Liberty or Death

According to the Center for American Progress, the war is Iraq is costing $177 million per day, $7.4 million per hour, and $122,820 per minute. The Center has available a Cost of Iraq War Ticker that can be added to websites.

Bush unexpectedly invited questions from the audience and immediately was asked about the number of Iraqi casualties in the war.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=051212&cat=news&st=newsd8eerhkg0&src=ap

"I would say 30,000 more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," the president said. "We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces!http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts'!"

US Torture victim: 'They would cut me 30 times in two hours'
Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi is accused by the US government of planning a dirty bomb attack in America. He says he was tortured until he admitted the crime.
He was arrested at Karachi airport in April 2002, with a passport under the name of Fouad Zouawi, a friend, and with a ticket to Zurich and then on to London.
In documents compiled by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, he describes an encounter with someone he believes to be an MI6 officer and details the horror of his torture. Mr Habashi says the officer told him 'I'll see what we can do with the Americans'. "They gave me a cup of tea with a lot of sugar in it. He said 'Where you're going you need a lot of sugar'."
He was taken to Morocco and questioned, then tortured after refusing to admit links al-Qa'ida links.
"They took the scalpel to my right chest. One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours. They would do it to me about once a month."
The treatment continued in the so-called "Prison of Darkness" in Kabul, where he was kept from January to May in 2004.
"The US military told us 'Bin Laden had his laugh on 9/11 so it is now our time to have our laugh'," he said. "They would hang me up. I was allowed a few hours' sleep on the second day, then I was hung up, this time for two days. My legs had swollen. My wrists and hands had gone numb.
"Then I was taken off the wall and left in the dark. There was loud music, Slim Shady and Dr Dre, for 20 days. I heard this non-stop over and over, and they changed the sounds to horrible ghost laughter and Hallowe'en sounds. The only light I saw came from guards using flashlights to bring inedible food.
"I lost 20kg in the weeks of my stay. They used to come and weigh us every other day; it seemed like they were making sure we were losing weight."

Abuse Cited In 2nd Jail Operated by Iraqi MinistryOfficial Says 12 Prisoners
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121101002_pf.html
The abuse alleged at the prison found this week appeared to have been more severe. Asked specifically what types of torture were found in the commandos' prison, the official cited breaking of bones, torture with electric shock, extraction of fingernails and cigarette burns to the neck and back. International law, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture, bans torture in all cases. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad issued a sharp public rebuke of the Iraqi government after the secret prison was discovered last month, demanding in a statement that all detainees nationwide be treated in accord with human rights.

Torture victim: 'They would cut me 30 times in two hours'
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article332481.ece
Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi is accused by the US government of planning a dirty bomb attack in America. He says he was tortured until he admitted the crime.
He was arrested at Karachi airport in April 2002, with a passport under the name of Fouad Zouawi, a friend, and with a ticket to Zurich and then on to London.
In documents compiled by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, he describes an encounter with someone he believes to be an MI6 officer and details the horror of his torture. Mr Habashi says the officer told him 'I'll see what we can do with the Americans'. "They gave me a cup of tea with a lot of sugar in it. He said 'Where you're going you need a lot of sugar'."
He was taken to Morocco and questioned, then tortured after refusing to admit links al-Qa'ida links.
"They took the scalpel to my right chest. One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours. They would do it to me about once a month."
The treatment continued in the so-called "Prison of Darkness" in Kabul, where he was kept from January to May in 2004.
"The US military told us 'Bin Laden had his laugh on 9/11 so it is now our time to have our laugh'," he said. "They would hang me up. I was allowed a few hours' sleep on the second day, then I was hung up, this time for two days. My legs had swollen. My wrists and hands had gone numb.
"Then I was taken off the wall and left in the dark. There was loud music, Slim Shady and Dr Dre, for 20 days. I heard this non-stop over and over, and they changed the sounds to horrible ghost laughter and Hallowe'en sounds. The only light I saw came from guards using flashlights to bring inedible food.
"I lost 20kg in the weeks of my stay. They used to come and weigh us every other day; it seemed like they were making sure we were losing weight."

The Bush administration defends its policy of "extraordinary rendition." Everyone who has survived the policy has testified to experiencing brutal torture.
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8243
So we have the entire Western world complicit in kidnapping and torture. The entire non-Western world surely notices the unbridgeable gap between the Bush administration's immoral practices and Bush's moral posturing about "freedom and democracy." The prestige of the Western world is gone forever. People will say anything under torture, which is why the practice and the "evidence" it provides were ruled inadmissible centuries ago.

The president would like us to believe the Iraqi insurgency against U.S. occupation forces 10,000 miles away that is fought with small arms and homemade bombs is a grave and imminent security threat to the United States.
http://interventionmag.com/Primary/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=63
Lies Versus TruthsLie #1: "These extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace."Truth #1: The Islamist extremist groups want to limit American and other Western influence in the Middle East and their ideology is not in favor of democratic institutions or peaceful means to advance their goals. But what radical Islamists have against Americans in the Middle East is not related to America's stand in support for democracy and peace. Their Islamist extremists' manifestoes make it clear (as do recorded interviews with their leaders) that the radical Islamist opposition to America stems mostly from: 1) U.S. support for autocratic Arab governments; 2) the invasion of Iraq; 3) the ongoing U.S. military presence in the region; 4) U.S. backing for the Israeli occupation; and 5) related concerns which have nothing to do with democracy and peace.Lie #2: "Al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their 'resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands.' Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences."Truth #2: Al-Qaeda has existed for less than 15 years. There was no Al-Qaeda network anywhere 25 years ago. Also, they never "expect us to run" when hit. Indeed, all evidence points to their hope and expectation that the U.S. will continue to overreact through disproportionate and misapplied military force. This, in turn, will exacerbate the explosive increase in anti-Americanism throughout the Islamic world, thereby helping them to recruit new members.Bush's "sad history of Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993" was not the belated withdrawal of U.S. forces but rather the U.S. militarily intervention in those countries in the first place. The resistance fighting against U.S. Marines in Lebanon had been mainly composed of Shiite and Druze militiamen who never had any affiliation with al-Qaeda (a Salafi Sunni organization). In Somalia, U.S. forces battled militiamen affiliated with a number of Somali clans, but none of them had any connection with al-Qaeda.Lie #3: "The militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they have set their sight on Iraq....We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror."Truth #3: Small groups of radical Islamists indeed engaged in a series of terrorist bombings and assassinations in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Jordan in recent years. However, these groups never had a popular following and were never a serious threat to the survival of any of those regimes.The main reason they succeeded in Afghanistan resulted mainly from the U.S. government sending some $5 billion in military aid to radical Islamic groups back in the 1980s. This U.S. policy to aid radical Islamists was for supporting their fight with Afghanistan's Communist government and its Soviet backers, for weakening the latter.The "vacuum" enabling radical Islamists to effectively challenge the Iraqi government took place as a direct result of the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power by U.S. forces. Before Bush invaded Iraq, the only significant base of operations for such radical Islamists was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's encampment in the far northeastern corner of Iraq. Located within the autonomous Kurdish areas, Saddam's government couldn't control Al-Zarqawi. But now, following the U.S. invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam's government, Al-Zarqawi's militants operate throughout Sunni central Iraq and, in the meantime, their numbers have increased dramatically. Lie #4: "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation."Truth #4: Maybe the Salafi Sunni revivalists harbor Bush's fantasies, but they are just that -- fantasies. The United States has more than a dozen allied governments in the region, motivated and able to resist these fanatics -- who, outside of Iraq, have very few adherents in other countries of the Islamic world.Dozens of armed Iraqi groups are battling U.S. occupation forces and the U.S.-backed government. These include: supporters of Saddam Hussein's former regime; other Baathists; independent nationalists; various Shiite factions; an assortment of tribal-based groups; a number of Sunni Arab factions; and even several legions of old fashioned bandits. Bush's focus in his speech that the al-Qaeda-inspired jihadists may be mostly responsible for the majority of terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians is simply not true. Truthfully, they represent a very small minority of the insurgency. These jihadists may produce the "biggest bang for the buck," but in the unlikely event that the Iraqi government is overthrown, there is no chance these extreme elements could ever end up in control. Lie #5: "Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, 'We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.' And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history."Truth #5: Bush's suggestion that Al-Zarqawi could somehow acquire the power of an Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin is completely absurd. Al-Zarqawi lacks: the human and military resources; the state apparatus; the popular support; the propaganda machinery: the disciplined political party; the armies; the industrial base; or any other attribute that could conceivably give him that kind of power. Bush has repeatedly, cynically played on the fears of the American people with his hyperbolic and fantastic images. He also shows a callous disrespect, by trivializing their tragic deaths, for the millions of people who were victims of Nazism and Communism.Lie #6: "Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001--and al-Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan."Truth #6: This is yet another of Bush's interminable straw men. No one claimed that the Islamist radicals responsible for the massacre in Beslan were in any way motivated by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Those Chechen terrorists were nationalists fighting against the Russian occupation of their homeland. The CIA, top Pentagon officials and other U.S. government agencies have openly acknowledged that the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the bloody counter-insurgency operations that followed has greatly enhanced the appeal of radical Islamist groups and enhanced their recruitment. Russians and Chechens are completely irrelevant.Lie #7: "Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago... No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder."Truth #7: There are no major opponents of the U.S. war in Iraq and other U.S. policies in the Middle East calling for concessions, bribes or appeasement to influence al-Qaeda and like-minded extremists. Truthfully, a strong case has been made that many U.S. policies strengthened these extremist movements by encouraging the growth of anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. The violence unleashed against the Iraqis by Bush's military intervention directly led to an increase of the appeal of extremist ideologies in the Islamic world.Lie #8: "Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence."Truth #8: This is a totally false argument. Reports by scholars and journalists familiar with the various constituent elements of the Iraqi insurgency consistently conclude that the vast majority of the insurgents are not dedicated to the destruction of the United States. They simply want all foreign occupation forces out of their country (and their sacred Islamic sites). The radical Islamist elements led by Al-Zarqawi and other supporters of Osama bin Laden had virtually no presence in Saddam Hussein's Iraq until after the United States invaded the country. Radical Islamist influence grew in subsequent months as a reaction to the large-scale civilian casualties ("collateral damage") resulting from massive U.S. counter-insurgency military tactics. Clearly, a strong case can be made -- by extrapolation - that by continuing the war the chances that Al-Zarqawi and like-minded radicals could take over the country is actually increased.Lie #9: "If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure."Truth #9: Bush's foreign policies are doing almost nothing to advance the cause of self-determination, the rule of law, religious freedom and equal rights for women in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the U.S. trains its repressive internal security apparatus and annually sells billions of dollars worth of weapons to the family dictatorship that rules the country. Saudi Arabia has no constitution, no legislature, and nothing resembling popular representation. It bans the practice of any faith besides Islam, practices torture on an administrative basis, and is possibly the most repressive country in the world towards denying women's rights.The Egyptian dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak remains the second largest recipient of U.S. economic and military assistance despite ongoing repression of pro-democracy movements and their leaders while suppressing freedom of the press.Similarly, Bush's policies continue to maintain close military and political ties between the U.S. and autocratic regimes in: Oman; the United Arab Emirates; Bahrain; Qatar; Kuwait; Azerbaijan; Pakistan; Tunisia; and Morocco - and there are many among others. The U.S. is the world's number one supplier of military and police training to autocratic regimes and occupation armies in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. Also, Bush's claim is untrue that the U.S. supports the right of self-determination in the Middle East. After all, the Bush administration continues to support Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara. Bush's administration continues to deny the Iraqi government full sovereignty by controlling key areas of fiscal, security and economic policy. Moreover, the proposed constitution being pushed by the Bush administration allows fewer rights for women and less religious freedom generally than what Saddam Hussein's dictatorship had permitted.

posted by crusader bunnypants  # 12.12.05 0 comments

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"

CONSTITUTION OFTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/US_Constitution.txt.html
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of theUnited States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Dear President Bush; about that "goddamned piece of paper."

Let us start out with the fact that the Constitution is actually written on parchment, not paper. A trivial point, I grant you, but one that reveals (along with your inability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear") a shocking lack of education in a head of state.
But to get to the point, the Constitution is not the parchment itself, but the ideas written upon it; ideas which form the foundations of our nation, ideas which would carry equal weight if written on stone, glass, metal, or even paper. These ideas are the soul of the nation. They include the recognition that the people of this nation have certain rights, rights which the government does not have the authority to remove. These rights include freedom of speech, to say what we think about the nation at any and all times, to write that opinion down and share it however we choose to. These rights include the freedom to worship as we choose, free from coercion. These rights include the right to privacy, in our homes and businesses, free from government intrusions other than in very specific and well-defined circumstances.
Maybe those rights are inconvenient to you, as such rights are always inconvenient to tyrants, but you are not allowed the choice which rights you will abide by or not. That too is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution.
The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper or parchment. It's a contract; the original contract with America. It's the contract you yourself swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. You attached your name to that promise. You swore that oath before a judge of the United States Supreme Court, with your hand on a bible. That isn't just scenery for the cameras. Swearing an oath before a judge carries legal obligations with that oath, and legal penalties for breaking that oath.
The election process by which you claim authority is defined in that Constitution. And as you claim authority by Constitutional process, so too are you limited by Constitutional process. If you act outside the limits of the Constitution, you are no longer acting as the President, but as a private citizen abusing the powers with which you were trusted. A government that acts outside the Constitution ceases to be the legal government of this land.
The Constitution exists not only to tell the government what it may do, but more importantly what it may not do. You, as the President, are not allowed to declare wars without the US Congress. You, the President, are not allowed to seize people at random and send them off to be tortured. And most of all, you, the President, and not allowed to lie to the people and to the Congress.
Every President before you, including your father, swore that oath to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution. Millions of Americans died in wars in the firm belief that the form of government describes on that parchment was worth such a sacrifice. To state that the Constitution is just a "dammed piece of paper" is a slap in the face of every American who ever donned the uniform of the military forces of this country.
Go over to Arlington National Cemetery. It's not that far from where you live. Look at those tombstones. By your statement, you have written across and every one the words, "Died for a goddamned piece of paper."

We'll Miss Saddam
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8235
The U.S. government has supported a lot of killers and thugs, and if it continues its imperialistic foreign policy, it will keep on doing so because our foreign policy completely lacks any morality.

http://iraq-kill-maim.org/
This presents about 4,000 photographs showing the Iraq War killing and maiming, most from the Associated Press's archive and others from sources listed. The photographs were obtained from a library which provides its members free online access to the AP archives along with many other electronic collections. The library logs online accesses to its collections and is subject to secret, non-disclosible demands for access logs from US authorities.

Towards a Greater Air War on Iraq?
http://counterpunch.org/jacobs12012005.html
It seems that air power does not win wars--it only destroys the earth and makes a lot of money for the weapons industry. That, and increases the hatred of the population that the aircraft and their pilots are bombing Perhaps if an aggressor is willing to carry such a policy to its logical conclusion-- total devastation--than that aggressor can probably win its war, albeit there will be little left to win (except for that oil in the case of Iraq). Is this what George Bush means when he insists on nothing short of victory? If not, than it seems that the only reason for a strategy that replaces ground combat with death from the air is some kind of chauvinistic revenge.

OCCUPIED BAGHDAD, New Iraq - Four American soldiers were killed in separate attacks in the Baghdad area Saturday.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=051210&cat=news&st=newsd8edfb280&src=ap
Also Saturday, the U.S. military said an American soldier was killed and 11 others wounded the day before in a suicide car bombing in the Abu Ghraib district of western Baghdad.

Bush rejects Iraq timetable, Republicans assail critics
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09185585.htm
"Our Country Is At War. Our Soldiers Are Watching and Our Enemies Are Too. Message To Democrats: Retreat And Defeat Is Not an Option."

There were signs this week of a siege mentality developing in the Bush administration.
http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2005/s1528239.htm
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took aim at the media for rushing to report negative stories about the US military.

US Military investigates Iraq gunfire film
The US military in Iraq has launched a formal investigation into a video that appears to show security contractors firing randomly at Iraqi civilians.

Brothers: Hostages were gathering evidence of torture in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/09/iraq.main/index.html
The four men have been gathering evidence about people being treated poorly while "detained by occupation forces!"

Local peace activist delays Iraq trip; calls for captives' release
There is no irony. The "Swords of Justice" is another phony group run by either CIA or Mossad, and the purpose of the killings is to discourage other would-be citizen investigators from sticking their noses into the tortures and human rights abuses taking place in Iraq.

So of course, "Al Qaeda" (nudge nudge wink wink) would want to stop THAT kind of thing!
I mean, Giuliana Sgrena was grabbed by "Al Qaeda" (nudge nudge wink wink) when investigating the use of chemical weapons by the US in Fallujah. Now this "Swords of Justice" group is kidnapping people looking into the human rights abuses committed by Americans in Iraq.
Just whose side is "Al Qaeda" (nudge nudge wink wink) really on?

Al-Qa'ida operative 'lied about links with Iraq to avoid torture'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article332208.ece
Last month, in a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, it emerged that some US intelligence agencies had doubts about his testimony a full year before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The revelation was seized upon by war critics as fresh proof that the White House distorted intelligence to make its case for war.

No torture of terrorist suspects? We can't guarantee it, says Rice
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2373312005
"Will there be abuses of policy? That's entirely possible," she said on a visit to NATO headquarters. "Just because you're a democracy it doesn't mean that you're perfect."

German Chancellor Says Rice Admitted US Kidnapping Of German Citizen Was A Mistake…
As soon as the press conference was over US officials denied Ms Rice has said any such thing.

Memo notes U.S. feared jet attack prior to 9/11
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10398375/
There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets. In 1995, U.S. and Filipino authorities uncovered a plot by Ramsey Yusef, nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind Sept. 11. Yusef threatened to hide bombs on planes and blow them up over the Pacific. The most notable security warning, Windrem said, was a presidential briefing on an Aug. 6, 2000, that mentioned the possibility of passenger airliners being used in terrorist attacks.

If it really really was terrorist who planned and executed the WTC fiasco, they could of never in their dreams imagined that it would cause the total destruction of 3 buildings. All they could of hoped for was a hole in the building and a few hundred victims. They would be totally clueless to the fact that the buildings would totally collapse. What would the gov have done with the buildings if they had'nt collapsed. Well they would of done the same thing they did at the OKC bombing, they would have called in Controlled Demolition to finish them off. I bet if someone had the investigative powers, they would find remnants of personell from a company that specializes in controlled demolition being in NYC days or weeks before 9/11. We all know they were imploded and there are few people in this world that have that kind of expertise.

Most Americans carry cellphones, but many may not know that government agencies can track their movements through the signals emanating from the handset.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/technology/10phone.html?hp&ex=1134277200&en=0bbac22f61d8c98a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Cellular operators like Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless know, within about 300 yards, the location of their subscribers whenever a phone is turned on. Even if the phone is not in use it is communicating with cellphone tower sites, and the wireless provider keeps track of the phone's position as it travels. The operators have said that they turn over location information when presented with a court order to do so.

Update 14: Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/09/ap2381208.html
"The first time I heard the word 'bomb' was when I was interviewed by the FBI," McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."

Comply and Submit -- Or Die
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2791.shtml
“From what we know,” lisped Bush administration spokesliar Scott McClellan after federal air marhsals gunned down 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar in Miami, “the team of air marshals acted in a way that is consistent with the training they received.... It appears they followed the protocols and did what they were trained to do.... [W]e are very appreciative for all that the air marshals are doing to protect the American people.”
Who's this “we,” paleface?
Assuming that McClellan's assessment is correct, and the summary execution of Mr. Alpizar by the tax-fattened drones grandly styled “air marshals” was carried out according to federal “protocols,” we no longer need to wonder whether terrorist sleeper cells continue to infest American commercial flights.
“Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you,” recalled passenger John McAlhany in an interview with Time. Amid the confusion and tension that ensued when Alpizar bolted from the plane, McAlhany and the other passengers had been ordered by the flight crew to hit the deck. He was talking on his cell phone with his brother and “looking through the seats to see what was coming” and to take action if he saw an attack coming. His assailant approached him from behind and “karate-chopped” his cell phone away. “Then I reazlied it was an official,” he explained. That is to say that those terrorizing the passengers worked for George W. Bush, not Osama bin Laden.
Make no mistake about it, this was a deadly terrorist incident. One man was killed, others were assaulted, and dozens were terrorized. “They [the air marshals] were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground,” McAlhany testifies. “One little girl was crying. There was a lady crying all the way to the hotel.”
As if being terrorized at gunpoint weren't enough, the passengers were marched off the plane with their hands on their head and then repeatedly prompted by federal authorities to say that Alpizar claimed to have a bomb in his backpack. According to Daniel Adams of the Federal Air Marshal Service, prior to the shooting Alpizar had been running up and down the aisles of the plane shouting that he had a bomb in his possession – a claim not verified by any of the witnesses, and disputed by several of them.
In fact, the hapless Costa Rican immigrant, who became a naturalized U.S. Citizen a few years ago, apparently suffered from a panic attack – which would understandably trigger alarm on the part of the flight crew and security officials, but is hardly a capital offense. Just before the federales pumped several rounds into the panic-stricken American citizen, his wife – who had been trying to calm him down – frantically explained that her husband was “sick” and needed his medication. But before she could help Rigoberto, his life had been violently taken from him by the officials supposedly there to protect him.
Eyewitnesses described how Alpizar had been ordered by the marshals to fall flat on the ground, which he couldn't do because he was wearing a fanny pack. Some observers believed that Alpizar was attempting to adjust his fanny pack in order to comply with the demand when he was gunned down.
“Based on their training,” asserted Adams, “[the air marhsals] had to take appropriate action to defuse the situation to prevent a danger to themselves and also passengers in the terminal.” Wouldn't it have been more sensible, if protecting the passengers was the objective, to find out what was actually happening before the lead began to fly?
Nope. Too risky. The only safe option was open gunplay.
The Washington Times, one of the Bush regime's most credulous and servile media shills, denounced those who engaged in “second-guessing” the actions of the air marshals. Embracing the unsubstantiated and self-serving account offered by the marshals service, the paper editorialized: “A marshal who hestitates to shoot someone behaving as Mr. Alpizar did is not doing his job.... Mr. Alpizar's death is a reminder of how seriously the marshals treat airline security. We should all take due notice.”
In other words: Comply and submit, or die. If you happen to be the innocent victim of the mistaken application of federal “protocols,” you'll be used as an object lesson, while your murderers (no other word fits) are extolled as brave defenders of the public.
The slaughter of Mr. Alpizar offers a perfect illustration of Paul Craig Roberts' warning that modern America is divided between those whom the law cannot restrain, and those it doesn't protect.
Oh, one other thing: In an age when the president and his cohorts claim the right to stage "pre-emptive" invasions of foreign countries, should we really be surprised when innocent American citizens are "pre-emptively" murdered by federal law enforcement officials?

posted by crusader bunnypants  # 10.12.05 0 comments

Q Can I ask, when the President came to the Rose Garden this morning, about 10:45 a.m., at that hour did the White House already know about this attack on the Marines in Fallujah? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051202-2.html
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we did. The President was informed about the loss of the Marines last night, and those that were injured, and then he was briefed again this morning. We are saddened by the loss of life, whether it's one soldier who loses his or her life, or 10 or 11. We are saddened to hear that news. Our heart and prayers go out to the families. Their loved ones paid the ultimate sacrifice for an important cause, and we are forever grateful for their service and sacrifice.
Q On a day when you're trying to trumpet what you describe as good economic news, the President comes out and minutes later it becomes public that these Marines were killed and injured. Does that undercut your good news?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you have to separate out the two issues. First of all, again, we are saddened to learn about the loss of life of these brave Marines, and we are concerned about those who have been wounded in the attack. Our thoughts and prayers will remain with their families. And we will be forever grateful for their sacrifice.
In terms of the news today on the economy, that's another issue. And it's not what we're trumpeting, it's what the facts show. The facts show that our economy is in good shape. This is the latest indication that our economy is showing sustained and strong economic expansion. And that's important -- that's an important priority for the American people.
Q Do you think the President is getting the credit that you think he deserves regarding the economy when Iraq --
MR. McCLELLAN: And in terms of -- let me just mention, in terms of the announcement of the loss of life, I mean, that's determined by the military. And one thing that they do is make sure that the families are notified ahead of time, as well. And so that's something that they -- before those names are released. And so we leave the timing up to the military so that they can address those concerns and issues before making announcements public.

Q Scott, it was just this week, obviously, that the President made this major -- what you billed as a major speech introducing his plan for victory in Iraq. Do you think the deadly attacks, as we saw today, that take the lives of 10 Marines, wound 11 or more others, does that make it a more difficult sell to the American public to persuade them that this strategy is working?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what we're trying to do is lay the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren. Others focus on the polls. We're focused on the safety and security of the American people. And that's what we will continue to do. That's what this is about. This is about the war on terrorism. The stakes are very high in Iraq. And we're going to continue to talk to the American people about what those stakes are, and the nature of the enemy that we're up against.
We're up against an enemy that has no regard for innocent human life; terrorists that seek to spread their hateful ideology across the broader Middle East. And that's why it's so important that we remain engaged in the Middle East and that we take the fight to the enemy, and that we work to spread freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. The Iraqi people are determined to build a future that is based on freedom and democracy. They are getting ready to go to the polls here again in two weeks. And we recognize that the terrorists and the regime loyalists are going to try to do what they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. Every step of the way they have failed, and they will continue to fail, because everyone has a right to live in freedom. And the Iraqi people want to live in freedom.
And that's why we're there helping them. And what it will do is help inspire the rest of the Middle East and help lay the foundations of peace for generations to come. And that's why it's so important that we succeed. And that's what the President is talking about in his remarks. And that's why he's talking about, we've got a plan for victory. Most Americans want to see our troops succeed. They also want to see them come home. And the way they come home is to complete the mission and achieve victory, and deal a major blow to the terrorists right in the heart of the Middle East.
Q Yes, but by the President's own account, the terrorists aren't the biggest part of the problem in Iraq, so --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let Kathleen finish up. Kathleen had a follow up.
Q Sorry.
Q But, again, Scott. You know, when you have such a --
MR. McCLELLAN: And that's wrong. I'll come back to that.
Q When you have such a deadly attack, and say this is a ramp-up on the part of the insurgents there, leading up to the December 15th elections, if you have more and more deaths like this of U.S. service members, will this not make it harder to convince the American public that your plan is working?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's important to keep the American people informed about the war we're engaged in, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and throughout the world. The President said after September 11th, this is going to be a long war. We are in a struggle against a radical ideology that is based on hatred and oppression and fear. And this is what we're up against. The President talked about this right after September 11th. And he learned the lessons of September 11th, which taught us that we need to take the fight to the enemy, and that we need to work to change the status quo in the broader Middle East.
And as we keep the American people informed, it's important to not only keep them informed about the clear plan we have for succeeding and prevailing in Iraq and defeating the terrorists, but it's also important to keep them informed about the challenges and the difficulties that remain. There's important progress that's being made. It's important not to ignore the progress that's being made on the ground.
And it's important to always remember the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we will be forever grateful, and we will always honor their sacrifice in our -- and we will always provide comfort and support to their families. That's what this President has done. I've seen him visit time and time again with the families of the fallen, and hug them and console them, and remind them about the importance of what their loved one sacrificed for, whether it was in Afghanistan or Iraq. But the President said the other day that there are going to be tough days ahead. And, certainly, when you have a loss like you did with these Marines yesterday, that's a tough day. But what they're sacrificing for is peace for our children and grandchildren for years to come.
Q Do you want to come back to this question, because, look --
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I'll come back to you.
Q -- when you guys frame this, as you just did, it's always about the war on terror. But by the President's own account in his speech on Wednesday, the jihadists are the smallest of the three elements which are fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: What did he say about the jihadists?
Q You know what he said about the jihadists.
MR. McCLELLAN: He said, the smallest, but most lethal.
Q Well, yes, but you frame it as a war on terror, and it's about much more than that, as he, himself, said.
MR. McCLELLAN: It is about the war on terrorism. It's about much more than Iraq.
Q It's about the rejection of the power that was held by the Sunni minority, it's about rejection of foreign presence in the country. It's about a lot of things in addition to the jihadists.
MR. McCLELLAN: It's about the broader war on terrorism, is what it's about, Bill. And maybe you have a different understanding about it, but the President understands clearly the stakes that are involved in this broader war on terrorism. That's why he takes a comprehensive view of how we succeed in this war on terrorism. And that's why he's taken the fight to the enemy. That's why he's supporting efforts to expand freedom and democracy in the heart of a dangerous region of the world. And we will continue to act. We will continue to support those who want to live in freedom. And Iraq will inspire the rest of the Middle East and help us lay the foundations of peace that I've been talking about.
And in terms of the terrorists, what he said the other day in his speech -- I must correct you -- was that they may be the smallest group, but they're the most lethal. These are people that have no regard for innocent human lives, and the people that they've targeted the most have been Iraqi civilians, innocent men, women and children.
Q But you seem to frame it in that unique picture, when instead there are many other elements involved.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's look at the letter that Zawahiri sent to Zarqawi. They said this is the central front in the war on terrorism. The terrorists recognize that; so do we. That's why it's so important we succeed there.

posted by crusader bunnypants  # 3.12.05 0 comments