Bush is trailing Kerry in the polls, but more important, the situation does not look promising regarding jobs, the deficit, Iraq, WMDs,...
You all remember Tommy Franks:
Commentary on General Franks' Statement
The Criminalization of the State
by Michel Chossudovsky
23 November 2003
In the wake of the Iraq war, 18 Iraqis and 2 Jordanians introduced a class action law suit in a Brussels Court against General Franks, Commander of the US Armed Forces in Iraq.
Based on the law of ?universal jurisdiction?, characteristic of Belgian law concerning genocide and war crimes, General Franks was identified:
"for ordering war crimes and for not preventing others from committing them or for providing protection to the perpetrators."
The law suit does not solely implicate General Franks, who was obeying orders from higher up: Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."
In other words, the "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
Franks' statement no doubt reflects a consensus within the Military as to how events ought to unfold. It is clear in his mind that the "war on terrorism" provides a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to preserving civil liberties.
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. Franks is alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.
General Franks has nonetheless identified with cynical accuracy the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world ? it may be in the United States of America ? that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."
This statement from an individual who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland Defense. Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
In the words of David Rockefeller:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
A similar statement was made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard:
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
The NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely two months before the presidential elections, called for:
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )
What is terrifying in General Franks' statement is that it accurately reflects official US foreign policy. It comes from a man who obeys orders emanating from the military command structure.
In other words, his statement accurately reveals the Pentagon's frame of mind. Moreover, it comes from a military man who speaks with a profound sense of conviction, who firmly believes in the righteousness of war as a means to safeguarding democratic values.
In other words, the military actors and politicians are totally blinded by the "war on terrorism" dogma. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations." The repeal of democracy is portrayed by General Franks as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
Needless to say: any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal these "inconsistencies" or "unanswered questions" would --under General Frank's scenario-- be defined as a "criminal act". In other words, those who are investigating "the war on terrorism" and the military, political and economic actors behind the New World Order, with a view to establishing the truth, are categorized as "enemies of the State", and consequently as criminals:
"The 'war on terrorism' is the cover for the war on dissent."
("Homeland Defense" and the Militarisation of America by Frank Morales, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html , September 2003)
For further details on the war crimes law suit against General Frank, see:
Court case against General Franks in Brussels: No impunity for war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COU305A.html
The Genocide and War Crimes Case against General Tommy Franks in Brussels:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STO305A.html
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to post the above mentioned article in its entirety, or any portions thereof, so long as the URL and source are indicated, a copyright note is displayed. Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11 , Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, Ont., 2003. For details click: http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
Kindly help to circulate the following article to as many interested people as possible.
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
by John O. Edwards
NewsMax.com 21 November 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 23 November 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men?s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine?s December edition, the former commander of the military?s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that ?the worst thing that could happen? is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, ?... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we?ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.?
Franks then offered ?in a practical sense? what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
?It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world ? it may be in the United States of America ? that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.?
Franks didn?t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.
But Franks? scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a ?soldier?s general,? Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.?s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:
President Bush: ?As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he?s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he?s very, very bright. And I suspect that he?ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we?ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.?
On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president?s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
?I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.
?If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country??
The Pentagon?s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, ?it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ?Aha, this will be the ace of spades.??
Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.
?The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won?t say that?ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.?
Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note.
?It?s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we?ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.?
© Copyright NewsMax 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.
Then this:
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44885.htm
Steven Brill had a summit meeting of TV anchormen and their bosses over dinner at his Fifth Avenue apartment on Tuesday night with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to discuss how they'll cover the next terrorist attack. Brill, whose book "After" detailed the response to 9/11, spearheads the America Prepared Campaign to educate the public. Joining Brill, his wife Cynthia and two of their three kids for dinner were Fox News Channel boss Roger Ailes, ABC News prexie David Westin, CBS News chief Andrew Heyward, CNN anchor Aaron Brown, plus Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw.
And Cheney:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/15/MNGK14AC301.DTL
Cheney's grim vision: decades of war
Vice president says Bush policy aimed at long-term world threat
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Los Angeles -- In a forceful preview of the Bush administration's expansionist military policies in this election year, Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday painted a grim picture of what he said was the growing threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States and warned that the battle, like the Cold War, could last generations.
The vice president's tone, in a major address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, was sobering, unlike many other comments recently by senior administration officials that have stressed successes in the war on terrorism.
Cheney mentioned only in passing the administration's domestic policies, while saying President Bush would present a blueprint of his domestic goals in next Tuesday's State of the Union speech.
Cheney devoted the half-hour speech to a frightening characterization of the war on terrorism and the new kind of mobilization he said it demanded. He sounded the alarm about the increasing prospects of a major new terrorist attack and the extraordinary responses that are required. While many of his remarks echoed past comments by the president and senior officials, Cheney struck a surprisingly dour note and suggested only an administration of proven ability could manage the dramatic overhaul necessary for the nation's security apparatus.
"One of the legacies of this administration will be some of the most sweeping changes in our military, and our national security strategy as it relates to the military and force structure, and how we're based, and how we used it in the last 50 or 60 years, probably since World War II," Cheney said. "I think the changes are that dramatic."
He also said the administration was planning to expand the military into even more overseas bases so the United States could wage war quickly around the globe.
"Scattered in more than 50 nations, the al Qaeda network and other terrorist groups constitute an enemy unlike any other that we have ever faced, " he said. "And as our intelligence shows, the terrorists continue plotting to kill on an ever-larger scale, including here in the United States."
Cheney provided no details, however, of the kinds of attacks he expected.
Although the administration has been criticized by some, including most of the Democratic candidates for president, for not doing enough to eliminate known programs for developing weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Cheney said they were a priority and confronted the United States with its gravest threat.
Again, he presented the risks of a terrorist attack involving these weapons in stark terms.
"Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives as the result of a single attack, or a set coordinated of attacks," Cheney said.
While polls show that many Americans support the president's aggressive war on terrorism, he also has many critics for the way the battle has been waged. The president initially justified the war in Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein had active programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The United States has yet to find evidence of such programs since overthrowing Hussein and installing a military occupation, prompting questions about the president's agenda and the quality of intelligence he is receiving.
In addition, an expert at the U.S. Army War College, Jeffrey Record, recently released a 62-page analysis that concluded the war in Iraq might have set back American efforts to stop terrorists by diverting precious resources to a battle that will do little to prevent new attacks.
As a result, Record concluded, the war on terrorism "lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives and may not be sustainable over the long haul."
But in his speech Wednesday, Cheney compared this moment to the challenges faced by President Harry Truman at the beginning of the Cold War, when there was a hot war flaring on the Korean Peninsula and a long-term nuclear standoff developing with the Soviet Union.
Cheney said Bush was establishing, as Truman had, a new structure for a new long-term war and spreading the military into new areas of the globe. "On Sept. 11, 2001, our nation made a fundamental commitment that will take many years to see through," Cheney said.
There was also William Safire talk of an "October Surprise".
Some see it coming earlier for some reasons:
<< Michael Ruppert and John Dean have commented on the importance of and, how crucial these court decisions are, in testing the powers of the Bush Administration.
The point is that I would suggest that instead of an 'October Surprise', this 'surprise' will come much earlier, perhaps to thwart or delay these court decisions that may and, certainly should go against the Bush juanta.
FYI
The cases are:
John Dean writes:
"Sealed Case. A case so secret it does not appear on the Court's docket, and the Solicitor General simply refers to it as "this matter ? that is required to be kept under seal." In fact, it is not all that secret. It involves Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel, who wants the Court to rule on whether he was improperly secretly jailed. The government want to argue its case in secret. But some twenty news organizations are opposing this extreme secrecy.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This case raises the rights of an American citizen -- Yaser Hamdi -- who was captured overseas and held in the United States as an "enemy combatant." Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan.
Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v. United States. These cases address the habeas corpus rights of aliens detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government is maintaining that these aliens do not have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld. This case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held indefinitely, in a military prison, as an "enemy combatant." He was arrested when deplaning in Chicago. (Thus, his case may be treated differently from that of Hamdi, who was arrested abroad, in Afghanistan.) The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of Congress." The Government is appealing, claiming that the President has power to unilaterally cause such detentions to occur.
Cheney v. Judicial Watch and Sierra Club. This case involves the right of the vice president (and, by implication, of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a civil lawsuit. The suit seeks to determine if Cheney violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the law that forced First Lady Hillary Clinton to open up her sessions on health care).
Given the importance of all of these cases (with their implications), I've got them on my docket, and" plan to follow them in the coming weeks and months. >>
Now this:
<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>
<> LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN <>
<>.<>.<> Los Angeles, Alta California <>.<>.<>
January 7, 2004
New York to be "Nuked" on Feb. 2
http://www.aztlan.net/nynuked.htm
George Noory, host of the national radio program Coast to Coast, spoke last night of a terrorist nuclear bomb attack on New York City to take place next month on Tuesday February 2. Radio talk host Noory obtained his information from the respected Italian newspaper Il Giornale based in Milan.
The Il Giornale devoted a large part of the front page to the report and prefaced it with the headline, "Al Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2". According to Il Giornale, the threat was stated through a video shown on a web site associated with al Qaeda.
This threat may explain the unprecedented security measures that have been undertaken by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg during the past two weeks. Callers from New York City to the radio program Coast to Coast said that Manhattan and surrounding neighborhoods are being monitored by a large number of helicopters designed to detect "radiation emissions" on the ground. A nuclear device hidden in a truck or building can be detected by sensitive radiological equipment aboard helicopters that fly relatively close to the ground. Also, the US Department of Homeland Security has sent large fixed radiation detectors and hundreds of pager-size radiation monitors for use by the New York City Police Department.
Under the present political environment, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the threat is credible, however, this is not the first time that reliable journalists have reported on the imminent nuking of New York City. On November 14, 2002, the Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar who writes for the Hong Kong based Asian Times reported in an article titled "Apocalypse Now, or Alottanukes Soon" that "Seven nuclear heads have already been positioned in seven of America's major cities and they are ready to be detonated." On August 30, 2001 Escobar predicted the World Trade Center terrorist attack in an article titled, "Get Osama! Now! Or else " in which he reported for the Asian Times on a meeting between the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Get Osama! Now! Or else
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH30Df01.html
Also, it is now very difficult to determine who may actually be behind the terrorist attacks and threats. If a nuclear bomb is detonated in New York City on February 2, most likely it will be blamed on Osama Bin Laden, however, many Americans are now wondering if Osama Bin Laden was actually behind the strike on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. One of these is political scientist Joel Skousen who was Coast to Coast's guest last night. Skousen said, "No verifiable evidence has been produced that shows that Arabs were in charge of the strike." He also suggested that the last few presidents have been "script readers" who take their orders from a controlling set of individuals above them.
George Noory, Coast to Coast radio host, seconded Mr. Skousen's beliefs when he expressed that there is something about the current terrorist attacks and threats that he "just can't put his finger on." He said that the situation is like a "jigsaw puzzle", that we have just a few pieces of the entire puzzle in place.
There's no reason to bump this years old thread other than to troll
Anandtech Admin
Red Dawn
You all remember Tommy Franks:
Commentary on General Franks' Statement
The Criminalization of the State
by Michel Chossudovsky
23 November 2003
In the wake of the Iraq war, 18 Iraqis and 2 Jordanians introduced a class action law suit in a Brussels Court against General Franks, Commander of the US Armed Forces in Iraq.
Based on the law of ?universal jurisdiction?, characteristic of Belgian law concerning genocide and war crimes, General Franks was identified:
"for ordering war crimes and for not preventing others from committing them or for providing protection to the perpetrators."
The law suit does not solely implicate General Franks, who was obeying orders from higher up: Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."
In other words, the "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
Franks' statement no doubt reflects a consensus within the Military as to how events ought to unfold. It is clear in his mind that the "war on terrorism" provides a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to preserving civil liberties.
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. Franks is alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.
General Franks has nonetheless identified with cynical accuracy the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world ? it may be in the United States of America ? that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."
This statement from an individual who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland Defense. Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
In the words of David Rockefeller:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
A similar statement was made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard:
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
The NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely two months before the presidential elections, called for:
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )
What is terrifying in General Franks' statement is that it accurately reflects official US foreign policy. It comes from a man who obeys orders emanating from the military command structure.
In other words, his statement accurately reveals the Pentagon's frame of mind. Moreover, it comes from a military man who speaks with a profound sense of conviction, who firmly believes in the righteousness of war as a means to safeguarding democratic values.
In other words, the military actors and politicians are totally blinded by the "war on terrorism" dogma. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations." The repeal of democracy is portrayed by General Franks as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
Needless to say: any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal these "inconsistencies" or "unanswered questions" would --under General Frank's scenario-- be defined as a "criminal act". In other words, those who are investigating "the war on terrorism" and the military, political and economic actors behind the New World Order, with a view to establishing the truth, are categorized as "enemies of the State", and consequently as criminals:
"The 'war on terrorism' is the cover for the war on dissent."
("Homeland Defense" and the Militarisation of America by Frank Morales, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html , September 2003)
For further details on the war crimes law suit against General Frank, see:
Court case against General Franks in Brussels: No impunity for war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COU305A.html
The Genocide and War Crimes Case against General Tommy Franks in Brussels:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STO305A.html
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to post the above mentioned article in its entirety, or any portions thereof, so long as the URL and source are indicated, a copyright note is displayed. Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11 , Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, Ont., 2003. For details click: http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
Kindly help to circulate the following article to as many interested people as possible.
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
by John O. Edwards
NewsMax.com 21 November 2003
www.globalresearch.ca 23 November 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men?s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine?s December edition, the former commander of the military?s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that ?the worst thing that could happen? is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, ?... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we?ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.?
Franks then offered ?in a practical sense? what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
?It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world ? it may be in the United States of America ? that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.?
Franks didn?t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.
But Franks? scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a ?soldier?s general,? Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.?s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:
President Bush: ?As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he?s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he?s very, very bright. And I suspect that he?ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we?ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.?
On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president?s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
?I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.
?If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country??
The Pentagon?s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, ?it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ?Aha, this will be the ace of spades.??
Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.
?The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won?t say that?ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.?
Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note.
?It?s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we?ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.?
© Copyright NewsMax 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.
Then this:
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/44885.htm
Steven Brill had a summit meeting of TV anchormen and their bosses over dinner at his Fifth Avenue apartment on Tuesday night with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to discuss how they'll cover the next terrorist attack. Brill, whose book "After" detailed the response to 9/11, spearheads the America Prepared Campaign to educate the public. Joining Brill, his wife Cynthia and two of their three kids for dinner were Fox News Channel boss Roger Ailes, ABC News prexie David Westin, CBS News chief Andrew Heyward, CNN anchor Aaron Brown, plus Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw.
And Cheney:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/15/MNGK14AC301.DTL
Cheney's grim vision: decades of war
Vice president says Bush policy aimed at long-term world threat
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Los Angeles -- In a forceful preview of the Bush administration's expansionist military policies in this election year, Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday painted a grim picture of what he said was the growing threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States and warned that the battle, like the Cold War, could last generations.
The vice president's tone, in a major address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, was sobering, unlike many other comments recently by senior administration officials that have stressed successes in the war on terrorism.
Cheney mentioned only in passing the administration's domestic policies, while saying President Bush would present a blueprint of his domestic goals in next Tuesday's State of the Union speech.
Cheney devoted the half-hour speech to a frightening characterization of the war on terrorism and the new kind of mobilization he said it demanded. He sounded the alarm about the increasing prospects of a major new terrorist attack and the extraordinary responses that are required. While many of his remarks echoed past comments by the president and senior officials, Cheney struck a surprisingly dour note and suggested only an administration of proven ability could manage the dramatic overhaul necessary for the nation's security apparatus.
"One of the legacies of this administration will be some of the most sweeping changes in our military, and our national security strategy as it relates to the military and force structure, and how we're based, and how we used it in the last 50 or 60 years, probably since World War II," Cheney said. "I think the changes are that dramatic."
He also said the administration was planning to expand the military into even more overseas bases so the United States could wage war quickly around the globe.
"Scattered in more than 50 nations, the al Qaeda network and other terrorist groups constitute an enemy unlike any other that we have ever faced, " he said. "And as our intelligence shows, the terrorists continue plotting to kill on an ever-larger scale, including here in the United States."
Cheney provided no details, however, of the kinds of attacks he expected.
Although the administration has been criticized by some, including most of the Democratic candidates for president, for not doing enough to eliminate known programs for developing weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Cheney said they were a priority and confronted the United States with its gravest threat.
Again, he presented the risks of a terrorist attack involving these weapons in stark terms.
"Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives as the result of a single attack, or a set coordinated of attacks," Cheney said.
While polls show that many Americans support the president's aggressive war on terrorism, he also has many critics for the way the battle has been waged. The president initially justified the war in Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein had active programs to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The United States has yet to find evidence of such programs since overthrowing Hussein and installing a military occupation, prompting questions about the president's agenda and the quality of intelligence he is receiving.
In addition, an expert at the U.S. Army War College, Jeffrey Record, recently released a 62-page analysis that concluded the war in Iraq might have set back American efforts to stop terrorists by diverting precious resources to a battle that will do little to prevent new attacks.
As a result, Record concluded, the war on terrorism "lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives and may not be sustainable over the long haul."
But in his speech Wednesday, Cheney compared this moment to the challenges faced by President Harry Truman at the beginning of the Cold War, when there was a hot war flaring on the Korean Peninsula and a long-term nuclear standoff developing with the Soviet Union.
Cheney said Bush was establishing, as Truman had, a new structure for a new long-term war and spreading the military into new areas of the globe. "On Sept. 11, 2001, our nation made a fundamental commitment that will take many years to see through," Cheney said.
There was also William Safire talk of an "October Surprise".
Some see it coming earlier for some reasons:
<< Michael Ruppert and John Dean have commented on the importance of and, how crucial these court decisions are, in testing the powers of the Bush Administration.
The point is that I would suggest that instead of an 'October Surprise', this 'surprise' will come much earlier, perhaps to thwart or delay these court decisions that may and, certainly should go against the Bush juanta.
FYI
The cases are:
John Dean writes:
"Sealed Case. A case so secret it does not appear on the Court's docket, and the Solicitor General simply refers to it as "this matter ? that is required to be kept under seal." In fact, it is not all that secret. It involves Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel, who wants the Court to rule on whether he was improperly secretly jailed. The government want to argue its case in secret. But some twenty news organizations are opposing this extreme secrecy.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This case raises the rights of an American citizen -- Yaser Hamdi -- who was captured overseas and held in the United States as an "enemy combatant." Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan.
Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v. United States. These cases address the habeas corpus rights of aliens detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government is maintaining that these aliens do not have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld. This case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held indefinitely, in a military prison, as an "enemy combatant." He was arrested when deplaning in Chicago. (Thus, his case may be treated differently from that of Hamdi, who was arrested abroad, in Afghanistan.) The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of Congress." The Government is appealing, claiming that the President has power to unilaterally cause such detentions to occur.
Cheney v. Judicial Watch and Sierra Club. This case involves the right of the vice president (and, by implication, of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a civil lawsuit. The suit seeks to determine if Cheney violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the law that forced First Lady Hillary Clinton to open up her sessions on health care).
Given the importance of all of these cases (with their implications), I've got them on my docket, and" plan to follow them in the coming weeks and months. >>
Now this:
<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>.<>
<> LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN <>
<>.<>.<> Los Angeles, Alta California <>.<>.<>
January 7, 2004
New York to be "Nuked" on Feb. 2
http://www.aztlan.net/nynuked.htm
George Noory, host of the national radio program Coast to Coast, spoke last night of a terrorist nuclear bomb attack on New York City to take place next month on Tuesday February 2. Radio talk host Noory obtained his information from the respected Italian newspaper Il Giornale based in Milan.
The Il Giornale devoted a large part of the front page to the report and prefaced it with the headline, "Al Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2". According to Il Giornale, the threat was stated through a video shown on a web site associated with al Qaeda.
This threat may explain the unprecedented security measures that have been undertaken by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg during the past two weeks. Callers from New York City to the radio program Coast to Coast said that Manhattan and surrounding neighborhoods are being monitored by a large number of helicopters designed to detect "radiation emissions" on the ground. A nuclear device hidden in a truck or building can be detected by sensitive radiological equipment aboard helicopters that fly relatively close to the ground. Also, the US Department of Homeland Security has sent large fixed radiation detectors and hundreds of pager-size radiation monitors for use by the New York City Police Department.
Under the present political environment, it is very difficult to ascertain whether the threat is credible, however, this is not the first time that reliable journalists have reported on the imminent nuking of New York City. On November 14, 2002, the Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar who writes for the Hong Kong based Asian Times reported in an article titled "Apocalypse Now, or Alottanukes Soon" that "Seven nuclear heads have already been positioned in seven of America's major cities and they are ready to be detonated." On August 30, 2001 Escobar predicted the World Trade Center terrorist attack in an article titled, "Get Osama! Now! Or else " in which he reported for the Asian Times on a meeting between the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Get Osama! Now! Or else
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH30Df01.html
Also, it is now very difficult to determine who may actually be behind the terrorist attacks and threats. If a nuclear bomb is detonated in New York City on February 2, most likely it will be blamed on Osama Bin Laden, however, many Americans are now wondering if Osama Bin Laden was actually behind the strike on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. One of these is political scientist Joel Skousen who was Coast to Coast's guest last night. Skousen said, "No verifiable evidence has been produced that shows that Arabs were in charge of the strike." He also suggested that the last few presidents have been "script readers" who take their orders from a controlling set of individuals above them.
George Noory, Coast to Coast radio host, seconded Mr. Skousen's beliefs when he expressed that there is something about the current terrorist attacks and threats that he "just can't put his finger on." He said that the situation is like a "jigsaw puzzle", that we have just a few pieces of the entire puzzle in place.
There's no reason to bump this years old thread other than to troll
Anandtech Admin
Red Dawn
Last edited by a moderator:
Facebook
Twitter