How shall We approach this?
Refering to the 911 Scholars Symposium. I was watching and listening to the four guys... Steve Jones, Bowman, Tarpley, and Fetzer, and each of them were good in different ways. Fetzer was impassioned from his depths, I think, and Tarpley had a lot of info at his "neuron tips," and Prof. Jones was just bemused and really kind of out of his natural environment and it showed. He acted like a kid who has discovered a new toy and doesn't realize it is a loaded gun with the safety off. Bowman was politicking - maybe he's sincere, I don't know.
Anyway, combined, they did produce a strong impression that might sway a lot of people to their view which includes arresting Bush and the whole gang for treason. Bowman even says that if he is elected to congress, he'll make it an issue "on the hill."
So, the question is, of course, why are they being allowed to have even a toe in the door?
That was my first question and as I was listening to all of them pat themselves on the back that they were NOW getting a lot of attention, that people were opening up and seeing the truth, and it was just a matter of time before the whole thing blows wide open, I could only think: You don't know what you are dealing with. Facing down psychopaths isn't going to be that easy.
For example, they are all talking big about arresting the Neocon gang en masse and "taking back the government."
Okay, try to imagine the steps by which this might be done.
Go ahead... think!
The first thing is: who is going to do it?
Alex Jones? Webster Tarpley? A group of 911 researchers?
Do you think that, if they had the remotest chance of doing such a thing that they would be allowed to leave their houses on the day they plan to execute said warrant in anything other than a bodybag?
Who, pray tell, is going to back the fearless 911 gang with plans to arrest the President and most of Congress? A gang of NRA aficionados armed to the teeth? What do you think will happen?
Come on now, think! Think ARMY vs. rabble with hunting rifles and maybe an odd AK 47 here and there.
And even if you did manage to actually take the perps into custody, who is going to try the case and before what judge that hasn't been bought and paid for by the Neocons?
Picture the scenario: a group of U.S. citizens band together and start REALLY pushing to go after Bush and Cheney...
Can you give me a script here? I'm having a hard time getting beyond the idea that all of them would be immediately arrested as "enemy combatants".
So now it is time to have a peek at some of the reality;
Shield sought for US personnel from 1996 war crimes act
Charges feared in detainee cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post | July 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes and prosecuted in US courts.
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant US personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if US-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.
In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that said international conventions apply to the treatment of such detainees, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such protections, according to someone who heard his remarks last week.
Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield was needed for actions taken by US
personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.
Language in the administration's draft, which was prepared by officials in the Justice and Defense departments, seeks to protect US personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by making US enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to US -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.
The aim, Justice Department lawyers say, is also to take advantage of US legal precedents that limit sanctions to conduct that ''shocks the conscience." This phrase allows the courts to consider the context in which abusive treatment occurs, such as an urgent need for information, the lawyers say -- even though the Geneva prohibitions are absolute.
Now, read this next one - this ought to shiver your timbers:
Bush Submits New Terror Detainee Bill
By Anne Plummer Flaherty The Associated Press Friday 28 July 2006
Washington - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.
"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.
Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court - and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.
The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.
Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.
The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.
"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.
The draft proposal contends that an existing law - passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. - that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.
Now, we already know that the Neocon/Zionist consortium has control of Congress. No matter how many questions or doubts they say they have about this bill, they will roll over and pass this legislation. In fact, any discussion at all is just for show. We know that already because we have seen it happen again and again.
Now, consider what Paul Craig Roberts wrote about Bush's illegal spying...
Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.
Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12-28-05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?
There are two possible reasons.
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that ** the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities. **
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
When Roberts suggests
"What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election? "
... he doesn't really go the full distance.
What if the illegal spying is to gain complete control of government and judiciary? Everybody has dirty laundry, and if you have that information, you can control about anything. The only people you can't control are those who are "clean" and we can guess from the way things are going in the U.S. and UK, just about everybody is "dirty."
Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in the last election. They NEVER do that unless they are unhappy with the status quo. The exit polls and evidence of vote tampering suggests strongly that Bush did not win the election... (which is not to say that Kerry was any better choice!)
So, not only do they have control of congress and the judiciary, they also control the votes... As Stalin said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. And with control of congress and the judiciary AND the support of the Israeli owned media, there is NO possibility of them being made accountable for ANY of their crimes.
So, considering the cards that the Neocons are holding in terms of illegal spying, I think we need to be realistic and understand that even the next election is not going to change anything.
Oh, they may make a show of running Jeb Bush for president, or even some dark horse we don't know about. But with the controls this cabal has already, there is ZERO possibility of fundamental change in course.
And that means that all those folks getting up and speaking out about 911 may very well be the first to be rounded up as enemy combatants under Bush's new law once it is passed.
In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards...
When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them. ...
The first rule of warfare is: KNOW your enemy and the whole 911 crowd is so focused on their theories, blinded by their egos, and unaware of the larger context in which 911 must be placed that they are little more than sheep being led to the slaughter by the Pied Pipers of the "Third Rank Alternative Press" and 911 Truth organizations - people like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, Alex Constantine, and their associates and fans.