31. Aussie Officer Says War on Terror is Fraud.

Put this guy in charge - he's got a clue! The rest of the guys running the thing either don't have a clue, or they are treacherous killers.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8690.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/
Brigadier-shocks-and-awes-there-is-no-war-on-terrorism/2005/04/26/1114462041971.html?oneclick=true

Brigadier shocks and awes: there is no war on terrorism

By Cynthia Banham
Defense Reporter
04/27/05 -

- The so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking army officer has declared in a speech that challenges the conventional political wisdom.

In a frank speech, Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several of the central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part is all about politics and terrorism is merely a tactic.

Although such wars were fueled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level. This would result in Australian soldiers fighting in increasingly urban environments.

Speaking at a conference on future warfare, Brigadier Kelly, the director-general of future land warfare, also suggested that the "proposition you can bomb someone into thinking as we do has been found to be untrue".

His speech appears to fly in the face of a comment by the Prime Minister, John Howard, last year that the "contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror ...

"The brigadier said populations were being cut off from their traditional roots, giving them "aspirations that cannot be immediately met", and fueling a search for identity.Terrorists were exploiting local issues - such as ethnic wars - to pursue global ends. From a military point of view, the job was now one of counter-insurgency, he said.

As a result, Australia's future soldiers would fight increasingly close to populations, with the enemy "continuing to retreat into complex terrain".

While success in battle was critical, it would not of itself deliver victory - that would come by winning over the hearts and minds of the local people.The war of the future would be "out of human control". There was "no alternative" but to engage the population and "convince them of your rightness".

"Our proximity to populations enables us to influence and control the populations, [it] enables us to dominate the environment, generate intelligence and eventually bring the conflict to a resolution," the brigadier told the conference last week.To fight such a war, a new kind of soldier was needed - one not only proficient in the latest technologies, but who had been educated in "cultural understanding" and sensitivity.

Brigadier Kelly said modern war could be defined as "conflict, using violent and non-violent means, between multiple actors and influences, competing for control over the perceptions, behavior and allegiances of human population groups".

He said he found it interesting that "if you take out violence out of the first line, it's a description of politics".

30. Bush Pentagon Proposes Legalizing Sodomy for Military.

The move from "Don't ask, don't tell", to ALLOWING sodomy in the military, is about to take place under the watch of our conservative, Republican, Christian President, "Brother" George W. Bush.

Can anyone still defend this reprobate with a clear conscience?

At least homosexual rape of minors is still illegal, so Catholic priest military chaplains are not yet off the hook - but Bush still has nearly four years to work on that.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/
Pentagon_proposes_shift_in_sodomy_laws_04_21_2005_0159am.html

http://news.yahoo.com/newstmpl=story&cid=669&u=/usnw/20050421/pl_usnw/
sdln__pentagon_recommends_repeal_of_consensual_sodomy_ban001_xml&printer=1

http://www.aboms.com/

Bush Pentagon Proposes Legalizing Sodomy for Military

The office of the general counsel at the Pentagon has proposed decriminalizing sodomy among adults according to a memorandum sent to Congress, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

Under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a crime to engage in "unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex."

The changes proposed by the Pentagon's lawyers would narrow the definition to prohibit acts of sodomy with a person under age 16 or acts "committed by force." Their memorandum says this would "conform more closely to other federal laws and regulations."

The United States Queer Military

SDLN: Pentagon Recommends Repeal of Consensual Sodomy Ban

WASHINGTON -- As reported in this morning's New York Times, the Pentagon has recommended repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military's ban on consensual sodomy. The Pentagon's recommendation has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee's personnel subcommittee and is based on guidance from the Joint Services Committee on Military Justice (JSC), a panel of attorneys from each military service that annually suggests changes to the military's criminal code.

29. Bolton: Biggest Phony of All, for UN.

John Bolton is being cast as some kind of anti-UN patriot. As soon as I learned he was a CFR member, I knew that couldn't be true. When something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Bush would never nominate someone who is truly anti-UN/NWO. This is (Big) "Brother" Bush at his best, painting a staunch New World Order lackey as an anti-UN zealot. And Conservatives will swallow it readily.

Maybe he once was genuine, but if he was, certainly now he's aboard the Bush train heading America towards the cliff.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050412/ts_alt_afp/usunboltonpolitics_050412082307

Bolton vows 'close partnership' at UN, says it plays 'critical role'

Tue Apr 12, 4:23 AM ET

U.S. National - AFP WASHINGTON (AFP) - Under fire from Democratic lawmakers, John Bolton, the controversial nominee to be the next US ambassador to the United Nations, pledged at his confirmation hearing here to strengthen US relations with the world body.

"If confirmed, I pledge to fulfill the president's vision of working in close partnership with the United Nations," said Bolton, who was nominated last month by President George W. Bush to succeed John Negroponte.

TG: He says he wants to work closely with the UN, not to eradicate the UN.

"Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams, the hope and aspiration of its original promise," said Bolton, who faced tough questioning from Democrats over his past scornful statements about the world body.

TG: The UN MUST play a critical role, he says? Remember, The UN's "original" promise was a WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST OLIGARCHY. Virtually every founder of the UN were hardened Communists, mostly Soviets. Their "original promise" was anti-God, anti-American, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and totalitarian to the core.

"The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy," Bolton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

TG: We must be committed to the SUCCESS of the UN? Read the above again to see what would be "success" for the UN.

"If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee to forge a stronger relationship between the United States and the United Nations, which depends critically on American leadership," he added.

TG: A STRONGER relationship with an anti-American group we should get out of altogether?

Bolton told US lawmakers that he had received words of support for his candidacy from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. "He said, 'get yourself confirmed quickly'," Bolton told the committee summing up a brief recent phone conversation with Annan.

TG: Why would Kofi Annan want Bolton confirmed quickly if he is really anti-UN? If Bush and Kofi both recommend him, he MUST be a New Worlder. How can Republican, conservatives, and Christians be so stupid to ignore that?

Considered by supporters to be a brilliant policy analyst, Bolton's hawkish leanings and past criticism of the United Nations have led critics to say he is ill-suited for the UN job.

"Frankly, I'm surprised that the nominee wants the job, given all the negative things you've said about it," said the panel's top Democrat, Senator Joe Biden. "Some have said that sending you to the UN would be like sending Nixon to China. I'm afraid it would be more like sending a bull into a china shop," Biden added, referring to former president Richard Nixon.

Senator John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential hopeful, had equally harsh words for the nominee. "John Bolton is the wrong choice to serve as America's voice at the United Nations," Kerry said in a statement. "Mr. Bolton's diplomatic tin ear and penchant for hostile rhetoric have hurt America's interests. "His hostility to the UN itself makes him an unlikely person to lead the strong alliances the White House now says we need to address our common threats," he said.

The rough treatment of Bolton by Democrats was in keeping with the grillings endured by other Bush nominees in his second term, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But the questioning was decidedly tougher at Bolton's hearing, with all of the panel's Democratic members expected to vote against him. Because of the Republican majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bolton is nevertheless expected to win its endorsement and his nomination sent to the floor of the Republican-majority Senate for approval.

In some of the toughest questioning, liberal Democrat Barbara Boxer threw Bolton's own words back at him, playing a video of a conference more than a decade ago at which he said that if the UN headquarters in New York "lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

"This nominee can do lots of other things for President Bush and do them really well," Boxer said. "I just don't see this. It just doesn't make sense."

Bolton, 56, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs for the past four years, has repeatedly said the UN is corrupt and ineffective. But at Monday's hearing he insisted the statements did not fully portray his views.

"A lot of those statements are not accurate reflections of what I said ... I was quoted out of context," he said.

As Bush's pointman on arms control, Bolton has been a sharp critic of North Korea and other hardline regimes.

He was a strong advocate of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Last month some 60 former US diplomats sent a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposing Bolton's nomination.

But five Republican former US secretaries of state this month lobbied on his behalf, urging the Senate to confirm him. The signatories of that letter were James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz (TG: ALL CFR members). Notably absent was Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who was Bolton's boss.

The hearing was briefly interrupted by demonstrators denouncing Bolton's nomination. They were quickly escorted from the hearing room.

-------------------------------------

29 B. Bolton Bared.

Why should we be committed to the success of a Communist infested, anti-gun, anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-queer, New World Order organization?

But Bolton continues:

"Now more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise."

Remember, the UN's "original" promise was a WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST OLIGARCHY. Virtually every founder of the UN were hardened Communists, mostly Soviets. Their "original promise" was anti-God, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and totalitarian to the core.

Bolton wants to "strengthen" the UN and make it "more efficient". A stronger, more efficient organization that opposes everything America has traditionally stood for.

How did this guy ever get a reputation as an anti-UN crusader? Conservatives are so gullible and naive to accept anyone who calls himself a Republican.

Teno Groppi - Country Celebration

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/country.0

Update: Patriot Act Misused

Please click on this link for the update:

28B. Patriot Act Misused


Thank you.

Update: Bush Covers Up for Slick Indiscretions.

Please click on this link for the update:

25 B. Carter Not Brought to Pope's Funeral.

Thank you, ed.

28. Bush Officials urge renewal of Patriot Act.

While Americans were concerned with the deaths of Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II, the Bush administration used the opportunity to press for more Gestapo/KGB police state powers for our military and law enforcement agencies.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2285718p-10471388c.html

Officials urge renewal of Patriot Act

By MARK SHERMAN,
Associated Press Writer

April 5, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's two top law enforcement officials on Tuesday urged Congress to renew every provision of the anti-terror Patriot Act. FBI Director Robert Mueller also asked lawmakers to expand the bureau's ability to obtain records without first asking a judge.

"Now is not the time for us to be engaging in unilateral disarmament" on the legal weapons now available for fighting terrorism, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said. He said that some of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act have proven invaluable in fighting terrorism and aiding other investigations.

He also asked Congress to expand the FBI's administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval or a judge or grand jury.

The Patriot Act is the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Most of the law is permanent, but 15 provisions will expire in December unless renewed by Congress.

"Cooler heads can now see that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast and that it must be brought back in line with the Constitution," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.

Among the controversial provisions is a section permitting secret warrants for "books, records, papers, documents and other items" from businesses, hospitals and other organizations. That section is known as the "library provision" by its critics. While it does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records and snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

Gonzales already has agreed to two minor changes to the provision. Neither change addresses the central concern of opponents, which is that it allows the government to seize records of people who are not suspected terrorists or spies. The Justice Department counters that no Patriot Act-related civil rights abuses have been proven.

TG: The claim that they haven't been "proven" doesn't mean they haven't occurred. Notice that careful distinction in their denial.

Just in case, Craig and Durbin want Congress to curb both expiring and nonexpiring parts of the Patriot Act, including the expiring "library" provision and "sneak and peek" or delayed notification warrants. Those warrants - which will not expire in December - allow federal officials to search suspects' homes without telling them until later.

The Justice Department said federal prosecutors have asked for 155 such warrants since 2001.

Gonzales also notes that the law has been used in non-terrorism cases. For example, federal officials used it to track over the Internet a woman who ultimately confessed to strangling an 8-months-pregnant woman and cutting the fetus from her womb.

TG: Whether a 'good' reason or not, it's not right to use the law for non-terrorism. Moreover, if that baby had been killed by a state licensed doctor, it would have been totally legal, even though the same result would have occurred.


-----------------------------------------------------

28B. Patriot Act Misused.

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/

Patriot Act MisusedFreedom of Speech

· Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Misused
· Random Searches, Invasions of Privacy
· Google Big Brother Satellite Mapping
· Scientist Calls For World DNA Database
· From Tea Leaves to reading DNA
· 'Big Brother' Becomes Big Business

http://sacunion.com/pages/nation/articles/3796

Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Misused

By Rukmini Callimachi, The Associated Press

Published: April 6, 2005

PORTLAND, Ore.—Ever since the FBI admitted it wrongly arrested him in connection with the Madrid train bombings, Brandon Mayfield has contended the government used the Patriot Act to search his home and gather personal information to portray him as a Muslim militant.

The Justice Department denied Mayfield’s claims—until Tuesday.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that provisions of the controversial act were used to investigate Mayfield, a Muslim convert.

Mayfield was arrested May 6 after the FBI claimed his fingerprint matched a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators near the scene of the Madrid train bombings, in which 191 people were killed. He was freed two weeks later after the FBI admitted the fingerprints were not his.

At the congressional hearing Tuesday on whether 15 sections of the law set to expire at year’s end should be renewed, Gonzales at first denied the FBI used the Patriot Act while investigating Mayfield.

“Senator, I think we have said publicly—if not, I guess I’m saying it publicly—that the Patriot Act was not used in connection with the Brandon Mayfield case,” he told Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

But later, after Feinstein asked him a different question, Gonzales corrected himself: “You asked me specifically about the Mayfield case and I’m advised that there were certain provisions of the Patriot Act that apparently were used,” he said.

Gonzales said one code from the act that was used deals with extending the duration of electronic surveillance. Another makes it easier to obtain warrants to search the private residences of U.S. citizens—a provision that has raised concerns about constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Mayfield’s attorneys and some legal experts believe the Justice Department has been reluctant to admit that the Patriot Act was used in the case for fear it would taint the image of the 2001 law as its provisions come up for reauthorization.

“This administration is more concerned with public relations than an honest scrutiny of the Patriot Act—a law which is the most dangerous attack on civil liberties since the McCarthy era,” said Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield.

------------------------------------

28C. Patriot Act Made More Oppressive (and Unconstitutional).

How many Amendments can the Patriot act violate?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050519/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_1

GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Obliges Bush

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Wed May 18, 8:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury. But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.

Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Here, there, or in the air!
Teno Groppi
God & Country Center

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

27. While We Were Watching Terri Die...

Defense spending is one of the few things our gov't is supposed to spend our money on according to the Constitution. That's not the beef with this. The problem is with it being used for the unconstitutional and unnecessary so-called war on terror. The fact that it was passed while everyone is preoccupied with the deaths of Terri Schiavo and Pope John Paul II is also quite interesting.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3711

$400 Billion Defense Budget Unnecessary to Fight War on Terrorism

by Charles V. Peña,
director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

-----------------------------

Executive Summary

President Bush signed a $417.5 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 on August 5,2004. With the addition of an $82 billion supplemental for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in real terms U.S. military spending will be at a level exceeded only by that of the waning years of World War II and the height of the Korean War. The Defense Department had requested $401.7 billion, which was a 7 percent increase over the FY04 defense budget. The recently submitted FY06 Pentagon budget is $419.3 billion (not including funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan). The administration argues that increased military spending is a necessary part of the war on terrorism.

Those budgets assumed that the war on terrorism is primarily a military war to be fought by the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The reality is that large conventional military operations will be the exception rather than the rule in the war on terrorism. Although President Bush claims Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, the truth is that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime did not eliminate an Al Qaeda sanctuary or a primary source of support for the terrorist group.

The military's role in the war on terrorism will mainly involve special operations forces in discrete missions against specific targets, not conventional warfare aimed at overthrowing entire regimes. The rest of the war aimed at dismantling and degrading the Al Qaeda terrorist network will require unprecedented international intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, not expensive new planes, helicopters, and warships.Therefore, an increasingly large defense budget (DoD projects that the budget will grow to more than $487 billion by FY09) is not necessary to fight the war on terrorism. Nor is it necessary to protect America from traditional nation-state military threats.