The goal of Freemasons is to gain power and through power make as much wealth as possible. They are addicts of a sort. Former drug and alcohol and sex addicts, now primarily power addicts. They seek to control everyone and don’t mind using torture and fascism to obtain their goal. They love dominating others and hurting them.

The way a Freemason makes wealth is via HUMAN SACRIFICE and STEALING MONEY, it’s called PASSING THE VEIL.

On 9/11 the veil was symbolized by the TWIN TOWERS. The PORCH of the Towers was Silverstein’s Building 7 where the human sacrifice was masterminded. When they pulled the Towers, 3,000 people were sacrificed to the money gods. On 9/11 the planet Saturn was in Gemini (a Masonic celestial meaning). Masons believe Blue men descend from the star Serius (Why so Serious? message in the 9/11-themed film “Batman: the Dark Night.’ Batman is a Jewish character concept.) The Twin Towers were destroyed and the Blue men’s descendants (those in power in commerce, politics and in religion who united against us as a cabal) were enriched by stolen money (global stock scandals, robbing the Treasuries of many nations, bank robbing (another theme of the Jewish film “Batman”). Passing the Veil means that earned your riches by killing others. That is what 9/11 was all about.

Jews control Hollywood and mock us through their many subversive films like “Diehard with a VENGEANCE etc.” starring a Jew who married a Jew). “Fight Club” also has 9/11 themes with planes, buildings falling, a secret society and bank robbing.

Jews play victim but their are victimizers who’ve used American leaders as tools by forming FRATERNITIES such as Skull & Bones founded by the Jew Senator John Kerry’s ancestor on Yale University property.

JFK warned us about secret societies and was killed for it. He also tried to fight the Jewish bankers as Lincoln did before they killed Lincoln.

What happened leading up to, during and after WWII are the events that occurred around the 9/11 attacks. It’s the same people doing it. Former Secretary of State, Kissinger, leads an unholy cabal who seek wealth in exchange for human sacrifice aka faux war. Same plan, new decade. It’s all about money. Israel plans to be the economic center of the world (a Torahnic blueprint of global subversion Kissinger et al follows) whereby “money central” is made to be Jew-rule-salem (burning witches) aka Jerusalem. Jew bankers united with Freemasons to rule by deceit and fascism. Masonic symbols are on all US currency. US currency is the most favored globally. People from 40 nations died on 9/11 and most, if not all, leading nations’ people were robbed on 9/11 via Insider Trading committed by those addicted to power in the unholy cabal.

Truth be known

What you wrote truly blows me away.

All that being said, I believe in my gut that treason has been committed against my country, innocent soldiers and civilians have needlessly died, careers of fine people have been ruined, the lives of average Americans have been made bleak and the honor of our country has been besmirched by abrogation of the sacrosanct Geneva Conventions. There must be retribution for these acts or they will occur again in the future and their effect will be even worse and cause a strangulation of any democratic aspirations we may hold. It must be exposed, tried, punished and stopped now.

ttp://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

I only heard snippets but he seemed to be arguing that cheney and bush should not be prosecuted because they were only making decisions to protect our nation. I’ll try to look up his article and maybe that we’ll give us an idea until we can hear the program in full (about 20 mins.) after 6:00 p.m.

I just took a look at his op-ed and I believe I have Fried’s argument correct. Here’s an excerpt:

“Theirs were political crimes committed by persons whose jobs were to exercise the powers of government on our behalf…

If you cannot see the difference between Hitler and Dick Cheney, between Stalin and Donald Rumsfeld, between Mao and Alberto Gonzales, there may be no point in our talking. It is not just a difference of scale, but our leaders were defending their country and people — albeit with an insufficient sense of moral restraint — against a terrifying threat by ruthless attackers with no sense of moral restraint at all.”

Glenn Greenwald dispatches this argument as well in his column.

What was Fried’s take on the issue?

“The Legacy Of Bush’s ‘War On Terror’

Audio for this story will be available at approx. 6:00 p.m. ET

Talk of the Nation, January 12, 2009 · Some people are calling for President-elect Obama to investigate programs associated with the torture of detainees and warrantless surveillance. But others caution to leave history to judge the Bush Administration. What is to be gained in prosecuting the outgoing president?

Guests:

Charles Fried, professor at Harvard Law School and author of the op-ed “History’s Verdict” in The New York Times

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at The George Washington University”

http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/how_the_u.s._army%27s_field_manual_codified_t

Is this what’s really bothering you?

Also, yesterday Alternet had an article on how the army field manual still does allow torture. It should still be there.

From the Greenwald/Salon article link Jill provided:

{Quote}

“Meanwhile, the only person to pay any price from this rampant lawbreaking — Tom Tamm — is the one with infinitely less power than all of them, the one who risked his job security and even freedom to bring to the nation’s attention the fact that our highest government officials were deliberately committing felonies in how they spied on us. Those who broke the law and those who actively enabled it — the Cheneys and Haydens and Rockefellers and Pelosis and Harmans — all protect one another, and have virtually every political and media elite righteously demand that nothing be done to them.

But there is not a peep of protest over the ongoing, life-destroying persecution of the former DOJ lawyer whose conscience compelled him to do what those cowardly Democratic leaders would not do: take action to uncover rampant criminality at the highest levels of our government.”

{End Quote}

Please, please stop making sense when I want neocon blood. I have to admit that having the truth slowly exposed would be a wonderful second choice. Still, after the talk about the dance of the 7 veils in the time-space continuum, I couldn’t help but wish that Salome could do her thing around the head of a neocon instead of John the Baptist.

Jill,
Thank you for the link!! I have to get back to work, so I’ll be looking forward to this later tonight.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Thanks for hearing it out. He does agree with Mike on bush and cheney and they are very likely both correct. It is nice to hear all the different options laid out so well.

Mr. Sands gave an extremely intelligent overview of the possibilities of tribunals. He also stated, as Mike Appleton did, that Bush/Cheney will most likely avoid prosecution in the U.S. and worldwide. I hate to hear that assessment; however, Mr. Yoo et al. are less likely to avoid such prosecutions if the facts are there following extensive investigations.

I think that those 38-plus minutes of interview are well worth the time, even if simply to listen to an intelligent man who spoke with clarity; in fact, I am going to listen a second time. Thanks for the link Jill.

Gyges: I agree.

For reasons which I have previously expressed on this topic, I believe the time available to Congress to deal with the legacy of lawlessness over the past eight years should be devoted to thorough and well-publicized hearings. Exposing what actually transpired to the light of day will do more to re-establish in the eyes of Americans, and, just as importantly, in the eyes of the rest of the world, our commitment to human rights and the rule of law, than miscellaneous prosecutions of minor characters. I plan to listen to the Fresh Aire interview, but I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which people like Bush and Cheney would ever be prosecuted for war crimes.

I’ve said this before, but think it’s worth repeating. I never vote for party, I vote for the individual. I get the feeling you probably do the same thing.

I think one of the leading causes of the corruption in the upper levels of politics is because most people vote to see their team win, rather than on individual merits and how closely the candidates views and actions (especially actions) match up with their own beliefs.

Check out this link. It’s about 40 mins. long but really interesting. It addresses how things may proceed. Mr. Sands is very specific about options and how they would work out. If you get the time to listen to it, I’d like to hear your opinion. It’s from Terry Gross and Mr. Sands has participated in war crimes tribunals. It’s the first time I’ve heard that level of specificity both about the crimes and proceedures for accountability, both political and legal.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99061358

Party affiliation must be irrelevant when meting out violations of rules, regulations, and laws.

I will always be a Republican—although secondarily to being a U.S. citizen first—based on the Republican philosophy of limited government and the idea that citizens must do all that they can to be self-sufficient without subsisting on the dole from government.

However, given the dole outs of well over a trillion dollars to the stock market criminals, banks, and others, these current day pseudo-Republicans’ philosophies deserve complete and final repudiation because those are worse than the true Democrats’ philosophies have ever been.

During one of the TV interviews, the Professor talked about a collective yawn when it came to prosecuting Cheney. The yawning faces were the politicians who could have done something about it. There have been many, many of us ordinary folk who’ve on blogs arguing about prosecuting Bush/Cheney for years. We were marginalized as kooks, the 2% far left, etc. Remember, we were all supposed to believe that the Bush administration was doing everything legally and in the best interest of all Americans, and if you questioned that, you were a terrorist sympathizer.

Even Russ Feingold hasn’t wanted to move to hold Cheney/Bush accountable. He might finally be coming around, though.

What can the people do when Nancy Pelosi holds impeachment off the table and states she can’t find anything for which to prosecute the administration, after Kucinich has spent 2 hours going through his list of offenses that should be prosecuted? Cards, letters, and phone calls only mean so much, especially when the elections are over and the incumbents remain in place.

I think that is a very fair and accurate point.

I too was disgusted with Ford’s pardoning of Nixon for the same reasons and I am a Republican. Even after egregious breaches of the U.S. Constitution’s provisions, all branches of government are content to slap the others on the back— and not even on the wrist— and say ‘no need to point fingers’ because we have the public’s business to attend to! Mr. Obama stated the same “we won’t be pointing fingers” phrase this morning in his economic roundtable.

What politicians do not understand is that the public wants and needs accountability and taking legal action against corrupt public servants is the remedy of atonement for breaches of the public trust.

“criminal proceedings, especially if they involve the important figures (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their immediate aides),
could produce some rulings on presidential authority that we may not like.”

But not having criminal proceedings also produces rulings we don’t like. Haven’t a lot of the abuses of power by Cheney/Bush been enabled by the fact that Nixon and his administration were let off the hook?

Not everyone’s memory is short for that kind of thing. I was heartsick when Ford announced that Nixon would not be prosecuted. In those days I was not especially involved in politics, but the excuse that it would keep the nation divided seemed like a bunch of baloney to me, even then.

Every time these elected officials get away with something, it weakens the law and enables worse abuse.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99061358

“Phillipe Sands Considers A Legacy Of ‘Torture’

Audio for this story will be available at approx. 3:00 p.m. ET

Philippe Sands argued that U.S. interrogation policies were issued from the top down in his 2008 book, Torture Team.

Fresh Air from WHYY, January 7, 2009 · Although the Bush administration has stated that the interrogations techniques used at Guantanamo Bay came from the bottom up, British lawyer Philippe Sands disagrees.

In his book, Torture Team, Sands argues that the harsh interrogation policy that emerged after Sept. 11 came from high-ranking government officials and top military figures.

Sands warned in a June 2008 Fresh Air interview that the impact of the Bush administration’s conduct will be felt internationally:

“The terrible tragedy of these memos and that dark period is that they have migrated into the hands of people who now say, ‘Well, Americans do it. We’re going to do it also.’”

Sands believes President-elect Barack Obama can begin to restore the US’s global reputation. In a Dec. 4 article in The Guardian, he recommended that the next administration conduct a comprehensive, independent investigation of alleged abuses committed against detainees since Sept. 11, 2001.

Sands is a professor of law at University College London, where he is director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals.”

I agree with you about Obama showing no inclination to challenge power. I know this puts me at odds with some of the deepest, most articulate, and from what I can tell, ethical writers on this blog. The democratic underground collected Obama’s voting record. I’m linking to it below. Please be advised that it is written in an extremely annoying manner but it is instructive and still worth looking at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334×10842

I have been thinking about what Mike Appleton wrote. I also thought of the Watergate hearings in the context of a commission. I don’t think that Congress or that press exists anymore in this nation. I think the Congressional record of aquiesence to power and complicity in war crimes will stand in the way of any real commission. Glenn Greenwald has written many times of the complicity of the press in sweeping torture under the rug and I think the facts are there to back him up.

In other ways I completely agree with Mike that a commission with teeth would be a very good way to go. I do not have the knowledge of the legal system to address his points on how rulings may enshirne executive power in the law, but I take that fear seriously.

If I understand JT’s argument correctly, he is talking of putting pressure on Congress to appoint an AG who will admit waterboarding is a crime and then prosecution would proceed with minimal interference from the political class and the evidence will go where it may. In this case, we run into the complicit Congress again. Most likely the last thing they will allow is someone to come to power who would prosecute, which is probably why we got Muskasey in the first place. He is an excellent lackey in the service of both cheneybush and Congress.

So to my mind we have to 1. strengthen a true alternative press by putting time and financial resources into actual investigative reporting 2. pressure Congress to move or get out of the way and in this regard I think there would be better luck getting them to appoint a prosecutor rather than set up a commission 3. look to innovative places like Wikileaks, because someone always knows where the bodies are buried and finally, 4. hope someone in the international community will come forward with charges

To date, Obama has shown no inclination of any kind to challenge power. Perhaps he is being diplomatic. Fine.

Whatever happens domestically, we can hope for cases to brought abroad — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Europe, anywhere — to prosecute Bush & Co. for crimes against humanity.

I believe you are here to draw attention away from your BFF’s bush and cheney’s horrendous actions against our own people and the people of other nations–aka–war crimes.

Monday 17 November 2008

by: Lara Jakes Jordan, The Associated Press

‘Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, “In the United States, no.”

“These things are not going to happen,” said Leahy, D-Vt.’

I don’t think we’ll get prosecutions in the US so I will hope for the kind of hearings and a vigorous press that you speak of. Happy New Year!

There is no doubt that Republicans will attempt to spin the facts, whether the proceedings are criminal or congressional. However, Congress has extensive subpoena powers, as well as the ability to immunize witnesses. In addition, Congress is not bound by the rules of evidence and public hearings can open windows into matters that would never be heard in a courtroom. Congressional hearings are also more “user friendly” in the sense that testimony will be more understandable and not subject to constant objections, arguments between lawyers and courtroom time-outs. Questions will be asked by a number of individuals, making it more difficult for lawyers to prepare witnesses in advance. And with majorities in both houses, Democrats can reject Republican efforts to scuttle hearings or water down subpoenas. Republican leaders will hardly be in a position to urge deference to the Bush executive branch while simultaneously criticizing efforts by the Obama executive branch for an open and complete investigation.

I am old enough to have watched the Watergate hearings and was riveted for days on end. I came away convinced that we learned more from those proceedings than would have been the case had the investigation stayed within the Justice Department. Criminal prosecutions did ensue, and might in this case as well, but the truth eventually came out.

One final point. Congressional hearings will receive extensive press coverage and will encourage reporters to follow leads and travel into related areas, all without risk of being subjected to gag orders or other forms of judicial restraint that are sometimes imposed to protect the integrity of a trial.

I know that my views are not satisfactory. My sense of justice wants all of the wrongdoers to answer in accordance with the law. On the other hand, my sense of justice is routinely thwarted by daily realities. What I want first and foremost is the truth. That at least can neutralize the pathetic efforts already underway to rewrite the history of the past decade.

Has this thread on war crimes got you all upset?

I haven’t watched enough reruns of Law and Order to address your point about the rulings of the court in favor of war powers and the unitary executive, should this go through a criminal prosecution. I’m hoping someone who does know these things will put their two cents in one way or the other. One year ago I would not have had any doubts concerning it, but I’ve since seen even conservative courts start to rule against unchecked executive power.

I don’t see a commission with teeth, or even a commission of any kind as a practical response. David Cole writes about this in the latest NY Review of Books (he takes a similar turn to what you wrote although he seems to believe most high level defendents are protected from US prosecution under current law). Cole writes: “We cannot move forward in reforming the law effectively unless we are willing to account for what we did wrong in the past. The next administration or the next Congress should at a minimum appoint an independent, bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission…” If it is to be effective, it must have subpoena power, sufficient funding, security clearances, access to all the relevant evidence, and most importantly, a charge to assess responsibility, not just look forward.”

Cole earlier writes: “On December 11, the leaders of the SASC…released a…report…that concluded that Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials had ‘solicited information on how to use agressive (interrogation) techniques, redefined the law to create the appearnace of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.’ Most of the report was classified, however. And apart from this, Congress has largely acted symbolically, avoiding any real measures to enfore accountability.”

My question is, why would Congress start to act differently? What’s their incentive? As to cheney, bush etc. and their underlings–haven’t each of these people shown their ability to avoid even minimal accountability to any commission (they dragged their heels on the totally toothless 9/11 commission)? They don’t even bother to show up at Congressional hearings. If they do show up, you’re going to need a court order to administer Aracept before their testimony.

They’ll still say it’s a witch hunt. We’re going to be fighting a propganda blitz no matter what. We’re fighting it right now. I think we’d honestly have better luck trying for a straight up prosecution than to watch the dithering of setting up, let alone trying to get, a functional commission. I’d like to see cheney, bush and friends get something they denied our prisoners, a fair trial.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I knew if anyone would be able to give an excellent argument for a non judicial accounting it would be you.

I have to think about what you wrote. Are you really certain that a public accounting wouldn’t be spun by the principles in the same way you describe them doing during a criminal trial? That’s one question that comes to mind right away for me.

You must have done a good job in your posts because we have trolls trying very hard to keep off this topic! Thanks again.

Jill

I don’t think it would be divisive to prosecute these people for war crimes. In fact, I think the opposite is the case. You are a very articulate person and I would be interested in why you believe it would be so and even if so, why that outweighs prosecutions and restoring the rule of law.

“UPDATE: Michael Mukasey, who refuses even to say whether waterboarding is torture and has repeatedly acted to protect Bush officials from prosecution, appeared two weeks ago at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and actually spoke these words (h/t sysprog):

It serves as a daily reminder to the leaders of the free world, and to the many visitors to our nation’s capital, that law without conscience is no guarantee of freedom; that even the seemingly most advanced of nations can be led down the path of evil; and that we must confront horror with action and vigilance, not lethargy and cowardice. . . .

Mukasey actually had the audacity to approvingly quote from Robert Jackson’s addresses to the Nuremberg Trials, at which this central proposition of law — now explicitly renounced by America’s political and media establishment — was established:

The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power . . . .”

Where do we get these people?

I think the defense could also rely on the mistake of fact or alternatively the affirmative “public authority” (PA) defense found inter alia in United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354, 1363-68 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Anderson, 872 F.2d 1508, 1517-18 & n.4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Juan, 776 F.2d 256, 258 (11th Cir. 1985). The elements of mistake of fact are less stringent than the entrapment by estoppel defense (a cousin to the “public authority defense) since there is no element of assurance. Under the mistake of fact scenario, the defendant after proving initially that he mistakenly believed he was performing the crimes in cooperation with the government, may then offer evidence that he lacked criminal intent in a mistake of fact type defense. In US v. Anderson the Court permitted an instruction which held the “defendants should be found not guilty if the jury had a reasonable doubt whether the defendants acted in good faith under the sincere belief that their activities were exempt from the law.”
—–

I’m sure they’ll try, my friend!

How do you spell ‘conspiracy’? As JT said on KO many months ago
-’not just ‘torture’, but ‘a torture program’…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002

That’s a terrible idea … you left out Alberto “I don’t recall” Gonzalez.