What are we to do when the need for justice is confronted by power? Well, a government is a great deal like a human being. It's not necessarily all good, or all bad. We live in a good country. I love it and you do too. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have a government which is not perfect. There have been indications since September 11, 2001 that there is excessive power in some parts of our government. It is plainly evident that people have not received the Truth about what happened, and what is happening currently, regarding the 9/11 tragedy.

Going back to when we were children, I think most of us once thought that justice came into being on its own, that virtue was its own reward, and that good would triumph over evil. In short, that justice occurred automatically. Later, when we found out that this wasn't always the case, most of us still felt hopefully that at least justice occurred frequently, if not most of the time. Today, I think that almost all of us would have to agree that there is really no machinery- not on this earth, at least- which causes justice to occur automatically. People have to make it occur. Otherwise, it doesn't happen. This is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it's usually very hard, because justice presents a threat to power. And, in order to make justice come into being, you often have to fight power.

As someone once said (might have been a Frenchman), Americans could lose their liberty in a single night and not miss it for a hundred years. Most Americans like to think of themselves as somehow independent, but a huge majority are happy to trade freedom for security. It's as they say, "knowledge is power". Well, I am here to give our people back that power, by instilling you with some of that very knowledge which our Government doesn't want you to have.

Our story begins in 1993, when the FBI facilitated and allowed the World Trade Center bombing to happen when they could have stopped it. FACTS: As reported by The New York Times (10/28/93) and CNN, Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the FBI to infiltrate the terrorists later charged in the Trade Center bombing. The original plan told to Mr. Salem was that his job was to see to it that fake explosives were used, then the bombers would be busted for planting what they thought was a real bomb with no possibility of anybody getting hurt. A good plan. Mr. Salem secretly tape-recorded hundreds of hours of his telephonic communications with authorities without their knowledge. The recordings reveal that the FBI changed the original plan and told Mr. Salem NOT to use the fake explosives but to use REAL explosives. The FBI agent who told him to use real explosives was adamant about this. I saw and heard this on CNN in '93 and could not believe my eyes and ears, I thought, "We'll never hear the end of this." Boy was I wrong, it totally disappeared. Alas, there is an excerpt of some of this that was printed in The New York Times (10/28/93). While these recordings were played in preliminary court hearings, they were barred from the actual trial because Mr. Salem made them without the permission of the FBI agents. The Government can bug you without your permission, but the opposite is not also true -- that's tyranny. The tapes exist, and they prove that the FBI de facto orchestrated the bombing of the World Trade Center, an act that would result in massive new police powers for the FBI. However, because the tapes were barred from court, the media simply pretends they don't exist and the truth is forever nullified from the official GovtMedia story, exiled to the dark allies of seedy conspiracy theory. They say that tens of thousands would have died if the truck-bomb had been able to park in the spot the bombers had reserved, right next to a key column, but when they got there a car had taken their spot. I'd like to think someone knew about this and parked the car there to save the lives of thousands of people. (Published: 6/25/97 Author: Ian Goddard)

Rep. McKinney Accuses Bush of Profiting From 9/11 Friday, April 12, 2002

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration may have had advanced notice of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but failed to stop them in order to profit from the destruction, a Democratic Congresswoman alleges. "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? … What do they have to hide?" asked Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, according to The Washington Post. A spokeswoman at KPFA94.1 FM in Berkely, Calif., confirmed that McKinney had spoken on air from their studios on March 26. The staff was scrambling to answer reporters' phone calls and to get the audio from that session up on their Web site Friday. According to The Post, McKinney suggested that the Bush administration was serving the interests of the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based investment firm that employs several high-ranking former government officials from both parties and counts former President George H.W. Bush as an adviser. A White House spokesman dismissed the allegations, calling them "ludicrous, baseless views." Carlyle Spokesman Chris Ullman balked at the suggestion, telling The Post, "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?" Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller said at first he thought to write off the comments as "loony," but then decided they were "dangerous and irresponsible." House Majority Leader Armey, R-Texas, said McKinney's statements "have no place in a country united behind a common goal and against common enemy," and called upon the Democratic leadership to "denounce this irresponsible ranting" before someone takes her seriously. A spokeswoman at the radio station who asked not to be named said she believed that the newspaper had read too much into the congresswoman's comments. "She is calling for a full investigation into the terrorist attacks", she said. McKinney declined an interview with The Post. Apparently, also in the radio conversation, McKinney took several swipes at the president, accusing him of stealing the 2000 election, and calling his administration "questionable."

Immediately following the 9/11 tragedy, forums everywhere were at first swamped with "loving and togetherness" in support of the innocent victims. I know, because I was one of them. Then, suddenly, when the media sprang the blame on this elusive (& possibly illusionary) villain/scape goat/common enemy by the name of Osama bin Laden, which prompted the "War on Terrorism" political movement, crunching Constitutional freedom with an iron fist, granting our Government far more latitude within and outside our Nation, to pretty much do as they pleased, all in the name of "the war on terrorism". Which was in reality more like "the war on freedom".

Then, the mourning quickly turned to anger and hate, and directed exactly where Uncle Sam wanted it. The Government now had the people's backing, and a free license to do what and how it willed. Almost like a state of Martial Law, followed by a hysterical wave of Nationalism (much like Nazi, Germany in the 1930's).

Practically overnight, the general concensus turned to "Nuke 'em all to Hell!" My reaction? Was the sane and rational one. I said "Remember Oswald.", for which I was promptly bashed and verbally attacked, even called an "un-American terrorist", for opposing the voice of the political bandwagon. Well, now, it seems, the worm has begun to turn.

The Reichstag Fire

The Reichstag Fire was the event which allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party to assume political control of Germany. In 1933, there was a fire in the Parliament building in Berlin. The cause was determined to be arson. The Nazis blamed the Communists, although never proven, and began a boycott of Communists. Now, the Communist party had just as much to lose from the destruction of the Reichstag, as it was one of the only remaining free political platforms left them. Nevertheless, the Nazis were successful in selling the public their "official" government story that it was 'some big Communist plot', and used the incident as an excuse to strip their party of their power, thus enabling Hitler to assume absolute political control. And, the rest, as they say, is History.

"Suppose America experienced its own "Reichstag fire." Suppose an event occurred, so terrifying, monstrous, and bloody, that any measures taken against it seemed justified--an attack on New York City...or the release of Anthrax in a dozen major cities. As horrifying scenes of mass graves and burning bodies filled our TV screens, our first impulse would be to keep a stiff upper lip and cooperate with whatever measures the government took to restore order."

The author of the book may not be suggesting that the Sept. 11th attacks were staged by the government, as the "Reichstag Fire" most certainly was. But, the end result is what is important here. The author is saying people would be very willing to give up their rights, freedoms and liberties in the name of "security." Unfortunately, the author was all too correct!

When I use the term "conspiracy" it is a direct reference (only) to THE grand conspiracy to subvert American soverignty, remove all freedoms, and create a (totalitarian) slave state. There's lots of collusion and skulduggery going on, on behalf of the BIG conspiracy, but there's only one BIG conspiracy. And I don't think most people realize how BIG it is. (by babylonian)

"It's readily apparent that "conspiracy theory" is a label that is applied to facts that are inconvenient to the government. It's almost a tell-tale sign that the story is indeed true, and is the subject of an active coverup.." Do not forget the biggest attempt in "pop culture" to discredit any theory that does not fit. The movie "Conspiracy Theory" was one such attempt through the medium of Hollywood. After this movie, the mere mention of an alternative theory was laughed off as a "conspiracy theory." Not by all to be sure...but this label with its connotation has endured with the help of major talking heads who used and continue to use the term with a slight smirk on their face.

Therefore, using the term alternative theory might be better in the sense that it sets up situation where it is suggested that the government has a theory, and that one's alternative theory is on equal parr. Otherwise, it will always be pointed out, oh, that's the "conspiracy theory" vs. the "government investigation." (by laconas)

McKinney Wants Two Investigations WXIA-TV ATLANTA (Channel 11) | May 19, 2002

Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney seemed unmoved by President Bush's insistence Friday that he did not ignore warning signs about the Sept. 11 attacks. McKinney, who spoke as she tried to escape reporters in DeKalb County, said Congress should launch not one, but at least two investigations. McKinney, who was widely criticized after insisting in March that Bush ignored warnings of an impending attack, said Friday that all she ever wanted was an investigation. 11Alive's Jon Shirek asked McKinney about critics who called her reprehensible for suggesting that President Bush might have allowed the attacks so his friends in the defense industries could profit from a war. "Well, you know, I never said that, and it's very important that we understand, I called for an investigation," she responded. On March 25, McKinney told listeners of KPFA-FM in Berkeley, Calif., that former President Bush might be making money from the defense industry during this war. McKinney said, "Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day in April of 2002, Carlyle earned $237 Million selling shares...the army's fifth largest contractor." McKinney asked Friday why Congress should not investigate the former president, his son, and the defense industries. "And that's an investigation also that could take place along the lines of the Enron investigation," she said.

Did you see that number up there ^? That should give some idea of what the stakes are in this little game of real life politics. And, some indication of motive. And, if you doubt for one minute that our Government would not do something as horrific as this to it's own people, just take a look at Vietnam. Just 35 years ago. How many innocent Americans were "drafted", then sent to their deaths, all for the greed of money? The Vietnam War lasted more than 10 years, and you had better believe that defense contractors and the suits sitting safely back in Washington made enormous profits on that otherwise senseless war. Blood money. A total of 4 Million were killed as a result of the Vietnam War.

In 1965, not long after the U.S. sprang into military action against N.Vietnam, most of America trusted and even supported our Government's decisions. The general feeling of "Patriotism" back then was very much parallel to what it is today, being not long after the death of Kennedy. The nation was still in mourning. Much like post-9-11. And, who did our Government blame for the death of JFK? Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist.

Many people today believe that it was our own Government which conspired to have JFK eliminated, just so they could have their War. For, just eight days before his death, Kennedy gave verbatim instructions that all American advisors would be withdrawn from Vietnam. Immediately after JFK's death, there was an enormous amount of so-called "evidence" that Oswald did it, spoon fed to the masses through the media. But, for anyone who's seen the movie "JFK", knows he didn't do it. He was, in fact, "just a patsy".

Take this infamous photo of Oswald used to implicate him in the J.F.K. assassination, for instance. Oswald was assassinated before he could stand trial, so it never had to be used in court. Therefore, never had to be proven as genuine evidence. That famous picture of Oswald holding a rifle and a communist newspaper in each hand made the cover of LIFE. And thus, passified the American people into believing the government's "lone assassin" story. I would much prefer to see something genuine, in order to make the point. As oppossed to something fake. But, perhaps the fact that it WAS proven to be faked also makes a point in itself.

Oswald's guilt was never proven in a court of law. Yet, it still remains as the government's "official story". That famous picture, and a few others like it (which have surfaced over the years) have all been proven to be fakes! Now, if Oswald was really guilty, why would they need to fake those photos? Obviously, it was intended for some fraudulent purpose. The fact that the pictures were proven to be false heavily dampens the credibility and likelihood of his guilt. I'm all for revealing the Truth. But, I'm dead set against advocating lies as justifiable means to proving the Truth! Such methods are counter-productive, in the end.

The American people supported the Vietnam War at first because it believed in the "cause" which the government sold them... "The Communists killed J.F.K.! So, we're going to fight the Communists! S.Vietnam will fall to N.Vietnam, and then it's just a hop, skip and a jump to our shores!" Just to give you an idea of how dramatically the "general concensus" changed, here is an example...

In 1965, there was a anti-war protest in Boston, Mass., consisting of 100 people. In 1969, there was another anti-war protest in Boston, this time the number attending had risen to 100,000!

Now, who does the Government blame for 9/11? The Arab Nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The name they used to personify this "enemy"? At first, it was Osama bin Laden. Then, we all seemed to bounce back to that old villain (and alleged CIA operative) whom we all know, by the name of Saddam Hussein. How exactly did that happen? Did anyone else happen to notice?

Almost immediately after 9/11, there was an enormous amount of so-called "evidence" that bin Laden did it, spoon fed to the masses through the media. Are we beginning to see a pattern?

Iran-Contra

In 1985 and 1986, our Government illegally sold Billions of dollars worth of missiles and military hardware to Iran (a so-called "enemy" Nation of the U.S. at the time, because it supported "terrorists"). This was discovered and made public. It was called the "Iran-Contra Affair", and this is how it ended:

Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh won convictions against John Poindexter, President Reagan's former national security adviser, and Oliver North, a national security staff member, on charges stemming from the scandal. But federal courts later reversed both convictions. Also convicted were Robert McFarlane, another former national security adviser, and Elliot Abrams, former assistant secretary of state. Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's secretary of defense, was also indicted on charges of trying to cover up the scandal.

But in 1992, President George Bush pardoned them and several others who had been implicated. Walsh charged that the pardon was part of the cover-up. http://www.imt.net/~mtpatriot/ciafund.htm

So, who do you think is responsible for Sept.11.? The "who" is just scenery for the public. bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq- keeps them guessing, like some kind of parlor game; but prevents them from asking the most important questions: Why? Why was the W.T.C. destroyed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up?

Ah, but what about the confessions of the terrorists which we all heard about? Well, to begin with, how do we know this? Because we heard it on the News? Read it in the paper? Well, then it must be true, right?

The Government uses and controls the media. This is a common fact. Just look at the headlines in November of 1963. There was an unbelievable amount of so-called "evidence" and in-depth background info about Oswald, mounted up and ready to print, even before Kennedy was shot! (see "JFK"). And, that's not the only movie you should see. Also, check out "Wag the Dog", "Canadian Bacon", "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Loose Change".

Many of you will stick to your own heart in believing there was no way our own wanted what happened on 9-11 to happen. But, you must then ask yourself the following: What about Vietnam? What about the death of JFK, one of the most popular Presidents in history? What about the Billions of dollars worth of Arms, military hardware and missiles our Government sold the Iranians, an enemy of the U.S. at the time, thus fueling the War in the middle east for a profit? What about the proof of our own government's involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Does it not stand to reason that what they can get away with once with impunity, they may then do again? Only now they've upped the ante and raised the stakes- on a much larger scale.

Don't confuse John Q. Public with the Government. There's a lot of money in War. So, honestly ask yourself...what's a measley est. 3,000 people killed on 9-11, in comparison to all of the above? Even more, what's that number in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children killed in the middle east since then by our own Government? The military does have a term for this, and it's called "acceptable casualties". Well, it is very far from acceptable to me!

Some of you may feel that by waving a flag and verbally resisting the sheer possibilities of what I have said here is "defending your country", but not I. I would much rather defend my countrymen by seeking the Truth, and presenting it where it can be heard; in an attempt to provoke change, at least in some small measure. In hopes that my words will be heard, and grasped by other like-minded individuals, then spread. You may prefer to accept the official Government story on every count, and defend the Government at all costs. That is your perogative. But, ask yourself this...if there is any Truth to what I have presented here, who and what are you really defending? Think about it.

America: The Free?

America, with less than 5 percent of the world population, has a quarter of the world's prisoners. There are six times as many Americans behind bars as are imprisoned in the 12 countries that make up the entire European Union, even though those countries have 100 million more citizens than the United States. Our jails and prisons have become the 51st state, with a greater combined population than Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

(— Editorial, San Jose Mercury News, 12-31-99.)

The idea that "America is the most free country" is all a lot of hype. Don't buy into it. America is not just a Democracy, it's more-so a Republic. There are way too many laws restricting peoples "freedoms" in the U.S. which many Europeans would laugh at. I truly have to wonder... Is America actually a Democracy at present? Or, just the illusion of one?

It's pretty obvious who holds all the power. The "haves" vs. the "have-nots". A recent statistic indicated that 90% of the American people have no savings. That figure may be slightly exaggerated, but I'll bet it isn't too far off. Most of the middle-class common citizen has a hard enough time just paying the bills and balancing their check book from month to month, much less accumulating any significant savings. Money is power. So, that makes the rich the most powerful. They hold all the strings. The equivalent of royalty. Most of them make their money the old fashioned way: they inherit it. Born into wealth, just as royalty. Born into money...money is power...born into power. In America, we follow the Golden Rule: Whoever has the Gold, makes the Rules!

But, wait...aren't all men equal? Isn't this a "democracy", where it is a Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? So, then why did our Government ignore the American people's wishes for more than 10 years while engaging in the illegal and money-hungry "undeclared War" in Vietnam; arresting, beating and killing hundreds of thousands of it's own citizens for peacefully demonstrating in opposition to it, as per their Constitutional Right?

The U.S. Government drafted scores of hundreds of thousands of young men into Vietnam, under penalty of prison. Meaning they had to choose between prison or a very likely death, resulting in over 100,000 citizens leaving the country to escape the draft.

4 Million people were killed as a result of the Vietnam War. 59,000 were Americans, who died in Vietnam, and hundreds of thousands more returned mamed and severely injured, which was often worse than death, and ultimately ending in death.

No...clearly, the Federal Government and its Military were not in service to its people, but was in service to the "Almighty Dollar." In service to Uncle Sam, the rich politicians, business men and defense contractors who lined their pockets with Billions of dollars in blood money, at the expense of the innocent. Millions died. Millions. The comparison pales to the estimated 3,000 people killed on 9-11, wouldn't you say? In light of the old truth... "Money is the root of all Evil."

So, how do you suppose the most powerful corporations/Governments maintain that balance of power? Why, no different than any other power hungry big business. Whatever route is the most profitable. And, by whatever means neccessary. This is the Legacy, the lesson of History, the self-destructive pattern which man has made for himself. Even the Bible will tell you this. "Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land..."

As long as Capitalism remains the underlying structure of the system, and the pursuit of gold and personal gain remains the ultimate driving force in a world which calls itself "civilized", while murdering its own people for the greed of money, oil and political control, ultimately slaughtering humans like lambs being lead blindly to their deaths, behind the pretense of "fighting for freedom", things will never change. A certain Wise man with pointed ears I believe said it best... "Evil seeks to maintain power by suppressing the Truth or by misdirecting the innocent."

Why the U.S. REALLY went to war in Viet Nam!

Before I retired I used to work for a company that was the leading manufacturer of Oilfield drilling instrumentation.In order to keep up with our competition I had to read a number of foreign Oil publications. One was the Australasian Oil and Gas Journal.

One of their issues published a large map of Viet Nam and shown on the map was a group of Offshore Oil Leases running down the entire East Coast of Viet Nam.The leases were granted to all of the major Oil Companies worldwide...companies like Shell,Mobil,Exxon,BP [British Petroleum],etc.I still have a copy of this map in my possession.

So it wasn't all about Communism in Viet Nam.. it was about the same reason we fought the Gulf War and the REAL reason we're in Afghanistan...it's all about OIL OIL OIL!

(posted by hippolips on 06-05-02 08:25 PM)

Civil Liberties "Suspension"?

Excerpt from: http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usa_patriot_act.asp

SUSPENSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

The Administration's blatant power grab, coupled with the wide array of anti-terrorism tools that the "USA PATRIOT Act" puts at its disposal, portends a wholesale suspension of civil liberties that will reach far beyond those who are involved in terrorist activities. First, the Act places our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association in jeopardy by creating a broad new crime of "domestic terrorism," and by denying entry to non-citizens on the basis of ideology. Second, the Act will reduce our already lowered expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment by granting the government enhanced surveillance powers. Third, non-citizens will see a further erosion of their due process rights as they are placed in mandatory detention and removed from the United States under the Act. Political activists who are critical of our government or who maintain ties with international political movements, in addition to immigrants, are likely to bear the brunt of these attacks on our civil liberties.

(by Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney Center for Constitutional Rights November 2001)

Dictatorship in the US

"The title was meant to stimulate argument; I don't think the US is a dictatorship.....yet..... but you better be more careful who you vote for and how involved you become in politics....Germany found that out before.... because once they're in....they're not always easy to get out, especially when they start passing laws or abusing the constitution for their own personal ends. GWB and the rest of his people (for he cannot do it alone - see Ashcroft, etc. and his abuse of the consitution) are setting a very dangerous trend for you. I hope that you will try to resist such laws as the 'Homeland Defence' and abuses of the Consitution such as imprisonment without trial (of US and other citizens)....or before you know it.... you too will be looking back and wondering what happened....because this is how it starts....a little at a time....brick on brick....until you're trapped behind a wall that you cannot free yourself from.

Remember or read up on how it happened in Germany and I'm sure you'll start to get worried....for Germany it was the Jews....for the US it's the Muslims... GWB is displaying all the same signs as Hitler did in the early years...find a common enemy, find danger everywhere, instill panic in the population, change, ignore or introduce laws that allow for more state security control and monitoring of the population, ask people to watch their neighbors and report anything suspicious....sound familiar? Remember who are the people who remain in power in the background of government and how the same groups are always represented....the Bush's and their group have been around for some time....and looks like they will for some time to come...just look at those approval ratings....America is hungry for a strong leader....and that can be a dangerous thing to want."

(by chanceygardner Member posted 06-12-02 03:13 AM)

Anti-Terrorism?

EFF: Chilling Effects of Anti-Terrorism: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/antiterrorism_chill.html

"President Bush and Congress say they're protecting Americans from terrorism. But civil libertarians say the terrorists have won if we give up our freedoms."

Legislating Terror By Jack Karp October 16, 2001

You're sitting at a computer terminal in a Kinko's copy shop. A man sits down at the computer beside you. Maybe he's sending email to a friend. Maybe he's looking for a book on Amazon.com. Maybe he's purchasing an airline ticket on an Internet travel service. Or maybe he's planning a terrorist attack. The FBI claims some of the hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon used the Internet and pay-per-use computer terminals to plan and coordinate their movements. Some used a Kinko's in Hollywood, Florida, and Mohald Alshehri, one of the 19 suspected terrorists, used a computer at the Delray Beach, Florida, public library in late August, according to a librarian there. Two of the hijackers purchased their tickets through online travel service Travelocity.

Government wants more surveillance tools

It's these alleged terrorists' Internet savvy that has prompted President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the FBI to ask Congress for sweeping new powers to conduct surveillance on telephones, email, and the Internet.

"These terrorists are very sophisticated, and so are their communications," President George W. Bush said in a speech delivered at FBI headquarters September 25. "We must make sure that the law enforcement men and women have got the tools necessary, within the Constitution, to defeat the enemy."

Congress responds

Over the past five weeks, legislators have considered several anti-terrorism bills that would increase the powers of intelligence and police organizations to eavesdrop on Americans' electronic communications. They include: The Combating Terrorism Act of 2001 (CTA), also known as SA 1562, which was unanimously passed by Congress on September 13 but has since been superseded by new legislation.

The Patriot Act, which stands for Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as HR 2975, which was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 337-79 on October 12.

The Uniting and Strengthening America Act, or USA Act, of 2001, alsoknown as S 1510, which was passed by a vote of 96-1 in the Senate on October 11. The new USA Act, also known as HR 3108, which is an attempt by Congress to reconcile the new laws. Introduced on October 12, it folds many of the Patriot Act's provisions into the former version of the USA Act.

While a new anti-terrorism law would broaden the government's power to find and catch terrorists, many civil liberties advocates fear it would also exchange freedom for security. "I am concerned that, in a legitimate and understandable attempt to protect our nation's security, the administration is proposing legislation that will ultimately harm those freedoms we have fought so hard to protect over these many years," Representative Bob Barr, R-Georgia, said about the new anti-terrorism legislation. "We cannot, and must not allow our constitutional freedoms to become victims of these violent attacks."

In fact, civil liberties advocates have formed a coalition aimed at fighting the new regulations. Called "In Defense of Freedom", the coalition claims to have the support of more than 150 organizations and 300 law professors who hope to insure that legislators "reconcile the requirements of security with the demands of liberty."

Plausible Deniability

President Bush listed terrorist attacks since 9-11. He does not seem to have ever said that Saddam Hussein or Iraq was in any way connected with any of them. He still does not, never has, claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible in any way, to any degree, for 9-11. Yet, 70% of Americans polled think that; presumably they thought the President or his Administration was saying it, though they were not.

Surely he must worry that now the American people will think that, as he is making a speech about Iraq, he is listing terrorist acts which are to do with Saddam, when he is not saying that at all. Isn't that an embarassing risk to take? He did say: "a deadly combination of militant regimes, terror networks and weapons of mass murder is a peril that cannot be ignored or washed away." He did not explain how that peril of networks was affected by invading Iraq. Plainly, he says they persist yet. Can anyone explain what the connection, if any, is between that and the invasion? (by FredPuli 9-23-03)

True, Bush has never said that Saddam was involved in 9-11. On the other hand, he has certainly not gone out of his way to clear up the widespread belief that there was a connection between the two. He doesn't risk embarassment. I don't think he's capable of feeling embarassment. In fact, he probably hopes that terrorism is associated with the former Iraq regime, as he is still trying to prove he was right all along. He chooses to ignore the obvious fact that terrorists stayed clear of Iraq until he turned it into a terrorist magnet where all those with a grudge against the U.S. could easily find, and identify, more Americans anywhere except America. I don't think he can explain how that network of terrorists could be inhibited by invading Iraq, since it clearly never happened. (by frankvan 9-23-03)

I listened to part of Bush's speech last night and thought it was really surprisingly bad, even for Bush. The entire General Assembly was completely silent and here's G.W.B. giving a speech that sounds like he's waiting for applause. It was bizarre. I wonder if he wrote the speech for the U.N. or for his supporters. It seemed like he was in the wrong room.

I guess the fact that he doesn't see any problem with the way he disregarded all the member Nations before invading Iraq doesn't register on his radar of possible hurdles to overcome in getting the U.N. to contribute in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not acknowledging the elephant in the room does not seem to have worked. (by aminator2002 9-24-03)

Since 9-11, too much emphasis and allowance is given to secrecy, with regard to the actions of our Government, and not enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of humanity.

These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or else leave the country. I don't accept either of these two alternatives. I don't intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without truth. I intend to fight for the truth. I suggest that not only is this not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do--because if the truth does not endure, then our country will not endure.

In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons--if they should dare to fight for freedom-- and then it can announce that they were killed in an industrial accident, or shot by "terrorists" or God knows what.

Now, I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you're passing on is equivalent to a murder case. The difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victims are out of your sight and a long distance away. It's often very difficult to identify with people you don't know and can't see. But, the fact remains that these are still human beings we are talking about. Men, women and children, who are guilty of nothing- are being controlled, oppressed, and slaughtered by foreign invaders who have no business being there in the first place. Much like Vietnam.

But I'm telling you now that I believe we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight Authoritarianism-the Government's insistence on secrecy, government force used in counter-attacks against an honest inquiry--and when we do that, we're not being un-American, we're being American. It isn't easy.

I'm sticking my neck out in a rather permanent way by telling you this, but it has to be done because truth does not come into being automatically. Individual men and women, have to work and fight to make it happen-and individuals like you have to make justice come into being, because otherwise it doesn't happen.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about 9-11. As long as our government continues to be like this, as long as such forces can get away with such actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born.

I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. What can you do for your country?

You, too, can demand that our Government withdraw its military from such places as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kuweit, Qatar, and Dhubai. You can demand that the Billions of dollars Bush is asking Congress to make more War with, be denied. You can demand that they use that same money for Life, instead of death. You can demand that instead of wasting Billions on killing each other, all for the lust of oil, that they apply some of that money into research and development of alternative fuels. Directly above us, is a practically limitless source of power (called solar energy). Yet, they would never notice, because they're too busy looking down on the world.

You may also demand to know the whole truth about the events of 9-11. Write to your Governor, your Senator, your Congressman, your President- and ask them yourself- if you dare. Ask them about all of the issues which have been raised here and since that terrible day in September of 2001. Now that the smokescreen left in the after-math of 9-11 has begun to clear. This cannot all be for nothing. It must not be in vain. If you care about your country as I do, we must demand the Truth in these matters. This is the best way in which I know of truly honoring their memory, and to bring their deaths some meaning, other than the political agenda of a few.

In conclusion, you can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a Government of the people. And if you do that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important.