James Steele, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s ‘Mr. death-squad’ in Iraq.
Ten years ago, more or less to the day, I wrote the following on the then Signs of the Times page:
“As I sit here, a motion in the UK House of commons has been defeated by some 415 votes to 149. Not that any other result would have stopped the US, yet it signifies a full green light for the attack on Iraq. Bush’s ‘ultimatum’ to Saddam expires at midnight (GMT) Thursday (7pm EST). “Shock and Awe” (read “death and destruction”) may come at any time between now and then. We have at most one day, one day left to ponder at the edge of the abyss before the coming darkness engulfs us all.
As if to mock those who are against this illegal invasion and the lies and deceit that have been used to justify it, Ari Fleishcer today stated that, even if Saddam went into exile now, the US would still invade. It’s not about WMD, it’s about domination and the destructive principle. Perhaps Ari feels he can be more truthful now that it is a ‘done deal’, now that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair have told the peace-loving people of the world to go f**k themselves. It must have been hard for Fleischer to stand up in front of the world’s media every day and lie so profusely. (Then again, maybe not).
It’s hard for me to describe the feelings I have right now; there is an enormous sense of impending doom, mixed with anger at being made to feel so helpless in the face of such rampant psychopathy. Who are these men that they can simply decide to throw the world and its inhabitants into “war without end”, and who are we that they could, for so long, fool us with such pathetic and barely-disguised lies and know that we would just roll over and let them get away with it?” Read more »
Soon-to-be CIA director, John Brennan, and one of the CIA drones he wants to introduce you to.
How many Americans are aware that their government has claimed the authority to arbitrarily kill their fellow citizens when it chooses, and that it can do so ‘legally’, without any evidence that the citizen in question posed any threat to anyone, let alone the US government or its ‘interests’?
How many Americans are aware that the US government has responded to court cases brought by the ACLU questioning the US government’s authority to engage in targeted assassinations of US citizens by saying that this is a political question and that US courts and judges have no say in the matter (“There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations“)? I’d wager not many. But that’s precisely what the US government has done, according to a leaked unsigned and undated Justice Department white paper, obtained by NBC News. You can read the white paper here. The actual legal justification as defined by Justice Department lawyers in 2010 is being kept secret by the government, but the ‘white paper’ explains that, not only has the government decided that targeted assassinations without due process are legal, but that no evidence of any imminent threat from a target is necessary for the target to be deemed an imminent threat. (Go figure). Read more »
By now most people reading this already know that there are a number of unanswered questions surrounding the Colorado theater shooting, so I just want to quickly point out a few things and maybe make a few connections along the way.
Apart from the fact that the DHS and the FBI released a memo in May this year to security and emergency services to be on the alert for a ‘terrorist’ attack at a movie theater; apart from the fact that on the same day as the Aurora massacre, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine was holding an identical drill 17 miles away that simulated a shooter in a movie theater; apart from the fact that the FBI is officially known to have set up ‘terror attacks’ that included creating the plan, providing the weapons and equipment, preparing the location of the attack and even driving the vehicles to pull it off; APART from all that, there is the also the problem of the eyewitnesses to the Colorado shooting who stated that the gunman (James Holmes) seemed to have an accomplice. Read more »
On Monday 2nd July 2007, the decider in chief of America over-ruled the decision of a U.S. court in June this year to jail Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, for two and a half years. Libby was convicted in March this year of lying to investigators probing the 2003 leak of CIA official Valerie Plame’s identity.
Plame’s identity was leaked to the press by the office of the Vice President in retaliation for Plame’s efforts to expose the U.S. government as having lied about its reasons for the invasion of Iraq and the murder, to date, of approximately 1 million Iraqi citizens. Dick Cheney, the instigator of the leak, was not charged because he, unlike Libby, had more ‘pull’ to avoid jail time for his part in the conspiracy. Libby was the fall guy, but as today’s news makes clear, he was always going to have a soft landing.
In his statement, Bush justified the move by stating: “with incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react” to the appeals court’s refusal to let Libby remain free.
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a lawyer at Hogan & Hartson in Washington who worked on pardons in the White House from 2001 to 2003 agreed:
“This is a president who is not cowed by public opinion. This was a case involving a member of his administration, [...] so the normal rules go out the window.”
Is that clear enough?
When an American president feels confident that he can brazenly and without fear of retribution “pardon” a former member of his administration for committing treason against the State in a case the implicates the entire government in what amounts to crimes against humanity, there really is only one word to describe such a situation: dictatorship.
Just don’t expect the mainstream media to use such an “inflammatory” word in tomorrow’s “fair and balanced” news coverage.