http://rawstory.com/2010/02/human-rights-activist-seeks-prove-antiterrorism-law-violation-free-speech/
Civil rights activist seeks to prove anti-terrorism law a violation of free speech

Ralph Fertig, a 79-year-old professor who has fought for civil rights most of his life, wants to be a public advocate for the oppressed Kurdish minority in Turkey.

The problem?

He's worried the US government, which calls the group a terrorist organization, will throw him in prison for 15 years as a collaborator.

So Fertig has challenged the law as the lead plaintiff in a case the Supreme Court will hear early next week.

Specifically, Fertig is challenging a 1996 provision in the Patriot Act that allows long prison terms for anyone for helps or advocates for terrorist groups in any way. According to government lawyers, the law not only prevents "training" or "assistance" to terrorists, but also the filing of a legal brief or writing an op-ed essay on behalf of a designated terrorist group.

Fertig says all he wants to do is teach Turkish Kurds the philosophies of non-violent protest he practiced as a civil rights activist in the '60s.

documention hyperlinks are live at the source: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m8d28-Torture-indictment-for-George-Bush-a-draft

Torture apologists prefer that Americans surrender their powerful voices on this issue. Torture addicts propagandize that the legal issue is somehow too complicated for your little intellect to understand. Torture sadists use false rhetoric for you to submit to American torture under your flag and your tax dollars by telling you “torture keeps America safe;” a Rovian spin as reprehensible as “torturing your children makes them love you” or “torture promotes American values.” The trick is to take a universal virtue and link it to whatever you want to do. It’s the “big lie” that Hitler wrote is so outrageous that the stupid common people will believe it because of its outrageousness. Recent scientific data also posit the human tendency to justify evil just because you'd rather not embrace its implications.

But you’re smarter than Nazi dupes. You're committed to intellectual prowess and moral courage. You're ready to confront and end this repulsive episode of sanctioned cruelty.

Murder Trumps Torture Says Bugliosi

2003 State of the Union, Jan. 29, 2003. WikiCommons

Bush Crimes

"If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders?" Vincent Bugliosi

Michael Collins

(This was in the NYT on Friday. Although Krugman doesn't mention 9/11, of course the same arguments apply, particularly inasmuch as the war in Iraq was a direct result. Orig. is at http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=19427087 .)

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration.

"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he responded, but "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

I'm sorry, but if we don't have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years - and nearly everyone has taken Obama's remarks to mean that we won't - this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don't face any consequences if they abuse their power.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/07/hello-officer-id-like-to-report-murder.html

I spoke with one of the leading constitutional scholars in the United States (he teaches at one of top law schools, and has literally "written the book" on constitutional law).

I asked him if there was any way the American people can force Congress to perform their constitutional duties to impeach Bush and Cheney.

He said no.

I persisted, by arguing that the founding fathers could never have envisioned Congress being so complicit with a rogue White House that they refuse to impeach, and instead cover up their crimes. I said there's got to be a way to force them to follow their duties, or to impeach or remove the congress people who are obstructing the rule of law.

He responded no. His last words to me were: "That's the way the constitutional cookie crumbles".

I was very disappointed, to say the least.

Is All Lost?

I post this now because I noticed that Bugliosi was recently featured on Democracy Now and also is going to be on a radio show with Kucinich soon. His 2007 book was 'Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy', and his 2008 book is 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.'

This is another case where *anyone* who utters the phrase "prosecute Bush" is given a free pass. Being on Democracy Now then opens the door to every single left media and blogger to accept him unquestioningly. But as Michael Green states, "The purpose of Bugliosi’s 'Reclaiming History' is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function."

Could such distortions, and the taking down of the JFK truths one year earlier, have been a necessary ingredient of becoming a central figure in the supposed prosecution of Bush? Only time will tell.

The essay is detailed but thorough and well done.

------------------

9-11 Research Guest Essay:

Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again

Here is a good interview with Bugliosi. Whatever his agenda and past misdeeds (obfuscation of the JFK assassination), he is good on this one. I wish we had him with us on 9/11:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/0530PETE7A.mp3?CPRO...