Bush Illegally Targets Innocent American Civilians on US 'Battlefield'

When the propaganda doesn't work, they target the audience.

Reed, check 1 May entry for Haloscan comments.Fast Link here

The big sham with the NSA spying is who they say they're targeting. War Criminal Bush claims he'll "use all methods" to defeat the enemy.

Strange, he refuses to capture AlZachawari-hi-hi-ha-ha and Bone LodeDunn when he has a chance. Rather he'd go after easy prey: Innocent American civilians. This is another of the many war crimes against humanity and civilians. He does this to you and your neighbors. He considers you the enemy.

The President is more interested in creating excuses to abuse power, not actually solve the problem he says he's trying to solve.

He says he is for peace in the Middle East; but he refuses to listen to Iranian overtures to recognize Israel.

He says he's for security of America; but he refuses to hunt down in Iraq those he says he's hunting down. He lets them go.

He says he's for a stable Afghanistan and Iraq; but he fails to put the troops needed in place to achieve that goal.

He says he's for "using all means" to hunt down the Enemy and protect Americans; but he's refusing to use all power to capture others overseas, and would rather violate the rights of Americans.

He consistently shows us his words and "reasons" are laughable. We really have to question what really happened on 9-11, not just who did it, but what really happened before hand. Given the explosives in the WTC, I have no confidence the real culprits behind the Sept 2001 events have been openly discussed. Rather, the "link" with the Middle East has simply been asserted. Nothing is adding up. It's far more likely Bush and Cheney are just as linked/guilty as anyone else. Moreover, if you look at the Mehlis Assassination -- and lack of NSA evidence to prompt any action -- you'll see there's a problem: Either NSA, GCHQ or Canada's Intelligence would have picked up who was discussing placing the explosives. It's a total sham what is going on in America. Yes, it's no different than the Reichstag in Germany.

* * *

Remember who you're dealing with: A group of criminals who like to classify information about non-classified things. [ Ref ] We can make some adverse inferences over the classification of the meeting dates:

1. The meeting dates were beyond the timeframe required by law;

2. The White House knows that revealing the dates of the meetings will raise questions about the timelines of other events and speeches the White House has publicly asserted the opposite;

3. The information will raise questions about the information already provided to Congress to evaluate whether reports to Congress were not consistent with these filings;

4. Raise reasonable questions why the President failed to timely provide Congress formal notification -- as required by Statute under Title 50 -- that there were illegal NSA activities; and

5. The American government is not capable of conducting its operations in a lawful manner consistent with the Constitution; and the system of oversight and checks and balances has failed, raising questions of legitimacy.

But why stop there? This blogger asks the right question: What if the rest of the world gives the US an ultimatum: "Assent to the rule of law, or we'll make you"?

* * *

Here's the Colbert Transcript, with the Video of Helen Thomas.

Colbert merely touched the surface. The President is upset.

I should say so: America finally heard the truth. The Press finally had tape. It was all there.

The only thing missing was Colbert walking up to the President and telling him -- not asking him -- to sign a New Constitution as King John was forced to do. You watch, that's next year's Press Corps dinner entertainment.

Bring your cameras.

* * *

Bush is using things online that will scare you. This is why you need to monitor your children's surfing habits on the internet: [ Click ] Government pornography-a-ganda.

* * *

Remember the 9-11 testimony? Both Bush and Cheney were "not under oath" but they testified together. Take a look at this. This means that regardless what Cheney/Bush may have said, that Cheney was in a position to know what was going on well before Sept 2001: It was either he or the President that was in charge of the NSC, and there was no reason to interview Rice who had no role in chairing the principals meetings.

In light of the "big revelations" about Cheney's real role on the NSC, take a look at Rice's 9-11 testimony when asked about "principals". . .

Makes you wonder how she could have answered those questions since it wasn't RIce, but Cheney who was running the meetings. The 9-11 Commission didn't ask the right person about the principals. Now that we know about Cheney's role on the NSC in early 2001:

A. What did Cheney know about who placed the explosives in the World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7?

B. What did the NSA know?

C. What did the AT&T contractors know using the NARUS STA 6400 system?

Let's consider. . .

How would the questions put to Rice had been different had they known her role was something quite different than we'd been led to believe?

Was Rice simply a messenger girl, and not really in charge of the NSC?

Take a look at this Question from Hamilton:

HAMILTON: And by our count here, there were some 100 meetings by the national security principals before the first meeting was held on terrorism, September 4. And General Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that terrorism had been pushed farther to the back burner. Now, this is what we're trying to assess. We have your statements. We have these other statements. And I know, as I indicated in my opening comments, how difficult the role of the policymaker is and how many things press upon you. But I did want to give you an opportunity to comment on some of these other matters.Ref

Based on the new information, Rice wasn't in any legal position to respond as she was never -- after Feb 2001 -- every in charge of any principals meeting. Only the Vice President and President were.

Rice later does a dance:

But I just don't believe that bringing the principals over to the White House every day and having their counterterrorism people have to come with them and be pulled away from what they were doing to disrupt was a good way to go about this. It wasn't an efficient way to go about it.

She wasn't in any position to say whether they were or were not going to the White House. Rather, since Cheney was in Charge -- at those times the President was not -- Rice never had a say-so. It was up to Cheney, not Rice.

Fielding's question illuminates the confusion over who or was not in charge of the principals -- not Rice -- but Cheney:

FIELDING: Now, during this period of time, what -- and I'd like you to just respond to several points -- what involvement did you have in this alert? And how did it come about that the CSG was handling this thing as opposed to the principals? Because candidly it's been suggested that the difference between the 1999 handling and this one was that you didn't have the principals dealing with it; therefore, it wasn't given the priority; therefore, the people weren't forced to do what they would otherwise have done, et cetera. You've heard the same things I've heard.

Again, Rice never had a role -- as the 9-11 Commission appears to have been led to believe -- so Rice's answer in response to this fault assumption simply shifts attention from Cheney over what role Cheney did or didn't have. See the similarity with the Plame-Rove-Libby? If you can plant the "wrong story" over what did or didn't happen, the line of questions will never point to what really happened, and any answer you give -- understandably non-sense -- can be a "right answer" -- because the premise of the question is based on falsehoods. Again, Rice never took an oath to correct Congress or faulty questions when those faulty assumptions are in the interests of the White House. Just like what happened with Iraq WMD.

Lesson/Point: Review this link and do a Kw="principals" -- then consider what you are hearing/reading in light of what we know of Rice's real role at the NSC: Never in charge of the principals meeting. It was Cheney. Key point: How did Cheney/Rice testimony on principals-related questions differ; and what should Cheney have been told in early 2001 about the placement of explosives inside the WTC?

* * *

This is an old link, but I encourage you to read it: It gives some insight into the secret NSA trials and the abuse of power: [ Click ]

This link gives a good summary of the abuses -- Recommend you look at the content related Footnote 76. [I am not vouching for the sources, only that the word "battlefield" has being used at Footnote 76.]

Here's the point: That is how the President looks at Americans: You are the enemy, and you live on his "battlefield". Do not forget how he views you -- collateral damage. He has no respect for you, the law, or the country. He views you with as much disdain as he does the Iraqis, Iranians, or Afghans. Using the NSA against you is like using combat-support tools illegally. These are war crimes; and he will commit more crimes to cover up the original crimes. Congress is not stopping him.

He is putting himself before you; and he is hiding behind you and his criminals to avoid lawful consequences for his war crimes and violations of the law. The Congress illegally assents to this rebellion. They violate their oaths.

Bottom line

His reasons for acting are not credible. He's about one thing: Abusing power.

He's simply finding excuses to abuse power.

It's time to re-open what happened before 9-11. [How to find who in the White House was behind 9-11: Click ]

* * *

Don't wait until November to take it out on the RNC. The RNC has chosen to align itself with war criminals. The RNC is a threat to America and the Constitution. They need to be outlawed as were the Nazis. Although Bush may not be running, the RNC is riding on his Nazi coattails to commit more war crimes. They are foolish to believe that "whether Bush is or is not up for election is irrelevant." Rather, the issue is that Bush is still violating the law, and the RNC refuses to assert the rule of law. This makes the RNC and its membership co-conspirators. They should be treated with as much disdain as you would any other alleged criminal like this one -- know they are capable of anything to avoid accountability. Yes, they have already killed and committed war crimes. There's nothing "new" that they can do -- to avoid accountability, as they want -- except more of what they're already doing.

Prepare for the RNC Excuses to Assent to this War Criminal

Notice the strategy of the RNC to dissuade action on the State Level impeachment effort. They will try mix up the issue with "other things."

Notice they're not actually saying why the 603/State Impeachment effort should fail. Rather, they simply assert that "nothing will be done." Here's what you need to do: Remind the public and Congressional leadership about the Swayne Precedent: IT forces the House to vote before it goes to Committee. [ Don't take the bait: Details ]

The example shows they want to say that the proponents are for "other things related to oil." That's known as a red herring. Because they can't argue the original issue, they'll "cloud" and "shape" the discussion by associating the topic with "other things" that may or may not be related. Notice they're not actually saying why the effort is or isn't bad -- they're simply asserting that it is because "the proponents are associated with a position X or Y on oil." That's no different than the McCarthyism smear efforts of the 1950s.

Remember what Clooney's film was about: The media attack on McCarthy. Know who is attempting to hijack Clooney: This person who is just as willing to use the McCarthy-like smear tactics as the RNC. Choose your allies carefully.

Guess who's got their own Wiki Page? [ Share with your friends: Click ]

* * *

Time to think about the laws of war. If your "leadership" is willing to violate the laws of war, and target you; then those who violate the laws of war cannot rely on those laws.

This means one thing: If Americans are subject to government targeting -- whatever the reason or method -- then it is the responsibility of the people to realize: The government no longer can expect its citizens to recognize its power as legitimate.

This government violates the laws of war. American citizens who are subject to that unlawful attack -- and there are no other options given the refusal of the Congress and Courts to intervene -- then the public may lawfully reciprocate.

The more laws this war criminal violates -- and does so in a manner he argues is linked with this "war against American civilians" -- then we are no longer bound by those laws he violates. This is the principle of reciprocity.

Wake of call for Congress: Unless you tame this war criminal, you're saying to Americans, "It's OK if you violate the same laws as the President does. This is a war on the American battlefield. Those who have their rights violated in this illegal war against American civilians should not be expected to follow those laws either."

Congratulations: Congress is now sending a green light, "It's a free for all. Americans can violate any law the President violates." That's crazy, but it is what Congress is clearly communicating.

* * *

This President needs to make it clear whether he means what he says and does: That American citizens may be targeted, and that "because the President is doing it, then it is legal." This is non-sense that is no different than what Nixon says, "Hay, if the President does it, it must be legal."

Rather, this war criminal refuses to distance himself from the logical conclusion: He wants all others to assent to his violations of the law and war crimes; but expects all others to grovel, all the while honoring the laws of war he refuses to follow.

It doesn't work that way. Once he violates the laws of war, then those so targeted are no longer bound by those similarly-violated laws of war.

I'm not advocating violence. Rather, I'm arguing that the longer this Congress refuses to tame this war criminal, the less confidence they can have that the public need to be bound by "confidentiality agreements."

We are not bound to be silent about abuses of power or the law. Rather, we have the power -- as we have always had -- to violate the rights of those who violate our rights. Normally the courts, Congress, and system of laws will do this.

We are now at that point. Which system of laws does this country want to follow: One that exists, or a new system that imposes real consequences on the Members of Congress if they refuse to act. That's what this New Constitution needs to do: To ensure the leadership asserts its oath, and tames this war criminal.

Yes, you may be abused, targeted simply for asserting your rights. You will have to make that choice. But you are not free if you fear asserting your human rights. Rather, you are afraid.

You will soon have to make the choice: Do you want to live like a coward, and "go with the flow" or are you willing to stand up and assert your power against the war criminals in the White House and the criminals in Congress who refuse to assert their oath.

Our guide is the Constitution. A government that does not assent to the rule of law and does not protect its citizens from attack by its own government is not only illegitimate, but it cannot be sure of anything. An illegal agreement to remain silent about war crimes -- and "promises" of Amnesty for committing war crimes -- are not enforceable.

You may be throated, you may be monitored, but you are not alone. Others around the globe know full well what is going on: The American government and citizenry are no different than the Third Reich.

You are going to have to decide which side of history you are on.

One side is going to lose.