Home | About | Issues | Documents| Media | Links | Chat | Blog | Interactive Constitution | Contact Us

Archive for December, 2009

One Day We’ll All be Terrorists

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Syed Fahad Hashmi can tell you about the dark heart of America. He knows that our First Amendment rights have become a joke, that habeas corpus no longer exists and that we torture, not only in black sites such as those at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or at Guantánamo Bay, but also at the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Lower Manhattan. Hashmi is a U.S. citizen of Muslim descent imprisoned on two counts of providing and conspiring to provide material support and two counts of making and conspiring to make a contribution of goods or services to al-Qaida. As his case prepares for trial, his plight illustrates that the gravest threat we face is not from Islamic extremists, but the codification of draconian procedures that deny Americans basic civil liberties and due process. Hashmi would be a better person to tell you this, but he is not allowed to speak.

This corruption of our legal system, if history is any guide, will not be reserved by the state for suspected terrorists, or even Muslim Americans. In the coming turmoil and economic collapse, it will be used to silence all who are branded as disruptive or subversive. Hashmi endures what many others, who are not Muslim, will endure later. Radical activists in the environmental, globalization, anti-nuclear, sustainable agriculture and anarchist movements–who are already being placed by the state in special detention facilities with Muslims charged with terrorism–have discovered that his fate is their fate. Courageous groups have organized protests, including vigils outside the Manhattan detention facility. They can be found at www.educatorsforcivilliberties.org or www.freefahad.com. On Martin Luther King Day, this Jan. 18 at 6 p.m. EST, protesters will hold a large vigil in front of the MCC on 150 Park Row in Lower Manhattan to call for a return of our constitutional rights. Join them if you can.

The case against Hashmi, like most of the terrorist cases launched by the Bush administration, is appallingly weak and built on flimsy circumstantial evidence. This may be the reason the state has set up parallel legal and penal codes to railroad those it charges with links to terrorism. If it were a matter of evidence, activists like Hashmi, who is accused of facilitating the delivery of socks to al-Qaida, would probably never be brought to trial.

Hashmi, who if convicted could face up to 70 years in prison, has been held in solitary confinement for more than 2½ years. Special administrative measures, known as SAMs, have been imposed by the attorney general to prevent or severely restrict communication with other prisoners, attorneys, family, the media and people outside the jail. He also is denied access to the news and other reading material. Hashmi is not allowed to attend group prayer. He is subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring and 23-hour lockdown. He must shower and go to the bathroom on camera. He can write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but he cannot use more than three pieces of paper. He has no access to fresh air and must take his one hour of daily recreation in a cage. His “proclivity for violence” is cited as the reason for these measures although he has never been charged or convicted with committing an act of violence.

“My brother was an activist,” Hashmi’s brother, Faisal, told me by phone from his home in Queens. “He spoke out on Muslim issues, especially those dealing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His arrest and torture have nothing to do with providing ponchos and socks to al-Qaida, as has been charged, but the manipulation of the law to suppress activists and scare the Muslim American community. My brother is an example. His treatment is meant to show Muslims what will happen to them if they speak about the plight of Muslims. We have lost every single motion to preserve my brother’s humanity and remove the special administrative measures. These measures are designed solely to break the psyche of prisoners and terrorize the Muslim community. These measures exemplify the malice towards Muslims at home and the malice towards the millions of Muslims who are considered as non-humans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The extreme sensory deprivation used on Hashmi is a form of psychological torture, far more effective in breaking and disorienting detainees. It is torture as science. In Germany, the Gestapo broke bones while its successor, the communist East German Stasi, broke souls. We are like the Stasi. We have refined the art of psychological disintegration and drag bewildered suspects into secretive courts when they no longer have the mental and psychological capability to defend themselves.

“Hashmi’s right to a fair trial has been abridged,” said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Much of the evidence in the case has been classified under CIPA, and thus Hashmi has not been allowed to review it. The prosecution only recently turned over a significant portion of evidence to the defense. Hashmi may not communicate with the news media, either directly or through his attorneys. The conditions of his detention have impacted his mental state and ability to participate in his own defense.

“The prosecution’s case against Hashmi, an outspoken activist within the Muslim community, abridges his First Amendment rights and threatens the First Amendment rights of others,” Ratner added. “While Hashmi’s political and religious beliefs, speech and associations are constitutionally protected, the government has been given wide latitude by the court to use them as evidence of his frame of mind and, by extension, intent. The material support charges against him depend on criminalization of association. This could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of others, particularly in activist and Muslim communities.”

Constitutionally protected statements, beliefs and associations can now become a crime. Dissidents, even those who break no laws, can be stripped of their rights and imprisoned without due process. It is the legal equivalent of preemptive war. The state can detain and prosecute people not for what they have done, or even for what they are planning to do, but for holding religious or political beliefs that the state deems seditious. The first of those targeted have been observant Muslims, but they will not be the last.

“Most of the evidence is classified,” Jeanne Theoharis, an associate professor of political science at Brooklyn College who taught Hashmi, told me, “but Hashmi is not allowed to see it. He is an American citizen. But in America you can now go to trial and all the evidence collected against you cannot be reviewed. You can spend 2½ years in solitary confinement before you are convicted of anything. There has been attention paid to extraordinary rendition, Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib with this false idea that if people are tried in the United States things will be fair. But what allowed Guantánamo to happen was the devolution of the rule of law here at home, and this is not only happening to Hashmi.”

Hashmi was, like so many of those arrested during the Bush years, briefly a poster child in the “war on terror.” He was apprehended in Britain on June 6, 2006, on a U.S. warrant. His arrest was the top story on the CBS and NBC nightly news programs, which used graphics that read “Terror Trail” and “Web of Terror.” He was held for 11 months at Belmarsh Prison in London and then became the first U.S. citizen to be extradited by Britain. The year before his arrest, Hashmi, a graduate of Brooklyn College, had completed his master’s degree in international relations at London Metropolitan University. His case has no more substance than the one against the seven men arrested on suspicion of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower, a case where, even though there were five convictions after two mistrials, an FBI deputy director acknowledged that the plan was more “aspirational rather than operational.” And it mirrors the older case of the Palestinian activist Sami Al-Arian, now under house arrest in Virginia, who has been hounded by the Justice Department although he should legally have been freed. Judge Leonie Brinkema, currently handling the Al-Arian case, in early March, questioned the U.S. attorney’s actions in Al-Arian’s plea agreement saying curtly: “I think there’s something more important here, and that’s the integrity of the Justice Department.”

The case against Hashmi revolves around the testimony of Junaid Babar, also an American citizen. Babar, in early 2004, stayed with Hashmi at his London apartment for two weeks. In his luggage, the government alleges, Babar had raincoats, ponchos and waterproof socks, which Babar later delivered to a member of al-Qaida in south Waziristan, Pakistan. It was alleged that Hashmi allowed Babar to use his cell phone to call conspirators in other terror plots.

“Hashmi grew up here, was well known here, was very outspoken, very charismatic and very political,” said Theoharis. “This is really a message being sent to American Muslims about the cost of being politically active. It is not about delivering alleged socks and ponchos and rain gear. Do you think al-Qaida can’t get socks and ponchos in Pakistan? The government is planning to introduce tapes of Hashmi’s political talks while he was at Brooklyn College at the trial. Why are we willing to let this happen? Is it because they are Muslims, and we think it will not affect us? People who care about First Amendment rights should be terrified. This is one of the crucial civil rights issues of our time. We ignore this at our own peril.”

Babar, who was arrested in 2004 and has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support for al-Qaida, also faces up to 70 years in prison. But he has agreed to serve as a government witness and has already testified for the government in terror trials in Britain and Canada. Babar will receive a reduced sentence for his services, and many speculate he will be set free after the Hashmi trial. Since there is very little evidence to link Hashmi to terrorist activity, the government will rely on Babar to prove intent. This intent will revolve around alleged conversations and statements Hashmi made in Babar’s presence. Hashmi, who was a member of the New York political group Al Muhajiroun as a student at Brooklyn College, has made provocative statements, including calling America “the biggest terrorist in the world,” but Al Muhajiroun is not defined by the government as a terrorist organization. Membership in the group is not illegal. And our complicity in acts of state terror is a historical fact.

There will be more Hashmis, and the Justice Department, planning for future detentions, set up in 2006 a segregated facility, the Communication Management Unit, at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind. Nearly all the inmates transferred to Terre Haute are Muslims. A second facility has been set up at Marion, Ill., where the inmates again are mostly Muslim but also include a sprinkling of animal rights and environmental activists, among them Daniel McGowan, who was charged with two arsons at logging operations in Oregon. His sentence was given “terrorism enhancements” under the Patriot Act. Amnesty International has called the Marion prison facility “inhumane.” All calls and mail–although communication customarily is off-limits to prison officials–are monitored in these two Communication Management Units. Communication among prisoners is required to be only in English. The highest-level terrorists are housed at the Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility, known as Supermax, in Florence, Colo., where prisoners have almost no human interaction, physical exercise or mental stimulation, replicating the conditions for most of those held at Guantánamo. If detainees are transferred from Guantánamo to the prison in Thomson, Ill., they will find little change. They will endure Guantánamo-like conditions in colder weather.

Our descent is the familiar disease of decaying empires. The tyranny we impose on others we finally impose on ourselves. The influx of non-Muslim American activists into these facilities is another ominous development. It presages the continued dismantling of the rule of law, the widening of a system where prisoners are psychologically broken by sensory deprivation, extreme isolation and secretive kangaroo courts where suspects are sentenced on rumors and innuendo and denied the right to view the evidence against them. Dissent is no longer the duty of the engaged citizen but is becoming an act of terrorism.

Chris Hedges, whose column is published on Truthdig every Monday, spent two decades as a foreign reporter covering wars in Latin America, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. He has written nine books, including “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle” (2009) and “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” (2003).

Source: Truthdig and Chris Hedges

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

The Criminalization of Protest

Own an Unregistered Firearm? You Must Be a Terrorist

Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

Chris Matthews: Saul Alinsky ‘Our Hero’

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

MSNBC host hails radical community organizer

Just five days after affirming on air that he is a liberal, MSNBC host Chris Matthews exclaimed that radical community organizer Saul Alinsky is one of his heroes.

Stated Matthews: “Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the ’60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don’t like and it’s never perfect, you have to act in the end like there’s simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don’t get anything done.

“I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused,” Matthews said on his “Hardball” show, speaking to guest Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, on the topic of President Obama’s health care plan.

Story continued at WND

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Chris Matthews calls West Point the Enemy Camp

MSNBC Implies People Skeptical Of Government Are Psychologically Insane

Open Letter to Rachel Maddow on Obama, Brzezinski and 9/11 Conspiracy by Erik Larson

From 9/11 Conspiracy to 911 Dispatch: Photos of Charlie Sheen & Brooke at conspiracy conference

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Charlie Sheen and his wife of two years Brooke Mueller have been all over the news since Mueller’s infamous 911 call, made on Christmas morning.  Mueller was  spotted out in Aspen the day after the incident. Earlier this week, RadarOnline published an “exclusive” claiming  “Charlie Sheen Wife Was Pressured To Recant, Will File For Divorce” then published another “exclusive” stating “Charlie Sheen Says He And Wife Won’t Divorce”. The next headline read‘Sheen Strikes Back, Says Wife Made Up Story Out Of Anger’. Earlier this year the New York Daily News claimed that Brooke Muellerwas “jealous of Sheen’s ex-wife Denise Richards”.

The cop who arrested Charlie Sheen is an ‘interesting’ character, to put it nicely. An aspiring artist, the officer was investigated for writing letters to Osama bin Laden, boasts about hiring illegal immigrants on his website, admitted using drugs while an officer, and was criticized for committing a lewd act in public.

The last time Sheen was in the news before he and  Mueller became embroiled in their painfully public spectacle was when he released his Twenty Minutes with the President letter to Obama regarding the questionable events of 9/11/01 . It was covered on national and local news, including radio in Los Angeles.

In better days, Charlie and Brooke were seen in this impromptu lighthearted interview outside Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas. It wasn’t always fun and games though; Charlie is a serious person and researcher who has been involved in what’s known as the 9/11 Truth Movement for several years. Sheen has several big name celebrities accompanying him in the search for truth, including Jesse VenturaWillie Nelson, and Ed Asner. Fellow actor Daniel Sunjata wrote a column supporting Sheen’s call for answers last month. Anti war activist and MASH star Mike Farrell told me he does not believe it’s a conspiracy, though, and he questions the motives of those who advocate such a position. Nevertheless, it is a serious undertaking to question the establishment in such a serious way, and it involves some degree of risk. I commend Charlie Sheen for having the courage and conviction to not only do the research, but to speak out publicly for this cause, which I also support.

Many people don’t know that Martin Sheen, Charlie’s father and a man whose Catholic faith inspires his activism, has also questioned the events of 9/11. He was interviewed by We Are Change L.A. at an anti war rally on 10/27/07 and expressed some concern about the official story, particularly WTC 7 and the way it came down as if in a controlled demolition.

Charlie had previously gotten coverage worldwide when he first went public with his 9/11 questionsin 2006.  In the aftermath of that media barrage, Sheen and Mueller attended Alex Jones ‘American Scholars Symposium’ in Los Angeles in June 2006. “We are here today to effect a change. We are here today to ask those still sleeping to wake up and join us”, Sheen told the sold out crowd of 1200. He continued “we are here today to present a case forged in science at the bedrock and common sense in it’s foundation…We are here today to fuel the deconstruction of the official myth. We are also here today to honor the victims and the families of 9/11. We’re here today for our children. As well as their children.” You can watch this speech in it’s entirety below. Alex Jones later came onstage and thanked Charlie, crediting him with the idea of having a truth convergence in Los Angeles.

Sheen seems to have inherited the conviction and passion for justice from his father Martin, who shared his perspective in a 2003 interview: “I went to my first demonstration as an activist and was arrested with Fr. Dan Berrigan. But it’s not just going to a place and objecting to something and getting arrested. It’s a deeply spiritual experience. You do it non- violently. You do it inclusively. It’s a spiritual thing; I can’t separate it from my (Catholic) faith”. He continued, “I love my country enough to risk its’ wrath by drawing attention to the negative things we don’t always want to see; and that can be risky and you have to pay for that, but It’s just like being a parent. If you’re always, you know, complimenting your children and never recognizing their faults, then they won’t grow, and they’re gonna get mad at you later and say ‘why didnt you tell me I was on the wrong path when I was’. Ya know, that’s they way; I love my country that much.”

The two day event in 2006 was aired in part on CSPAN and featured a panel of experts includingBYU Physics Professor Dr. Steven Jones, historian and author Webster Tarpley, and Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force(ret)., Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.

Continued at the Examiner

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

The Sheen Family Going After President Bush as Well as President Obama

Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory: 9/11 Episode exposes ‘found’ black boxes

Mark Dice Proves People Are Stupid, Again! People sign petition to “increase inflation to 100%” to cause hyperinflation

The Criminalization of Protest

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Police and politicians ignore the First Amendment when we need it the most.

I’ve lived in the Washington, D.C., area for the better part of the last 10 years. So I’ve seen my share of demonstrations, although more often than not I just try to avoid the traffic nightmares they cause. Among the various classes of protests—pro-life, anti-war, environmental, and now tea parties—the most destructive are the anti-globalization marches. So when cops clashed with anti-globalization demonstrators at the Pittsburgh G-20 summit in September, it was easy to assume that most of the altercations represented justified police responses to overzealous protesters.

But a number of disturbing photographs, videos, and witness accounts told a different story. Along with similar evidence from other recent high-stakes political events, they reveal an increasing, disquieting willingness to smother even peaceful dissent.

On the Friday afternoon before the G-20 meeting kicked into high gear, a student at the University of Pittsburgh snapped a photo showing a University of Pittsburgh police officer directing traffic at a roadblock. What’s troubling is what he’s wearing: camouflage military fatigues. It’s difficult to discern a practical reason why a man working for an urban police department would need to wear camouflage, especially while patrolling an economic summit. He’s a civilian dressed like a soldier. The symbolism is clear, and it affects the attitudes of both the cops wearing the clothes and the people they’re policing.

The campus cop wasn’t alone. Members of police departments from across the country came to Pittsburgh to help during the summit, most of them dressed in paramilitary garb. In one widely circulated video, several officers dressed entirely in camouflage emerge from an unmarked car, apprehend a young backpack-wearing protester, stuff him into the car, and drive off. The sequence evoked the “disappearances” associated with Latin American dictatorships or Soviet Bloc countries. When Matt Drudge linked to the video, he described the officers in it as members of the military. They weren’t, but it’s easy to understand how someone might make that mistake.

In another video, members of a police unit from Chicago who took vacation time to work at the summit prop up a handcuffed protester and gather behind him. Another officer then snaps what appears to be a trophy photo. Two men in faraway Queens were arrested for posting the locations of riot police on Twitter, as though they were revealing the location of troops on a battlefield. Another video shows dozens of police in full body armor confronting and eventually macing onlookers (who weren’t even protesters) in the neighborhood of Oakland, far from the site of the summit, as a recorded voice orders any and all to disperse. Students at the University of Pittsburgh claim cops fired tear gas canisters into dorm rooms, used sound cannons, and shot bean bags and rubber bullets.

The most egregious actions took place on September 25, when police began ordering students who were in public spaces to disperse despite the fact that they had broken no laws. Those who moved too slowly, even from public spaces on their own campus or in front of their dorms, were arrested. A university spokesman said the aim was to break up crowds that “had the potential of disrupting normal activities.” Apparently a group of people needn’t actually break any laws to be put in jail. They must only possess the “potential” to do so, at which point not moving quickly enough for the cops’ liking could result in an arrest. That standard is a license for the police to arrest anyone anywhere in the city at any time, regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong. In all, 190 people were arrested during the summit, including at least two journalists.

It can’t be easy to both keep order and protect civil liberties at such events. But that doesn’t mean police and city officials shouldn’t be expected to try. Yes, some protesters damaged some property at the G-20 summit, although there wasn’t much of that this time around. But the presence of a few unruly demonstrators doesn’t give the police carte blanche to crack down on every young person in the general vicinity, nor should it give the city free rein to suppress all public protest. It’s unfortunate that when the global press and the leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies came to Pittsburgh, the images that emerged were not of a society that values free expression and constitutional rights but of one willing to grant police powers normally seen in authoritarian states.

This projection of overwhelming force at big events is becoming more common. At last year’s Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, police conducted peremptory raids on the homes of protesters before the convention began. In all, 672 people were jailed, including at least 39 journalists. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 442 of those 672 later had their charges either dropped or dismissed.

Four years before that, more than 1,800 people were arrested at the previous Republican National Convention in New York City. Ninety percent were never charged with a crime. One notorious photo from the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver shows a small mass of protesters, zoned far off from where any delegates or media representatives could hear them, surrounded by two walls of riot police who outnumbered them at least 2 to 1. Denver’s police union later issued a commemorative T-shirt of the event emblazoned with an illustration of a menacing cop wielding a baton and the slogan, “We get up early to beat the crowds.”

The trend may have started at the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, which saw both actual rioting and police overkill. Mayor Paul Schell not only declared a state of emergency, imposed a curfew, and designated swaths of the city “no-protest” zones; he actually banned civilian possession of gas masks. Police then gassed entire city blocks. The victims included many owners of the stores the police were ostensibly protecting from looters. Assistant Police Chief Ed Joiner, who was in charge of security for the event, would later tell reporters that future summits should be held only in destinations with military governments.

These are precisely the kinds of events where free speech and the freedom to protest need protection the most: when influential figures make high-level decisions with far-reaching consequences. Instead, we see the opposite. The higher the event’s profile, the more powerful the players involved, and the more important the decisions being made, the more determined police and politicians are to make sure dissent is kept as far away from the VIPs as possible. Or silenced entirely.

Source: Reason

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Civil Disobedience Is Not Terrorism

Portable pain weapon may end up in police hands

G20 police break up assembly at University of Pittsburgh: Video

Wearechange schools Pittsburgh police on constitution @ g20

Christmas Miracle in Colorado Springs: Mom and Baby Brought Back to Life

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

It was a holiday miracle for one family in Colorado Springs. Tracy Hermanstorfer’s water broke at 5:00am on Christmas Eve, several weeks early. She and her husband Mike were planning a natural birth, but things quickly changed when she went into cardiac arrest.

Tracy’s heart stopped, and she underwent an emergency c-section, with no time for anesthesia. Mike was in the room, in complete shock. He tells NEWSCHANNEL13 he was in complete shock after seeing one of the worst things manageable happen before his eyes.

According to doctors at Memorial Hospital, this type of complication during birth is rare, but when it does happen, there is hardly ever a positive out come. Once both Mom and Baby were stable, doctors examined Tracy to try and determine what went wrong, and how both she and her baby pulled through, but they were unable to find a reason.

The Hermanstorfer’s new miracle baby is named Coltyn Mikel. He weighs 7lbs 4 ounces, and is 19 inches long.

The family has two other boys at home, an 11-year-old and a 3-year-old. They say they now plan to go home and enjoy their second chance.

Source: KRDO

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Road safety ‘made worse by speed cameras’

WeAreChange Gives Back To Underprivileged Children

We Are Change Atlanta: Reality GAP

Yes, Yemen Has Oil

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Yes, Yemen has oil.

The Middle Eastern nation – in the south of the Arabian Peninsula, bordering the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Red Sea – has been exporting a couple of billion dollars worth of crude oil per year.

But it’s oil supplies are shrinking rapidly, and may be totally depleted within 10 years.

As the Yemen Observer notes:

Yemeni crude oil exports decreased to $1.5 billion during the fiscal period from January –October of 2009, compared with $4.2 billion during the same period of 2008, a decrease of $2.7 billion, the Central Bank of Yemen reported.

And the World Tribune points out:

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Yemen was rapidly losing its crude oil reserves.

In a report, Carnegie said Yemeni oil exports, a key source of foreign currency, declined from 450,000 barrels per day in 2003 to 280,000 in early 2009, Middle East Newsline reported.

“Barring any major new discoveries, energy experts generously estimate that Yemen’s oil exports will cease in 10 years,” the report, titled “Yemen: Avoiding a Downward Spiral,” said.

Source: Washington’s Blog

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

BOMBSHELL: Evidence Clearly Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight

Senator Lieberman calls for ‘preemptive’ attack on Yemen

VIDEO: Ben Stein Accuses Ron Paul of Anti-Semitism on Larry King

VIDEO: Ben Stein Accuses Ron Paul of Anti-Semitism on Larry King

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Source: CNN & TruthMovement

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Mark Dice Proves People Are Stupid, Again! People sign petition to “increase inflation to 100%” to cause hyperinflation

Ben Bernanke Fears Ron Paul’s Audit Above All Else

Ron Paul aide detained in airport, prompts TSA rules change

Sen. Hutchison: ‘No Place in Constitution’ Gives Congress Authority to Mandate Health Insurance – Is Trampling on Individual Rights

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said there is “no place in the Constitution” that grants Congress the authority to require that Americans purchase health insurance, as both the Senate and House health care bills do. She added that the health care bill recently passed by the Senate is a “trampling of individual rights.”

At the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Dec. 23, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Hutchinson (R-Tex.), “Where in the Constitution do you think Congress is finding the authority to mandate that someone purchase health insurance?”

Senator Hutchinson said:  “There is no place in the Constitution that allows this trampling of individual rights, and I am going to make a point of order that it tramples on the 10th Amendment as well, the rights of states to regulate insurance. And, in my state, we have a self-insurance plan for state employees and teachers, and the federal government now has the right to intrude on that – and it’s not in the Constitution either.”

The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed early on Dec. 24, Christmas Eve, on a strict party-line vote of 60 to 39. (One Republican skipped the vote and the two Independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined with the 58 Democrats to pass the measure.)

The legislation requires every American to purchase health insurance either individually or through their employer. If they do not, they can be penalized with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year.

Speaking on the floor, Hutchison took issue with the argument Democrats have made that the mandate is permissible under the Commerce Clause, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

“I want to talk about another area that I think is a stretch in this bill and that is that apparently the individual mandate is being justified by the Commerce clause of our Constitution,” she said.

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

Hutchison continued, “Now, the Commerce clause basically says that no state may impede interstate commerce. You may say, out in America, ‘Uh, I don’t see the connection. I’m going to be mandated to buy health insurance or be fined if I don’t, because states can’t impede interstate commerce?’”

“Well, I would agree with people out there that that seems like a disconnect,” Hutchison said.

The Republican Steering Committee also believes the provision requiring people to buy insurance or face a fine is outside the purview of Congress and launched a constitutional challenge led by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) last week. The pair of senators called a “point of order” to force Democrats to vote on whether they believed the mandate was Constitutional.

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” DeMint said on the floor.

In 1994, when the Clinton administration tried to pass its own health care reform legislation, also with an individual mandate included, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that it was “unprecedented” in legislative history.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

At 3 p.m. on Wednesday, however, Democrats defeated the point of order and pressed on with a number of other procedural votes required before final passage of the bill on Thursday morning.

Before stepping onto the floor, Hutchison told CNSNews.com that she would point out why the individual mandate to carry health insurance also contradicts the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. She told CNSNews.com, “[A]nd I am going to make a point of order that it tramples on the 10th Amendment as well, the rights of states to regulate insurance. And, in my state, we have a self-insurance plan for state employees and teachers, and the federal government now has the right to intrude on that – and it’s not in the Constitution either.”

The 10th Amendment reserves those powers not expressly given to branches of the federal government to the individual states. It says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Senate legislation will have to be merged with the health care reform bill that passed narrowly in the House of Representatives in November, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The resulting compromise between the two bodies, called the “conference report,” then must be passed by vote in both chambers of Congress before President Barack Obama could sign it into law.

Opposition to the bill has become a rallying call for Republicans as public support for it has foundered below 40 percent in national polls recently.

A transcript of the exchange between Sen. Hutchinson (R-Tex.) and CNSNews.com follows below:

CNSNews.com: “Where in the Constitution do you think Congress is finding the authority to mandate that someone purchase health insurance?”

Senator Hutchinson: “There is no place in the Constitution that allows this trampling of individual rights, and I am going to make a point of order that it tramples on the 10th Amendment as well, the rights of states to regulate insurance. And, in my state, we have a self-insurance plan for state employees and teachers, and the federal government now has the right to intrude on that – and it’s not in the Constitution either.”

Source: CNSNews

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Nurses explain how health bill could make crisis worse

Healthcare bill to pay 100% for expansion of Nebraska’s Medicaid in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s 60th vote

Government Health Care: The Next Step On the Road to Tyranny and Slavery

U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a “neutron initiator” for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.

Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.

The Times of London story published Dec. 14 did not identify the source of the document. But it quoted “an Asian intelligence source” – a term some news media have used for Israeli intelligence officials – as confirming that his government believes Iran was working on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007.

The story of the purported Iranian document prompted a new round of expressions of U.S. and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran and reminders of Israel’s threats to attack Iranian nuclear programme targets if diplomacy fails.

U.S. news media reporting has left the impression that U.S. intelligence analysts have not made up their mind about the document’s authenticity, although it has been widely reported that they have now had a full year to assess the issue.

Giraldi’s intelligence sources did not reveal all the reasons that led analysts to conclude that the purported Iran document had been fabricated by a foreign intelligence agency. But their suspicions of fraud were prompted in part by the source of the story, according to Giraldi.

“The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government,” Giraldi said.

The Times is part of a Murdoch publishing empire that includes the Sunday Times, Fox News and the New York Post. All Murdoch-owned news media report on Iran with an aggressively pro-Israeli slant.

The document itself also had a number of red flags suggesting possible or likely fraud.

The subject of the two-page document which the Times published in English translation would be highly classified under any state’s security system. Yet there is no confidentiality marking on the document, as can be seen from the photograph of the Farsi-language original published by the Times.

The absence of security markings has been cited by the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as evidence that the “alleged studies” documents, which were supposedly purloined from an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related programme early in this decade, are forgeries.

The document also lacks any information identifying either the issuing office or the intended recipients. The document refers cryptically to “the Centre”, “the Institute”, “the Committee”, and the “neutron group”.

The document’s extreme vagueness about the institutions does not appear to match the concreteness of the plans, which call for hiring eight individuals for different tasks for very specific numbers of hours for a four-year time frame.

Including security markings and such identifying information in a document increases the likelihood of errors that would give the fraud away.

The absence of any date on the document also conflicts with the specificity of much of the information. The Times reported that unidentified “foreign intelligence agencies” had dated the document to early 2007, but gave no reason for that judgment.

An obvious motive for suggesting the early 2007 date is that it would discredit the U.S. intelligence community’s November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had discontinued unidentified work on nuclear weapons and had not resumed it as of the time of the estimate.

Discrediting the NIE has been a major objective of the Israeli government for the past two years, and the British and French governments have supported the Israeli effort.

The biggest reason for suspecting that the document is a fraud is its obvious effort to suggest past Iranian experiments related to a neutron initiator. After proposing experiments on detecting pulsed neutrons, the document refers to “locations where such experiments used to be conducted”.

That reference plays to the widespread assumption, which has been embraced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran had carried out experiments with Polonium-210 in the late 1980s, indicating an interest in neutron initiators. The IAEA referred in reports from 2004 through 2007 to its belief that the experiment with Polonium-210 had potential relevance to making “a neutron initiator in some designs of nuclear weapons”.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the political arm of the terrorist organisation Mujahedeen-e Khalq, claimed in February 2005 that Iran’s research with Polonium-210 was continuing and that it was now close to producing a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon.

Sanger and Broad were so convinced that the Polonium-210 experiments proved Iran’s interest in a neutron initiator that they referred in their story on the leaked document to both the IAEA reports on the experiments in the late 1980s and the claim by NCRI of continuing Iranian work on such a nuclear trigger.

What Sanger and Broad failed to report, however, is that the IAEA has acknowledged that it was mistaken in its earlier assessment that the Polonium-210 experiments were related to a neutron initiator.

After seeing the complete documentation on the original project, including complete copies of the reactor logbook for the entire period, the IAEA concluded in its Feb. 22, 2008 report that Iran’s explanations that the Polonium-210 project was fundamental research with the eventual aim of possible application to radio isotope batteries was “consistent with the Agency’s findings and with other information available to it”.

The IAEA report said the issue of Polonium-210 – and thus the earlier suspicion of an Iranian interest in using it as a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon – was now considered “no longer outstanding”.

New York Times reporters David Sanger and William J. Broad reported U.S. intelligence officials as saying the intelligence analysts “have yet to authenticate the document”. Sanger and Broad explained the failure to do so, however, as a result of excessive caution left over from the CIA’s having failed to brand as a fabrication the document purporting to show an Iraqi effort to buy uranium in Niger.

The Washington Post’s Joby Warrick dismissed the possibility that the document might be found to be fraudulent. “There is no way to establish the authenticity or original source of the document…,” wrote Warrick.

But the line that the intelligence community had authenticated it evidently reflected the Barack Obama administration’s desire to avoid undercutting a story that supports its efforts to get Russian and Chinese support for tougher sanctions against Iran.

This is not the first time that Giraldi has been tipped off by his intelligence sources on forged documents. Giraldi identified the individual or office responsible for creating the two most notorious forged documents in recent U.S. intelligence history.

In 2005, Giraldi identified Michael Ledeen, the extreme right-wing former consultant to the National Security Council and the Pentagon, as an author of the fabricated letter purporting to show Iraqi interest in purchasing uranium from Niger. That letter was used by the George W. Bush administration to bolster its false case that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme.

Giraldi also identified officials in the “Office of Special Plans” who worked under Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith as having forged a letter purportedly written by Hussein’s intelligence director, Tahir Jalail Habbush al-Tikriti, to Hussein himself referring to an Iraqi intelligence operation to arrange for an unidentified shipment from Niger.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

Source: After Downing Street

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Osama bin Laden’s missing family found in secret compound in Iran

Congress to probe ‘US funding of Taliban’

The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions

BOMBSHELL: Evidence Clearly Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

CNN Airs Eyewitness Testimony that ‘Well-Dressed’ Indian accomplice helped Abdulmutallab board without passport and that man on plane filmed entire flight and bombing attempt

Aaron Dykes
Infowars
December 29, 2009

Evidence is emerging that clearly indicates Abdulmutallab was more than just a Nigerian extremist carrying out his anger through an ill-conceived plot to ignite a powdery explosive substance on-board a flight to the United States. Eyewitness testimony pointing to a man helping the accused terrorist board without a passport, along with an unusual cameraman documenting the attempted attack on board the plane raise more than red flags– they point towards an intelligence operation, run as a drill, meant to conjure up public support for a number of fronts in the continuing ‘War on Terror.’

CNN interviewed key flight witnesses during their Dec. 28 program who raised these very points, making clear that the full story is still emerging and that wider-connections to


THE SHARP-DRESSED MAN

Kurt Haskell and his wife, who were witnesses on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 saw Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab receiving assistance from a well-dressed, wealthy-looking Indian man at the boarding gate in Amsterdam. Haskell told CNN that the accused bomber appeared strikingly ‘poor’ next to the well-dressed man. According to Haskell, that man did the talking for him, explaining to the flight personnel at the gate that Abdulmutallab needed to board without a passport, claiming that he was a Sudanese refugee. Haskell told CNN:
“Laurie and I were sitting near the boarding gate, sitting on the floor, there weren’t any seats to sit in. And I saw two men. They caught my eye because they seemed to be an odd pair. One was what I would describe as a poor-looking black teenager around 16 or 17, and the other man, age 50-ish, wealthy looking Indian man. And I was just wondering why they were together– kinda strange. And I watched them approach what I would call the ticket agent, the final person that checks your boarding pass before you get on the plane. And I could hear the entire conversation. The only person that spoke was the Indian man, and what he said was: ‘This man needs to board the plane, but he doesn’t have a passport.’ And the ticket agent responded, ‘Well, if he doesn’t have a passport, he can’t get on the plane.’ To which the Indian man responded back, ‘He’s from Sudan. We do this all the time.’ And the ticket agent said, ‘Well, then you’ll have to go and talk to my manager.’ And she directed them down a hallway. And that was the last time I saw the Indian man, and the black man I didn’t see again until he tried to blow up our plane hours later.”
The gate attendee referred the odd-couple to the manager. Haskell said that was the last he saw of the wealthy man, but later recognized Abdulmutallab after the incident occurred on the plane. That’s when he says he put two and two together about the unusual connection.
His wife, Laurie, said she found it ‘odd’ that authorities have not yet followed up on their witness account, as they were the only ones known to have witnessed Abdulmutallab with the ‘Indian’ man prior to boarding the flight.
THE CAMERAMAN
If he had help getting on the flight with no passport after having been reported to U.S. authorities by his own father, what is the true explanation for the man seen filming the entire flight? Another witness on board the flight, Richelle Keepman, said she noticed the mysterious cameraman at the beginning of the flight, believing the man might have been simply excited about a first flight, or etc. Later when the ‘bombing’ incident took place, she says the cameraman was the only one standing up, and intently filming the entire incident.
ADDULMUTALLAB AND THE WIDER WAR ON TERROR
Put this together with new focus on Yemen ‘in the fight against Al Qaeda’, including calls from Sen. Lieberman to pre-emptively attack, the media’s immediate hype of the event, and the ready-made Body Scanners and other ‘enhanced’ Airport security, it is clear that this is a contrived incident intentionally unleashed to goad renewed support for ever-expanding terrorism-related warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and now Yemen.

Just like after 9/11, airport travelers are again prepared to accept greater violations of their liberties and privacy for supposed security. Yet patsies and watchlist-subjects alike have repeatedly been allowed to bypass security clearance and been proven to have ties to the intelligence community.
The latest accused ‘terrorist’ Abdulmutallab was very likely the fall-guy in a pattern-drill– handled by wealthy, mismatched associates, allowed to board without required credentials, and videotaped by a cameraman with an unknown connection. Was Abdulmutallab involved with these figures through a drill which ended with an intentionally-failed bombing meant to incite great fear of terrorism?

Continued at Infowars

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Bomber Had No Passport, Helped To Board Plane By Sharp-Dressed Man

Fort Hood Shooting ‘Oddities’

Homeland Security testing Wii Fit Balance Boards to detect fidgeting in airport security lines