which expects great things from us as much as we expect great things from them. And we fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Tenet, Others For Role in Prison Abuse

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006,8599,1557842,00.html

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Vote Count: Something Fishy in Florida?

Breaking News: Something Fishy in Florida, Congressional Candidate Dr. Bob Bowman Could Challenge the Vote Results in Florida's 15th Congressional District, due to exit poll analysis of Clinton Eugene Curtis: See Email Conversation

Exit-Poll Secrecy Measures Aim to Plug Leaks to Blogs

Exit-Poll Secrecy Measures
Aim to Plug Leaks to Blogs
November 7, 2006; Page B1

Two-by-two, polling specialists from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press will go into rooms in New York and Washington shortly before noon Tuesday. Their cellphones and BlackBerrys will be confiscated; proctors will monitor the doors; and for the next five hours, these experts will pore over exit-poll data from across the country.

If all goes well, only when they emerge from their cloisters will the legions of ravenous political bloggers have any chance of getting their hands on the earliest indication of which party will end up controlling Congress.

"The demand for info is intense, and if the safeguards aren't steel doors bolting people inside a room, it will get out," says Marc Ambinder, associate editor of National Journal's Hotline OnCall. "The insatiable appetite for this info will overwhelm the ability to keep it secret."

The extraordinary security is a result of mix-ups that prompted grumbling about the accuracy of exit polls after the 2004 presidential election: Bloggers posted data from early exit polls, incorrectly calling some states for Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry and indicating that he would unseat President Bush.

This year, media executives figure the secret will keep less than half an hour. "Based on past experience, I expect that I'll have exit-poll data soon after it's released from multiple sources," Taegan Goddard of the newsy independent blog Political Wire says in an email.

Exit polls will be available for all the key Senate races, giving an early picture of whether it could flip to the Democrats. House races won't be available, although clues in statewide data for states with lots of close races, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut and Indiana, will provide a sense of what the broader outcome might be.

The data are collected through the National Election Pool, a consortium made up of the three traditional networks, CNN, Fox News and the AP. NEP's members decide which questions are asked and set the rules for the data's release.

Only consortium members get all of the data, including state breakdowns. Other media outlets -- but not bloggers or political parties -- may purchase the data, on a sliding cost scale. A state report can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,400, depending on the size of the news organization. A week after the election, all of the data can be purchased by academics, political parties and others for $10,000.

News organizations use exit polls to give them an early sense of the electorate's mood to shape and guide coverage later that night when the real results come in. As the data become more complete throughout the day, NEP and news organizations use them to project winners when the polls close. TV news anchors know the results, but are honor-bound not to disclose them until the polls close in the individual states. Sometimes, however, they can't resist alluding to some results with broad statements about the mood of the electorate.

Poll results are for internal use for the most part, but are generally the worst-kept secret in the news business. On Election Day, exit polls are the coin of the realm in Washington, and some reporters and editors can't resist sharing top-line data among themselves and with political operatives. Consequently, the information can reach bloggers from any number of sources.

Mainstream news organizations know that bloggers will eventually get their hands on the exit-poll data, but their goal is to delay it as long as possible because the accuracy of the data improves as the day goes on.

In previous years, numbers were made available to the news organizations in waves via secure Web sites. In 2004, the first wave of data went out around 2 p.m. and quickly leaked onto the Internet. That's what brought about this year's sequestering of the news organization's representatives. The only communication they'll be allowed to make out of the so-called quarantine rooms before 5 p.m. will be to warn their new organizations about potential problems in the data. (In 2000, faulty polling prompted some networks to incorrectly call Florida in favor of Al Gore.) Those messages will be monitored by representatives of the polling firm NEP has contracted with.

Consequently, for much of Tuesday, bloggers will likely be chattering mostly about secondary issues, such as voter turnout and problems with new electronic voting machines.

But at 5 p.m., waves of exit-poll data will begin flowing to newsrooms via limited-access Web sites. For the bloggers, the scramble will be on to get the data first, hoping for an email from a friendly source.

"People need to realize those numbers aren't the real results," says David Bohrman, vice president of news and production at CNN's Washington bureau, who urges people to be cautious when interpreting poll results. "They show why people voted today, and what was on their minds. The only real way to figure out who won is to count the votes."

Mark Blumenthal, a Democratic pollster known as the "Mystery Pollster" on, which tries to explain the mechanics behind polls, agrees. Exit polls are "still a sample," he says. "Don't get all excited about it." In 2004, Mr. Blumenthal posted a warning in the morning about the vagaries of exit polling data and says he'll post another Tuesday. "You learn the hard way that a one- or two-point lead on a leaked exit poll is meaningless," he says.

Mr. Ambinder of Hotline OnCall, the free, wonky blog updated by National Journal's political reporters, says editors there have vowed not to post any exiting-polling data. They say that the less they post while polls are open the better. "If a header in my inbox says 'exit poll,' I'm going to try to resist the temptation to open it," he says.

Throughout the day, a lot of unreliable numbers on exit polling will be flying around in emails, predicts Jacob Weisberg, editor of online magazine Slate, which published early exit-polling data in 2004. If Slate receives exit-polling data from a reliable source in the media it will publish them again, Mr. Weisberg says, although he doesn't know if they'll be very meaningful. "When elections are really close, exit polls aren't that reliable."

"I'll post it with the caveat that it was all crap last time and will probably be crap again," says Glenn Reynolds of, a conservative-leaning blog, who will be doing interviews for CNN via a Webcam from his Knoxville, Tenn., home.

Unreliable or not, for many bloggers exit polls are just too juicy to ignore. "Basically, yeah, we'll run everything we get the second we get it," says Alex Pareene of the irreverent Washington blog Wonkette. "Give the people what they want."

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Vets & Other Groups Impeachment Rally Nov 11, 2006

Organizing for Impeachment: Announcing a Movement
Schedule of Events, More Info:

Sept. 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution Signed at Independence Hall
Dec. 15, 1791 Bill of Rights Ratified
Oct. 17, 2006 Military Commissions Act Signed
Nov. 11, 2006 Movement to Impeach Bush and Cheney Announced

Followed by a Veterans Day Rally3:00 – 5:30 p.m.With the gold star parents of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, Lt. Seth Dvorin, and Casey Sheehan, all KIA 2004Sponsored by Delaware Valley Veterans for AmericaOutside Independence Hall, at 5th and Market StreetsMore information:

Donald Rumsfeld Will Resign

GOP: Rumsfeld stepping down
Defense chief has been a prime target of war critics in midterm elections
Updated: 11:05 a.m. MT Nov 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.
Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA under the first President Bush, would replace Rumsfeld. NBC News’ Tim Russert confirmed Rumsfeld’s resignation and the replacement pick.
The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.
President Bush was expected to announce Rumsfeld's departure and Gates' nomination at an afternoon news conference. Administration officials notified congressional officials in advance.
© 2006 The Associated Press.

Watch live: Bush makes announcement
Analysis: Bush could play defense
Discuss: What’s next for Bush?

Operation Tiger: for Truth and Justice.

Operation Tiger: for Truth and Justice.

Looks like 9/11 Truth and The Peace Movement now have a window of opportunity. The people have spoken, loud and clear in the 2006 Midterms, this time the mandate is “shut up, and get out, you neocons.” Weather you call it “cut and run” or just get the hell out of there, the end result will be welcomed by yours truly, not to mention the poor soldiers that are weary of the stop loss syndrome.

The Council for Foreign Relations, and the PNAC et al has once again slammed dunked the USA into yet another useless quagmire of blood n’ guts, and bad foreign relations And let’s not forget the raid on the US Treasury and the debt that will likely linger for generations to come. The “Shadow Government” has pulled some shady deals over on the American People, they have to go too.

We need to press the democrats to use the power they now have to get rid of the shadows of this unwanted, un-elected government that make many a decision that enriches them at the expense of us. I will be going to DC come 2007, to lobby Congress for the opening of an independent investigation into 9/11. If the funds come through, I will be prowling the halls of Congress like a relentless Tiger for Truth. I think I will call it, Operation Tiger: for Truth and Justice.

Eliot Spitzer took the gubernatorial race in New York State. He could be a good man to pursue about an investigation into 9/11 as well. There has been a real shift in the political paradigm. Ohio is now like night and day with the slate wiped clean of the dirt of those who helped steal the 2004 elections, and stole most anything they could get their grubby hands on.

This is no time to rest on laurels, it is time to shift into high gear, redouble efforts and run the table. Operation Tiger: for Truth and Justice, has a ring to it, let’s roll!
Alfons v911t

US Service Academy Graduates Against The War


The overwhelming response by alumni of United States service academies to the anti-war efforts of West Point Graduates Against the War has resulted in a combined arms organization of former and current land, sea, and air officers united against the war in Iraq.
The new organization, Service Academy Graduates Against the War was established by three West Pointers, William Cross, James Ryan, and Joseph Wojcik, all 1962 USMA graduates and cofounders of the former organization.
They were joined in the new endeavor by Dud Hendrick, a 1963 United States Naval Academy graduate and Terry Symens-Bucher, an alumnus of the United States Air Force Academy, class of 1975.
The new grassroots organization calls on graduates of all service academies to speak out against the destruction of the honor of the United States and the dissipation of its military caused by the deceitful policies of the present administration.
It also calls for the impeachment of the president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The founding alumni and their fellow service academy graduate members, instilled with the service academy codes of honor, believe a fundamental respect for truth is a basic and lifelong attribute of character. To that end, they have united to speak out against the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States and its widely known malefactors.
At issue is the lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling which has put vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril anddisgracefully diminished the integrity of the United States."660,000 people slaughtered," said James Ryan, "and still no one in the US government is held accountable for this crime against humanity."
The new website painstakingly documents the illegality of the assault on Iraq, anddocuments the lies and subterfuge perpetrated by the president of the UnitedStates and his subordinates."
All service academy grads should be concerned about the illegality of orders premised on the lies of the president," said Dud Hendrick, US NavalAcademy graduate. "We also serve to protect our fighting men and women from being subject to illegal and immoral orders."
Membership in Service Academy Graduates Against the W ar is open to allalumni of United States service academies, as well as widows, widowers,parents, children, and grandchildren of deceased graduates. Non-graduates may enroll as "Honor Guard" supporters.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Speaking Out For America Videos

International Community Speaks.War Crimes Demanded by 14 Lawyers

CCR, FIDH & 141 HR groups speak out
By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith

11/05/06 "
The Nation" -- -- On November 14 a group of lawyers and other experts will come before the German federal prosecutor and ask him to open a criminal investigation targeting Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other key Bush Administration figures for war crimes.

The recent passage of the Military Commissions Act provides a central argument for the legal action, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction: It demonstrates the intent of the Bush Administration to immunize itself legally from prosecution in the United States, even for the most serious crimes.

The Rumsfeld action was announced at a conference in New York City in late October titled "Is Universal Jurisdiction an Effective Tool?" The doctrine allows domestic courts to prosecute international crimes regardless of where the crime was committed, the nationality of the perpetrator or the nationality of the victim. It is reserved for only the most heinous offenses: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture.

A number of countries around the world have enacted universal jurisdiction statutes; even the United States allows it for certain terrorist offenses and torture. Many of the participants in the New York conference were human rights lawyers who have been expanding the use of universal jurisdiction since it was employed against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. In a recent case brought in Spain, for example, Argentine Adolfo Scilingo was tried and found guilty of crimes against humanity he committed in Argentina and sentenced to serve a 640-year prison term [see Geoff Pingree and Lisa Abend, "Spanish Justice," October 9].

The decision was made to try to prosecute Rumsfeld in Germany because its laws facilitate the use of universal jurisdiction.
The conference was sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which is bringing the case against Rumsfeld, and by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), a network of 141 national human rights organizations founded in 1922.

An earlier case against Rumsfeld was brought two years ago in Germany by CCR on behalf of four Iraqi victims of Abu Ghraib, drawing largely on documents and photos that revealed abuse at the prison. As the case was being considered, a security conference loomed in Munich. Rumsfeld, who could have been served papers or even arrested, refused to attend unless the case was dismissed. It was dismissed February 10; Rumsfeld flew to Germany the next day. The reason the prosecutor gave for the dismissal was that there was "no reason to believe that the accused would not be prosecuted in the United States"--notwithstanding powerful evidence that the officials who controlled prosecution were themselves part of the conspiracy to commit war crimes.

The new complaint will be based on the failure of US authorities to investigate and prosecute high-level officials.

The case will draw on a powerful new argument. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the President promoted and recently signed into law, provides retroactive immunity for civilians who violated the War Crimes Act, including officials of the Bush Administration. Such an attempt to provide immunity for their crimes, it will be argued, is in itself evidence of an effort to block prosecution of those crimes.
Indeed, according to Scott Horton, chair of the International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association, when Yugoslavia sought to immunize senior government officials, the United States declared the act itself to be evidence of such a conspiracy.

The new case will introduce other important elements as well. Lawyers who served as advocates, architects and enablers of prisoner abuse policies, like Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, will be added as defendants. Abuse in Guantánamo will be added to that in Abu Ghraib. The complaint will present new evidence showing responsibility for torture and prisoner abuse at the highest levels of the chain of command.

Wolfgang Kaleck, a German human rights lawyer who is bringing the case in cooperation with CCR, FIDH and other groups, told the conference in New York that he is often asked, Do you really expect Rumsfeld to be arrested for war crimes? His answer is that he doesn't expect it immediately. "But we make it possible that someday Rumsfeld will be arrested," he says. According to Kaleck, the German government regularly receives calls from potential high-level visitors asking, "Are there any complaints against me?"

Antoine Bernard, FIDH executive director, says that although there have been few convictions so far based on universal jurisdiction, "now fear is not just on the side of the victims but also of the torturers." And that, supporters argue, will have a deterrent effect on government officials who contemplate using torture.

Peter Weiss, vice president of both CCR and FIDH and an elder statesman of international human rights law, notes that it took fifty years to get the Supreme Court's Brown decision outlawing school segregation, but during all that time people kept bringing cases that eventually changed the legal system's fundamental position. "New norms are being constituted to deal with the reality on the ground," he said. "Later those norms become real, practical, enforceable law."

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Molten Metal at the WTC: Incendiary Catalyst in the Dust?

The best evidence about 9/11 is the molten metal at the WTC 1, 2, and 7. Pools of molten metal that persisted for 100 days. There was nothing in the building that could have caused that, allegedly. So what did cause the molten metal? That is what Dr. Steve Jones and others are trying to figure out.
v911t Physics Page shows evidence of the molten metal
There was dust sample analysis by the USGS, EPA, and other contractors. If incendiaries were used there would be tell tale signs in the dust. Nano enhanced Thermite? There are signs of Penetration Augmented Munitions chemicals. I had noticed higher concentrations of these chemical elements on girder coating samples vs other dust samples. Why would just these elements be found in higher concentrations on the girders? Uranium, Thorium, Lead, Cerium, Yttrium, and Lanthanum.

Chemistry Table 1, continued Indoor dust samples and Girder coatings Shows fairly large quanity differnces between indoor dust samples, and girder coatings for Uranium, Thorium, Lead, Cerium, Yttrium, and Lanthanum. I wonder why that would be?
Indoor dust samples girder coatingsUranium ppm 2.7 - 3.23 vs 4.72 - 7.57 Thorium ppm 7.25 - 8.64 vs 17.9 - 30.7

About Thorium
Thorium is Pyrophoric --- Soil commonly contains an average of around 12 parts per million (ppm) of thorium.
Pyrophoric Metals
Thorium as ingrediant in incendiaryThere is provided an improved armor-piercing incendiary projectile having within the nosepiece thereof an incendiary comprising a matrix of a first metal selected from the group consisting of zirconium, titanium, thorium, hafnium, uranium, and mixtures thereof; and an intermetallic compound formed between the matrix and a second metal selected from the group consisting of tin, lead, and mixtures thereof. Upon impact with armor, the incendiary burns at temperatures heretofore unattainable, as well as providing cushioning and lubrication for the penetrator.
Alfons v911t

Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Talks About 9/11

Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Talks About 9/11
11/03/06 Video - Runtime 7 Minutes

Camp Casey interview with Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern. He talks about running into ex-Secretary of the Department of Transportation Norman Mineta and confronting him regarding his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that Cheney was well aware of the location and destination of Flight 77 (or whatever it was) and forced NORAD to stand-down and allowed it to hit the Pentagon.
11/03/06 Video - Runtime 7 Minutes