bicyclemark

One of the most interesting court cases to be following, in this day and age, is that of Zakorias Moussaoui (pardon the spelling) standing trial accused of plotting the September 11th terrorist attacks. He is the only person facing a charge related to 9/11 and furthermore, he is actually involved in a civil court, contrary to other detainees in guantanamo who supposedly will be tried by military tribunals. (that is, if they are ever charged for the crimes which still haven’t been determined)

What are the interesting aspects of this case:

– Moussaoui has opted to act as his own defense, and with that has extensively familiarized himself with his rights and the law. What does this translate to? They haven’t been able to railroad him, they actually have to make a case. (maybe)

– Moussaoui was in custody months before september 11th, prosecution says he was supposed to be the pilot of another plane headed to the whitehouse. What could this mean? Well, the prosecution is definately reaching on this one… how deep in the plans could he be if he was in jail.

– Moussaoui wishes to use guantanamo prisoners as witnesses that can clear his name. According to US law, he can do that. However American law can be suspended if the judge decides it is a matter of national security.

– Moussaoui faces the death penalty, yet in order to get the death penalty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. How can there be no doubt in a case involving so much guessing, speculation, and missing evidence that has been declared top-secret?

All in all.. it’s fun to watch. One man who the government expected to burn at the stake, suddenly using that stake to defend himself. And of course it could all end in a sinch, if the Whitehouse decides the law doesn’t matter anymore… which it decides so often.

A Dutch Communication Scholar recently said, referring to the invasion of Iraq, “I’m quite sure it will take 6 or 7 years before we finally know what really happenned in Iraq.” This statement is in reference to the Bush and Blair governments’ program of overt deception and fabrication in order to justify their attacking of Iraq. While less than 3 months have passed since that invasion, the truth is slowly leaking out: about Jessica Lynch and how that “heroic” rescue was a lie, about the Iraqi military and their chemical weapons which they never used, and perhaps the worst — the British government admitting to fabricating reports about weapons of mass destruction. One can only imagine, if all this has come out since April, the amount of lies that will be exposed in the coming years. Furthermore it’s interesting that the exposing of these lies is not being carried out by American newspapers or TV channels, no — they must somehow still be embedded in or rather “in bedded” with the government. It is actually the British who are leading this charge against the wall of lies built by the British-American axis. (BBC, Guardian, Independent)

Revealed: How Blair used discredited WMD ‘evidence’

UK intelligence chiefs warned claim that Iraq could activate banned weapons in 45 minutes came from unreliable defector

By Raymond Whitaker, Paul Lashmar and Andy McSmith

01 June 2003

Tony Blair’s sensational pre-war claim that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction “could be activated within 45 minutes” was based on information from a single Iraqi defector of dubious reliability, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

British intelligence sources said the defector, recruited by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, told his story to American officials. It was passed on to London as part of regular information-sharing with Washington, but British intelligence chiefs considered the “45 minutes” claim to be unreliable and uncorroborated by any other evidence. How it came to be included as the most dramatic element in the Government’s “intelligence dossier” last September, making the case for war, is now the subject of a furious row in Whitehall and abroad.

The armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, admitted last week that the information had come from a single source. But Downing Street denied a report that the claim made its way into the dossier only after politicians rejected a more cautious draft prepared by the intelligence services and demanded that it be “sexed up”.

Coming in the same week that the United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said Iraq might have destroyed its banned weapons before the war, the row has called into question the entire Anglo-American case on WMD. The failure to find such weapons has led to demands in the US and Britain for inquiries into whether the public was misled.

On Wednesday, the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee will meet behind closed doors to examine the Government’s WMD claims, but it is not expected to have full access to the intelligence seen by ministers.

Irritated by the latest row about Iraq’s missing weapons, which has overshadowed his six-day foreign tour, the Prime Minister has promised to bring out another dossier. Mr Blair said that he had seen some of the information obtained from Iraqi scientists now under interrogation, which proved that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of dangerous weapons.

In an interview in St Petersburg with Sky News, being broadcast today, he said: “What we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly to people. We are not going to give a running commentary on it. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of potential WMD sites that are still being investigated. We have only just begun.”

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman vehemently denied yesterday that there was or had been any conflict between the Government and the intelligence services over Iraq, and claimed that leaks were probably coming from minor officials who did not have great inside knowledge.

President George Bush went further on Polish television, saying two trailers found laden with equipment in northern Iraq were proof of the existence of WMD. US intelligence agencies claim they were biological weapons production facilities. Mr Bush said: “Those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons – they’re wrong. We found them.”

The Prime Minister insisted that the information in the British dossier “is intelligence that comes through our Joint Intelligence Committee”. He said: “It’s not invented by politicians and it’s not invented by our security service. Everything was cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee, and was their judgement – not my judgement, or another politician’s judgement.”

But one intelligence source said: “The ’45-minute’ remark was part of the American intelligence input into the dossier. It was being treated cautiously by the British, but it was alighted on by the politicos and blown out of proportion.” Intelligence circles remain confident that evidence of WMD will soon be found.

Controversy reigns over the work of a special unit within the Pentagon, created by Mr Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, which enthusiastically promoted the Iraqi National Congress’s WMD claims over the scepticism of others, notably in the CIA. Yesterday The Guardian said the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, met his American counterpart, Colin Powell, in February to discuss their concerns about the quality of information on Iraq’s banned weapons, and the claims being made by their respective political masters. The Government said the meeting never took place.

The following is just more evidence of the horrendous state of the United States Government…. enjoy

May 28, 2003

Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming

By JENNIFER 8. LEE

ASHINGTON, May 27 ? Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research.

At the same time, the company, the world’s largest oil and gas concern, has increased donations to Washington-based policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.

Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The organizations are modest in size but have been outspoken in the global warming debate. Exxon has become the single-largest corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the groups say they also receive some money from other oil companies, it is only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.

“We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,” said Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. “There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change that is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.” He also noted, “These are not single-agenda groups.”

The organizations emphasize that while their views align with Exxon’s, the company’s money does not influence their policy conclusions. Indeed, the organizations say they have been sought out in part because of their credibility. “They’ve determined that we are effective at what we do,” said George C. Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative group that maintains that human activities are not responsible for global warming. He says Exxon essentially takes the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of that.”

Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth was not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually spread over three years.

The increase corresponds with a rising level of public debate since the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, some of the groups said. After President Bush rejected the protocol, a treaty requiring nations to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, many corporations shifted their attention to Washington, where the debate has centered on proposals for domestic curbs on the emissions.

“Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” said Fred L. Smith, the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Myron Ebell, an analyst from the institute, spoke at last year’s Exxon shareholders’ meeting, where he criticized a renewable energy resolution proposed by a group of shareholders.

Exxon’s backing of third-party groups is a marked contrast to its more public role in the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group formed in 1989 to challenge the science around global warming. The group eventually disbanded when oil and auto companies started to withdraw. As companies were left to walk their own path, Exxon shifted money toward independent policy groups.

“Now it’s come down to a few of these groups to be the good foot soldiers of the corporate community on climate change,” said Kert Davies, a research director for Greenpeace, which has tried to organize an international boycott of Exxon.

Exxon’s publicly disclosed documents reveal that donations to many of these organizations increased by more than 50 percent from 2000 to 2002. And money to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that works with state legislators, has almost tripled, as the policy debate has moved to the state level.

The gifts are minuscule compared with the $100 million, 10-year scientific grant to Stanford, which is establishing a research center that will focus on technologies that could provide energy without adding to greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming. Nevertheless, the donations in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars are significant for groups with budgets ranging from $700,000 to $4 million.

Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much of the industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward the reality of global warming. As Exxon has become isolated from its peers, it has faced increasing pressure from shareholders and environmentalists. BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco have developed strategies that incorporate renewable energy, carbon trading and emissions reductions.

Among the initiatives that Exxon’s money has helped is the Center for Science and Public Policy. The two-month-old center is a one-man operation that brings scientists to Capitol Hill on two issues: global warming and the health effects of mercury.

“We don’t lobby, we educate,” said Bob Ferguson, head of the center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican Congressional staff member. “We try to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan and nonideological.”

May 28, 2003

In Shift, U.S. to Offer Grants to Historic Churches

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

n a reversal of a longstanding policy, the Bush administration said yesterday that it would allow federal grants to be used to renovate churches and religious sites that are designated historic landmarks.

Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton announced the change in an afternoon news conference at the Old North Church in Boston, where in 1775 Paul Revere spotted two lanterns hung to signal the advance of British troops. Ms. Norton said the church, which still houses a congregation, would receive a federal grant of $317,000 to repair windows and make the building more accessible to the public.

“Today we have a new policy that will bring balance to historic preservation and end the discriminatory double standard that has been applied against religious properties,” said Ms. Norton, standing below the church’s famed steeple.

The decision was the latest step by the White House to remove barriers to government financing of religious organizations, and it received mixed reviews from constitutional experts.

In December, Mr. Bush issued executive orders telling federal agencies not to discriminate against religious groups in awarding social service contracts. He also directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to allow religious organizations, including schools, to receive earthquake and hurricane relief.

This year, the administration proposed regulations that would allow the use of federal housing aid to build religious centers where worship occurs, as long as the centers were used primarily for social services.

Jim Towey, the director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, said in a telephone interview that the change in policy on historic preservation would apply only to places of worship that qualify as landmarks under the “Save America’s Treasures” program. The program gives out about $30 million in grants annually to preserve all kinds of historic sites.

Mr. Towey said that the administration was reviewing regulations in other government agencies to determine whether religious organizations were being subject to discrimination in federal programs. He declined to identify the agencies or the regulations.

“They’re clearly interested, and they said it all along, in expanding the amount of government subsidies for religious institutions,” Mark Tushnet, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center, said of the administration.

The policy barring religious institutions from receiving federal preservation money had been in place since the late 1970’s because of concerns about the separation of church and state, said Paul W. Edmondson, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the organization’s general counsel. The policy was formalized by a legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in the Clinton administration in 1995.

Recently, the Old North Church applied for a preservation grant under the “Save America’s Treasures” program, which is run jointly by the National Park Service and the National Trust. Last fall the church was told the grant was approved, said Timothy Matthews, a church official. But a week later, the church was informed of the 1995 ruling and the grant was revoked, he said.

Mr. Edmondson said the National Trust appealed to the Bush administration, sensing that the Old North Church was an ideal candidate for testing the ban. The White House asked the Justice Department for a new opinion and received one that took a stand different from the Clinton administration’s, Ms. Norton said.

“The buildings that we’re talking about have tremendous secular importance as historic places,” Mr. Edmondson said in an interview. “It has nothing to do with their importance as religious buildings per se ? it’s either the role they played in American history or their architectural significance.”

The Old North Church was designated a historic landmark in 1961. A foundation that is legally separate from the church will administer the grant, and the church is expected to raise an equal amount from private sources.

Constitutional scholars said that while there were Supreme Court precedents that barred the use of federal money to maintain religious buildings, the law was shifting and still murky.

“Is this government support for religion?” Mr. Tushnet asked. “In one sense, no, because it’s not paying the salary of the minister at Old North Church. But in another sense, yes, because it’s supporting the essential physical character of the church.”

“We’ll find out what the rule is when somebody litigates it,” he said, “but if I were a litigator I wouldn’t go after Old North Church because it is obviously of historic significance.”

Some First Amendment experts said that giving federal grants to preserve religious sites seemed to be constitutionally permissible because they were not grants to advance religion or worship. But others said the move was evidence that the administration was intent on dismantling the wall between church and state.

“This is just one more step in a governmentwide drive to fund religion with tax dollars,” said Joseph Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group in Washington. “Literally you’re putting public money in the collection plate for the church’s building fund.”

Mr. Towey said other religious sites that could soon receive grants were the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., a civil rights landmark where a bombing in 1963 killed four girls, and the Touro Synagogue in Newport, R.I., the oldest synagogue in the United States.

In an interview after the Boston news conference, Michael L. Balaban, executive director of the Touro Synagogue, said the synagogue had already requested a $750,000 grant.

Caretakers of the nation’s oldest Roman Catholic cathedral, the Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore, will also seek a grant soon, Robert J. Lancelotta Jr., the executive vice president of the basilica’s trust, said in an interview in Boston.

The Bush Administration, in the name of the United States, filed a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the European Union regarding Genetically Modified Food. Bush administration officials, as well as senators, assert that Europe’s refusal to import American Genetically Modified Foods is damaging to American farmers who want access to the important European market. They go on to insist that GMF “represents the difference between life and death in developing countries.”

Of course, this assertion is completely false when considering that the problem of hunger around the world is not because there is not enough food, but rather because of war, poverty, economics, corruption and mis-management. Furthermore these law-makers and politicians completely ignore the inconclusive and incomplete knowledge of the long-term effects of GMF.

Meanwhile the real forces singing the praises of GMF’s are not representatives of Non-Governmental organizations, nor representatives of third world countries, but instead.. it is the major drug companies like Monsanto and the senators that receive huge sums of money from such companies who insist GMF benefits everyone.

Of course, their court case has been brought before the WTO, an organization who’s members are not elected and not accountable to citizens of any country. An organization who’s rulings supercede any nation’s laws regardless of the law or country.

Obviously the motive is clear.. shove genetically modified food down the throats of the rest of the world, quickly, before anyone (or any government) can notice.

So the Republican National Convention 2004 is to be held at MSG in NEW YORK CITY! Once again the party, rallying around their crown prince, show the nation as well as the world that they truely have no respect whatsoever for the people of New York City and the sanctity of that city since that awful tragedy. Once again they use New York to score “political points” and play upon sensitive emotions for their own agenda.

This is an injustice.. an embarassment to democracy.

Republicans, Democrats, and basically every citizen should demand that this decision be reversed. Their first target should be non-smoker extrodinaire Mike Bloomberg, who literally spends his days figuring out new ways to fight smoking… which is a really cute way for a mayor to pass his time. As apposed to balancing a budget, addressing serious education problems, etc. But Mike isnt the only problem.. the Republican National Committee, the New York State Senate, and the US Congress should all be pressured to help stop this convention from taking place.

New York City is off limits to political parties seeking to “galvanize” the hearts and minds of New Yorkers and Americans scarred by the terrorist attacks. Nor republicans or any other party should be able to have their convention there. Shame on the Republican party. People must mobilize before New York City is once again exploited!

The Government of the United Kingdom has decided to “delay” elections in Northern Ireland. The benevolent goverment of Tony Blair, who loves to talk about bringing democracy to the people of Iraq, etc… apparently isn’t interested in implementing democracy in the terroritory that is controlled by his military, much closer to home. What an embarassment for the people of the UK, as well as its allies in the quest for world liberation, as it turns out.. democracy is only good when they decide it’s time for democracy. Prior to that, as is the case in Northern Ireland, you’re required to endure a military occupation and legal persecution.

Fear not people of Northern Ireland… you are members of the EU! And the European Court of Human Rights has the authority and the power to give Downing Street a good slap in the face and grant you the justice you’ve suffered for.. for so long. Hold the criminals accountable… take the British government to court! Become your own liberators, stand up to this new brand of fascism.