FOX Attacks Decency… with Bill O’Reilly Leading the Way (video)

Dandelion Salad

bravenewfilms

Petition: http://foxattacks.com/decency

Most of you are aware, and most likely have been for a while, that under the guise of “news” Fox has offered its viewers a steady stream of bias pertaining to social and political issues since its inception in 1996. From attacking Black America to pushing for war with Iran, from demonizing bloggers to distorting environmental issues, theirs is quite a record of achievement in propagating propaganda that is neither fair nor balanced.

Today we have a surprise (well at least it surprised all of us at Brave New Films). Thanks to the terrific work of the News Hounds, we bring you Fox and ole’ Billy O’Reilly attacking decency. Yes, you read that right. The self-righteous, pompous, bloviators who deign to lecture on how we should behave in our personal lives, are in fact exploiting women, pandering to the lowest common denominator and pushing smut out on the airwaves on a daily basis!

And this will definitely raise your hackles. YOU ARE PAYING FOR THIS! Yes, you read that right too. So watch the video and pass it along to as many on your email list as possible. We simply must let the FCC know we are mad as hell about having their smut in our homes and as being forced to pay for it. And we’re simply not going to take it anymore.

More Questions About the Minot Nukes by Dave Lindorff

Dandelion Salad

by Dave Lindorff
This Can’t Be Happening!
Sun, 11/04/2007

The Pentagon has been stonewalling on my requests for answers to key questions. For two weeks a public affairs office has been declining to respond to my question about whether the six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles flown by B-52 from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB were programmed for specific targets, and if so what theose targets were, or even whether the team that investigated the incident checked to see if they were targeted.

The Air Force and Pentagon have also declined to explain whether US nuclear weapons in storage in US bunkers have been provided with the same alarm and motion-detection sensors that the National Nuclear Security Agency helped to install on the nukes being stored on Russian bases.

Clearly if such devices are standard on US nukes, as several Air Force active and retired personnel have assured me is the case, then there is no way that those weapons could have been removed from the Minot bunker by “mistake” as claimed the Air Force’s official report on the incident.

The Pentagon has also refused to state whether the missiles were fueled up or not.

Finally, there is another big question that has not even been asked. Supposedly the reason the B-52 was flying to Barksdale with 12 missiles is that they are part of a total of 400 of these things, all of which have been declared obsolete and slated for destruction. But if all those Advanced Cruise Missiles are obsolete, then there is simply no reason for having any of them fitted with nuclear warheads. If they’re obsolete, none of them would be on stand-by status. No one at Minot would ever be mounting a nuke on a cruise missile. Note that the Air Force is not claiming that the initial mounting of six warheads onto six missiles was a “mistake.” Only that nobody in the subsequent chain of events was alerted to the fact that the warheads had been mounted. But why would warheads have been mounted on obsolete weapons in the first place?

Meanwhile, I have no knowledge as to the accuracy of this, but one Air Force vet tells me that the Advanced Cruise Missiles that were nuclear armed and mounted on a launch pylon on the B-52 in question would have been electronically linked to the plane automatically (which has the capability to program and re-program the targeting of the missiles), and that therefore the pilot of the plane would have instantly seen on his instrument console that he had nukes on board that flight. He also told me that the idea that the pilot would only have checked out the missiles mounted on one wing–by chance the wing that had the six missiles with dummy warheads–instead of both pylons and all 12 missiles as required, which is the claim of the Air Force report, is ludicrous. As he notes, pilots on these aging Stratofortresses see the pre-flight check as a life-or-death matter. Anything wrong on these planes can mean loss of the plane and even loss of the lives of the entire crew and of people on the ground. That would include the secure mounting of the missile cargo.

As a former semi-trailer driver myself, I know that those checks of all the main systems–air brakes, trailer linkage, tire pressure, lights, etc.–are not taken lightly. Before you head out on the road with a trailer truck, you check out all the critical systems, because you know your life depends on their working properly. Surely this would be much more true with a strategic bomber, especially when it is carrying 12 missiles under its wings.

There is another question, raised by an Air Force vet in a comment below, which also bears investigation. The Air Force is claiming that the B-52 was supposedly ferrying 12 unarmed cruise missiles to Barksdale for disassembly. But a B-52, an antique aircraft which requires a big crew, demands enormous amounts of sevicing and repair and wastes a prodigious amount of fuel, is a terribly inefficient way to ferry these weapons to a graveyard. It would be infinitely cheaper to truck the missile bodies overland, or to stack and ship them in cargo planes, and in fact it simply defies belief that the Air Force would be doing this with Stratofortresses.

The more you look at this story, the more obvious it is that the Air Force claim that this was all just a big “mistake” has to be a blatant cover-up of the truth.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Could those loose nukes have been meant for the Syrian strike? by The Other Katherine Harris

US Bombed Syria: Report

The Air Force Cover-Up of That Minot-Barksdale Nuke Missile Flight by Dave Lindorff

Air Force Confirms Nuclear Warheads Flown Across US (short video)

Simple Error My Ass – Loose Nukes by Larry C. Johnson

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran: Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater by Wayne Madsen

U.S. Staging Nukes for Iran? by Larry Johnson

A Major Mistake Involving Nuclear Warheads (video) + B-52 flew nuclear bombs across US by mistake

Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the US? by Bill Van Auken

Democrats’ Year of Living Fecklessly By Robert Parry

Dandelion Salad

By Robert Parry
(A Special Report)
Consortium News
November 7, 2007

One year ago, the Democrats ended Republican control of Congress, stirring millions of Americans to hope that George W. Bush’s Iraq War and his assault on the U.S. Constitution finally would be stopped.

Twelve months later, many of those once-hopeful voters feel bitter disillusionment toward the national Democratic Party, which has surrendered in showdown after showdown with the weakened President, from continuing to write blank checks for the Iraq War to ceding more power to him for his surveillance operations.

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee couldn’t even put together enough of a united front to block Bush’s appointment of a new Attorney General who believes the President should possess nearly unlimited powers in wartime and who won’t say that the simulated drowning of waterboarding constitutes torture.

Though some voters have been surprised by the consistency of these Democratic cave-ins, the pattern actually started immediately after the surprising election results of Nov. 7, 2006, when Democrats won narrow majorities in the House and Senate.

Rather than escalate their political confrontation with Bush, the Democrats opted for a course of wishful thinking and empty gestures. Most importantly, the Democrats chose not only to keep impeachment off the table, but avoided any comprehensive investigation into controversial Bush policies.

There were no Fulbright-style hearings on the origins of the Iraq War; there were no broad challenges to the excessive secrecy that Bush clamped down around his constitutional violations in the “war on terror”; the best the Democrats could muster were scatter-shot hearings by Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee.

In short, the Democrats not only failed to mount a sustained challenge to Bush’s policies, they avoided any systematic hearings that would educate the American public about why Bush’s presidency has represented such an extraordinary threat to the Republic. They have acted as if the people simply should “get it” without any more information.

This Democratic tendency to de-value information – and a timidity toward real oversight – can be traced back to the 1980s when accommodating Democrats, such as Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, sought to finesse, rather than confront, abuses of power by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush during the Iran-Contra Affair and related scandals.

The pattern deepened in 1993 when Bill Clinton won the presidency and the Democrats still controlled Congress. At that point, they shelved investigations of Reagan-Bush crimes, including clandestine military support for Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, drug-trafficking by the Nicaraguan contra rebels, and still-secret dealings with Iran.

Clinton and the Democrats judged that the hard work of getting at the truth and exacting accountability was less important than wooing some moderate Republicans into hoped-for support of Clinton’s budget, health-care and other domestic priorities. [For details on this failed strategy, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Consumers, Not Citizens

By their actions in the early days of the Clinton administration, the national Democrats revealed that they viewed the American people more as consumers eager for services than citizens needing honest information to fulfill their duties in a democratic Republic.

Clinton also apparently thought that his magnanimous gesture, especially in letting former President George H.W. Bush off the hook, would win reciprocity from the Republicans. Instead, they took the Democratic scrapping of the Reagan-Bush investigations as a sign of weakness and unleashed the emerging right-wing media against Clinton.

Despite catastrophic political results – losing control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000 – the national Democrats learned few lessons from the Clinton debacles. In 2002 and 2004, they reacted to Bush and his “war on terror” gingerly and suffered more defeats.

Finally, in 2006, heeding an increasingly angry “base,” the Democrats adopted a tougher stance toward Bush and were surprised by their own success. Yet, even as congressional Democrats were picking confetti out of their hair, they were reverting to their can’t-we-all-get-along approach.

On Nov. 8, the day after the election, Bush announced that he was replacing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with former CIA Director Robert Gates. The Democrats hailed the move, thinking that it signaled a new assertion of control by the “realists” from President George H.W. Bush’s administration.

After all, Gates had worked for the elder Bush and was a member of the Iraq Study Group, which was planning to urge a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. A Newsweek cover illustrated this thesis with a large Poppy Bush in the foreground and a smaller Sonny Bush in the rear.

A conventional wisdom took shape, that Gates gave up his beloved presidency of Texas A&M to undertake the thankless job of walking junior Bush back from the brink.

At Consortiumnews.com, we published a series of contrarian stories about Gates, many drawing from CIA officers who had worked with Gates. They regarded him as the consummate bureaucratic “yes man” who operated with a burning ambition concealed beneath a mild-mannered persona.

In this view, Gates, one of the political casualties of the Iran-Contra Affair, had never gotten over his ouster from the center of Washington power. Not nearly as content with his life in “Aggie-land” as he led people to think, Gates saw his Pentagon appointment as possibly his last chance to return to the world stage.

Continued…

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Why Did Ron Paul Vote Against Impeachment? By Manila Ryce

I agree with Manila, it doesn’t make sense that Ron Paul does NOT support impeachment. ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

By Manila Ryce
The Largest Minority
Published Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 10:08 pm

To paraphrase the late, great Ricky Ricardo, Ron Paul’s got some splainin’ to do. I would like to urge all first-time pro-Paul visitors to my leftist pinko blog to please save all reactionary hate mail until after you’ve actually read what I have to say. Paul’s vote to table the impeachment resolution, then to refer it to committee is especially troubling coming from a supposed constitutionalist. He voted with the Democratic leadership on both accounts.

There are a few excuses being kicked around the internet which are all rather weak. Firstly, I don’t buy the excuse that he knew the bill wouldn’t go anywhere so he decided not to vote in favor of it. After all, Paul got the nickname of “Doctor No” by adhering to his constitutional principles regardless of the politics surrounding the issues. Did he not? Secondly, I also don’t buy Paul’s own line that there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest that the Bush administration has done anything illegal, as there supposedly was to warrant his vote for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Cheney’s own words are sufficient evidence in themselves.

More importantly, impeachment is not an actual trial, and requires no evidence at all (not that there isn’t any). It is merely an indictment to formally accuse an official of committing a criminal offense. Voting to table the resolution was a vote to prevent such an investigation. The evidence is presented after the House votes in favor of impeachment, not before.

Perhaps even more confusing is this interview from the far-right website InfoWars from March:

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

“I would have trouble arguing that he’s been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.”

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of “soft fascism,” Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

I don’t think even Neocon fluffers like Traitor Joe can argue that Dennis Kucinich engages in “partisan vengeance,” so that excuse is out the window as well. Ron Paul’s commitment to the constitution was tested yesterday, and it unfortunately fell short of our expectations. It’s contradictory to say there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment against the very same people you say are violating the constitution. Impeachment isn’t just an option, it’s an obligation. There’s no glory in defending the indefensible, and Paul’s vote was just that. I urge his supporters to contact Paul about his vote. Tell him to vote in favor of impeachment the next time Kucinich brings it back to the floor. And liberals, don’t forget to do the same with your representatives.

You can also call Paul’s office and leave a message:
(202) 225-2831

see

Kucinich: I have 3-inch binder documenting Cheney’s crimes By David Edwards & Jason Rhyne (link)

Impeachment: What to do next (Action Alert; updated)

Rep. Wexler Will Urge the Judiciary Committee to Hold Immediate Hearings on Impeachment!!!

Kucinich is Wrecking the Dem 2008 Strategy

Naomi Wolf: Impeach, Prosecute and Save America! (video)

Riz Khan: “Rendition’s” Omar Metwally (video; over 18 only)

Dandelion Salad

AlJazeeraEnglish

Riz Khan speak’s with actor Omar Metwally about his role in the recently released Hollywood film.

Added: November 08, 2007

see

Frontline: Extraordinary Rendition (link) + Interview with Stephen Grey (video) 

Warning, this film could make you very angry by Robert Fisk

“Rendition” Film All Too Real for CIA Kidnapping Victims (link; interview)

Rendition

Rendition/CIA Secret Prisons

Dress Rehearsal Raga by The Other Katherine Harris (Pakistan + vid)

The Other Katherine Harris

by The Other Katherine Harris

Featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Other Katherine Harris’s blog
Nov. 8, 2007

In the evolving classical music tradition of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, a raga takes selected historic motifs for a contemporary spin. Striving to evoke and sustain a mood, the melody returns often to a dominant note called a vadi and to a samvadi that receives secondary emphasis.

Let’s say the chosen mood is Fear — the vadi, External Enemies — the samvadi, Internal Enemies. The composition wouldn’t sound much different in Islamabad or Washington.

Pakistan’s Decider, General-President Pervez Musharraf, would have us endorse his ardor to subdue barbarians at the gates and vipers within the national nest who compromise this righteous enterprise — never mind that he’s rounding up peaceful fans of democracy, or that his suspension of civil law came after learning the Supreme Court would rule against extension of his term in office (as BBC News reported this morning).

The only reason for declaring a state of emergency there is that his jig is up, otherwise. But our Decider sees no cause to suspend lavishing $80 million of our tax dollars on the Musharraf tyranny every month — something like $9 billion since the 9/11 boondoggle began, most to fund the military dictator’s military machine.

What do you bet Shrub has been a very, very jealous boy lately? Besides Musharraf’s example, since he took the gloves off Saturday, the Burmese Generals have been on rampage for months and, just today, Mikhail Saakashvili got to decree emergency and loose riot police on pro-Moscow protestors in Georgia.

Having a Constitution still in place can’t be any fun for him, even if Shrub consistently violates it in every way short of imposing martial law and releasing the full menace of his toy soldiers. One has to wonder just how long he’ll bother to restrain himself, since our bought-and-paid-for Congress will do nothing to restrain him.

As he coos, “Take off your uniform,” to Musharraf — as if that’s all it would take to set things right — perhaps he sees himself wearing it.

***

Bush to Musharraf: Take Off Your Uniform

Veracifier

November 7, 2007

see

Bell Tolls for Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” by Ali Gharib

Crisis in Pakistan: Leading Journalist Speaks Out (video)

Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Eric Margolis (+ video)

Olbermann: Musharraf Coup + Tortured Reasoning + Worst Person (videos)

The End Is Near!—Gisele Bundchen Dumps Dollar By Paul Craig Roberts

Dandelion Salad

By Paul Craig Roberts
November 06, 2007

The US dollar is still officially the world’s reserve currency, but it cannot purchase the services of Brazilian super model Gisele Bundchen. Gisele required the $30 million she earned during the first half of this year to be paid in euros.

photo

Gisele is not alone in her forecast of the dollar’s fate. The First Post (UK) reports that Jim Rogers, a former partner of billionaire George Soros, is selling his home and all possessions in order to convert all his wealth into Chinese yuan.

Meanwhile, American economists continue to preach that offshoring is good for the US economy and that Bush’s war spending is keeping the economy going. The practitioners of supply and demand have yet to figure out that the dollar’s supply is sinking the dollar’s price and along with it American power.

The macho super patriots who support the Bush regime still haven’t caught on that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, not on a military unable to occupy Baghdad.

If the dollar were not the world currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an impossibility considering America’s $800 billion trade deficit.

When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, foreigners will cease to finance the US trade and budget deficits, and the American Empire along with its wars will disappear overnight.

Perhaps Bush will be able to get a World Bank loan, or maybe one from the Chavez bank, to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Foreign leaders, observing that offshoring and war are accelerating America’s relative economic decline, no longer treat the US with the deference to which Washington is accustomed. Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, recently refused Washington’s demand to renew the lease on the Manta air base in Ecuador. He told Washington that the US could have a base in Ecuador if Ecuador could have a military base in the US.

When Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez addressed the UN, he crossed himself as he stood at the podium. Referring to President Bush, Chavez said, “Yesterday the devil came here, and it smells of sulfur still today.” Bush, said Chavez, was standing “right here, talking as if he owned the world.”

In his state of the nation message last year, Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Bush’s blathering about democracy was nothing but a cloak for the pursuit of American self-interests at the expense of other peoples: “We are aware what is going on in the world. Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat, and he eats without listening, and he’s clearly not going to listen to anyone.” In May 2007, Putin criticized the neocon regime in Washington for “disrespect for human life” and “claims to global exclusiveness, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”

Even America’s British allies regard President Bush as a threat to world peace and the second most dangerous man alive. Bush is edged out in polls by Osama bin Laden, but is regarded as more dangerous than Iran’s demonized president and North Korea’s Kim Jong-il.

President Bush has achieved his dismal world standing despite spending $1.6 billion of hard-pressed Americans’ tax money on public relations between 2003 and 2006.

Clearly, America’s leader and America’s currency are poorly regarded. Is there a solution?

Perhaps the answer lies in those 737 overseas bases. If those bases were brought home and shared among the 50 states, each state would gain 15 new military bases.

Imagine what this would mean: The end of the housing slump. A reduction in the trade deficit. And the end of the war on terror.

Who would dare attack a country with 15 new military bases in every state in addition to the existing ones? Wherever a terrorist turned, he would find himself surrounded by soldiers.

All of the dollars currently spent abroad to support 737 overseas bases would be spent at home. Income for foreigners would become income for Americans, and the trade deficit would shrink.

The impact of the 737 military base payrolls on the US economy would end the housing crisis and bring back the 140,000 highly paid financial services jobs, the loss of which this year has cost the US $42 billion in consumer income. Foreclosures and bankruptcies would plummet.

If this isn’t enough to turn the dollar around, President Bush’s pledge not to appoint an Attorney General if Michael Mukasey is not confirmed offers more promise. If the Democrats will defeat Mukasey’s nomination, there are other superfluous cabinet departments that can be closed down in addition to the US Department of Torture and Indefinite Detention.

The American empire is being unwound on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. The year is two months from being over, but already in 2007, despite the touted “surge,” deaths of US soldiers are the highest of any year of the war.

The Taliban are the ones who are surging. They have taken control of a third district in Western Afghanistan. Turkey and the Kurds are on the verge of turning northern Iraq into a new war zone, another demonstration of American impotence.

Bush’s wars have endangered America’s puppet regimes. Bush’s Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is fighting for his life. By resorting to “emergency rule” and oppressive measures, Musharraf has intensified his opposition. When Musharraf falls, thanks to Bush, the Islamists will have nukes.

American generals used to say that the wars Bush started in the Middle East would take 10 years to win. On Oct. 31 General John Abizaid, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, put paid to that optimistic forecast. Speaking at Carnegie Mellon University, Gen. Abizaid said it would be 50 years before US troops can leave the Middle East.

There is no possibility of the US remaining the Middle East for a half century. The dollar and US power are already on their last legs, unbeknownst to Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid who are preparing yet another blank check for Bush’s latest request for $200 billion in supplementary war funding.

There isn’t any money with which to fund Bush’s lost war. It will have to be borrowed from China.

The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years.

Even as Gisele throws off the dollar’s hegemony, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Columbia are declaring independence of the IMF and World Bank, instruments of US financial hegemony, by creating their own development bank, thus bringing to an end US suzerainty over South America.

An empire that has lost its backyard is finished.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Frontline: Extraordinary Rendition + Interview with Stephen Grey (links)

Dandelion Salad

PBS

video link

In a crowded city in northern Egypt, FRONTLINE/World investigative reporter Stephen Grey tracks down a man who was once one of the CIA’s “ghost prisoners.” The bulky, bearded man he finds is Abu Omar al-Masri, an Egyptian cleric who had moved to Milan, Italy.

“I was kidnapped on the 17th February, 2003,” he tells Grey. “Then I disappeared from history.”

Abu Omar had been preaching at a mosque in Milan. The Italian police began to suspect that he was recruiting young Muslims to wage jihad against Americans. The CIA put him under surveillance, believing he was plotting a bomb attack on a school bus of American children. One day, CIA agents suddenly snatched him off the streets of Milan and loaded him on to a secret Gulfstream jet. The next thing he knew, he was back in Egypt, where he says he was interrogated and tortured.

“They started to beat me,” says Abu Omar, “with their fists, with sticks, with truncheons.”

Abu Omar says his torture lasted 14 months; the worst of it taking place at the secret police headquarters in Cairo. To date, more than 60 prisoners are believed to have been sent there by the United States.

This is the dark story of “extraordinary rendition,” says Grey, a secret program in which the United States captures terror suspects around the world and flies them to countries like Egypt, Syria or Morocco, where, critics say, torture is routine.

“We cannot deny that there could be some excesses, some acts of cruelty by security officers,” Egyptian General Ahmad Omar tells Grey. But he denies that torture is state policy and he insists that Egyptian and U.S. intelligence agencies are justified in taking action against those suspected of terrorist activities.

Now released from jail, Abu Omar maintains his innocence, saying he’s willing to defend himself in court if the Egyptians or the Americans ever charge him with a crime. Guilty or not, Abu Omar and his rendition have become a disaster for the CIA. Italian police investigating the case were able to identify the CIA agents involved. They are set to go on trial, in absentia, on charges of conspiracy to kidnap — a rare and politically embarrassing instance of a U.S. ally in Europe trying CIA agents in court.

continued

***

Democracy Now: Frontline Special on Rendition

As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to vote today on the nomination of retired judge Michael Mukasey to be attorney general, a new PBS documentary features interviews with victims of extraordinary rendition speaking for the first time on US television. We speak to investigative journalist Stephen Grey. [includes rush transcript]

Stephen Grey. Award-winning investigative journalist who first tracked the CIA’s rendition flights. He is author of the book “Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program.” His international investigation on Extraordinary Rendition airs at 9pm Eastern tonight on FRONTLINE/World on PBS.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Warning, this film could make you very angry by Robert Fisk

“Rendition” Film All Too Real for CIA Kidnapping Victims (link; interview)

Naomi Wolf: Impeach, Prosecute and Save America! (video)

Dandelion Salad

liamh2

On Nov. 7, 2007, author Naomi Wolf was in Baltimore, Maryland, to discuss her latest book, “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.” One of the topics that came up during her remarks was the Constitutional issue of the impeachment of both President George W. Bush and V. P. Dick Cheney by the U.S. Congress. The event was held at the Bolton Street Synagogue and was sponsored by Breathe Books, located in the Hamden area of Baltimore.

see
Talk by Naomi Wolf – The End of America (video) (must-see)

America’s Road to Tyranny By Vincent L. Guarisco

A “Paper Coup,” and Blackwater Eyes Midtown Manhattan By Naomi Wolf

Paths Towards Fascism by Naomi Wolf