I think it's Bill Clinton's fault. See below.
During? I think raybo found another of the conspiracy sites he so loves. If that's a reliable source, then so is the John Birch Society's rag.
What was shown (via NYT) was that a number of bin Laden's extended family was in the US on 9/11. That I'll accept. Oh, and that they were checked out by the FBI and allowed to leave AFTER commercial flights had resumed.
If you want to apply THAT logic, then FDR was behind Pearl Harbor because his Dep't of State was talking to Japanese in Washington at the time of the attack.
Other than that, I think he proved nothing other than he's schizoid and paranoid. Which we knew previously.
Oh. Yeah. Chelsea was in on it too.
Chelsea Clinton was in NYC at the time of the disaster.Its obvious to all good republicans that she was
guiding the aircraft to their targets using a global positioning device and secret hand signals known
only to the Clinton family members.Bill was in Australia to divert attention from himself,but we all know
he fathered all fifty bin laden children and is hiding Idi Amin in his presidential library in Arkansas.How
do we conservatives know this?Easy. We fire a bullet into a melon and examine the evidence,just like
the Vince Foster case.And what did Hillary have to do with the WTC attack?Nothing.She planned the
Pentagon attack and the War of 1812.
hypocrites.com
Did you check out his most important link?
cooperativeresearch.org
Every crazy left wing screwball conspiracy theory known to man is on there someplace.
I think Raybo needs to read this instead:
brian.carnell.com
Big Brother was watching
sfbg.com
How Bill Clinton laid the groundwork for the new police state.
By A.C. Thompson
LIBERALS ARE AGHAST : the war on terrorism is turning out to be a war on civil liberties. Like a pair of
steroid-crazed pro wrestlers, the Bush-Ashcroft tag team is running amok. They're shredding the Constitution
and handing scary new powers to cops and FBI agents and just about anyone else in law enforcement or
intelligence. "We are all suspects, if Ashcroft has his way," syndicated columnist Molly Ivins howled Dec. 6.
Facing the Senate that same day, the attorney general hunkered down and put on his best John Wayne face,
skewering his critics ("they give ammunition to America's enemies") and hinting that some civil liberties may
have to be thrown out the window. "Preventing terrorism is a very difficult job," Ashcroft said during a hearing
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We witnessed this week the carnage in Israel. It's a society that has
far fewer freedoms than we do and has a far greater investment in terrorism prevention. [And] yet 25 innocent
people were slaughtered ... in terrorist activity."
But the Bush-Ashcroft Big Brotherism is nothing startling or new. The USA PATRIOT Act, the military tribunals,
and Ashcroft's plan to expand domestic spying are only a public augmentation of the well-oiled police state
machinery that was already in place.
As we snoozed through the Clinton era, our lovable, sax-playing president was busy deep-sixing legal
protections – often in the name of combating terrorism. He presided over a massive expansion of federal
phone-tapping powers. Signing the 1996 Counter-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, our buddy Bill laid
the groundwork for Ashcroft's schemes, eviscerating habeas corpus, one of the cornerstones of our judicial
system, curtailing due process for immigrants, and creating special courts to try terrorists with secret evidence.
Sound familiar? And under Clinton, reinvigorated Red Squads apparently spied on the anticorporate protesters
who rocked the Seattle WTO conference.
Clinton "set the stage" for the current rollback of rights, says Harvey Silverglate, an attorney, author, and
nationally known expert on individual freedoms. "Clinton caved in to the notion that at a time of perceived crisis
or danger it is OK to infringe on civil liberties even if the particular infringement does not produce any added
security. So now we have a situation where Ashcroft can make some of the most dangerous incursions into civil
liberties that we've ever seen, and nobody even notices."
Nobody paid any attention, for example, when the Federal Bureau of Investigations in 1995 published a notice in
the Federal Register stating the bureau's intention to monitor up to 1 percent of all phone calls in certain
regions. Aside from a few lonely civil libertarians, the only people who raised a stink at the time were telecom
executives, annoyed that they were being told to tailor their systems to the FBI's specifications. And as the
Village Voice's Nat Hentoff has noted, a 1998 law greatly eased federal wiretap constraints, giving the bureau
carte blanche to tap any phone a suspected criminal might use within a limited geographic area. Only Georgia
representative Bob Barr, a Republican privacy freak, opposed the measure.
Even before the PATRIOT Act eased phone-tapping rules, the FBI was doing plenty of eavesdropping, says
Jennifer Stisa Granick, an instructor at Stanford law school's Center for Internet and Society.
Granick says the old, pre-PATRIOT Act wiretapping law was "a single-party consent law," which meant FBI
agents couldn't listen in on calls without the knowledge of one of the people on the line or a warrant.
Circumventing that dilemma was simple: agents would seek out informants who would let the bureau eavesdrop
on their phone calls with alleged criminals. Problem solved.
In fact, federal court records obtained by the Bay Guardian suggest that S.F.-based FBI agents used the
technique in July 1998 to overhear the conversations of computer hackers. "This kind of stuff happens all the
time," Granick told us.
For defense lawyers like Scott F. Kauffman, Clinton's 1996 counterterrorism act, which was a response to the
Oklahoma City bombing, "changed the entire legal landscape" – especially in capital cases. "Given the really
limited resources we have, it's created an impossible burden," Kauffman, a San Francisco death penalty
specialist, told us. "It's sped everything up."
The law also marked a proto-PATRIOT assault on immigrants, allowing the Immigration and Naturalization
Service to hastily deport green-card holders convicted of crimes of "moral turpitude" – an amorphous term that
could cover just about any offense. Another provision established secret court proceedings for alleged terrorists,
barring suspects from seeing more than a summary of the evidence arrayed against them.
Ashcroft's publicly stated lust for domestic spying has sent liberals into hysterics. In truth, though, under
Clinton the bureau engaged in COINTELPRO-type political snooping. According to the Seattle Weekly and
numerous other credible alt-press sources, the feds have been keeping tabs on leaders of the new anticorporate
protest movement since at least 1999.
David Solnit can tell you all about it. A seasoned Oakland activist type – he was in the streets during the '84
Democratic Convention – Solnit is apparently on the shit list of the FBI. In June 2000 he journeyed to a
Windsor, Canada, college campus to conduct a workshop on making signs and giant puppets for
demonstrations. The trip took a detour when Solnit was stopped by local cops who had apparently been staking
him out. "They said, 'Are you David Solnit?' " he recounts. "They had an FBI printout of what the FBI thought my
legal history was, which was incredibly inaccurate." Solnit, an avowed pacifist with no history of violence, spent
four days in the local lockup on bunk charges that were later dropped.
From every indication, it looks like the feds had been spying on Solnit and sharing their information with
Canadian authorities.
(For the record, FBI special agent Andrew Black told us, "The FBI absolutely does not keep tabs on
protesters.")
This apparent exercise in espionage doesn't surprise Jim Redden, author of Snitch Culture: How Citizens Are
Turned into the Eyes and Ears of the State. "The restrictions [on domestic spying] that were supposedly placed
on the FBI as a result of Watergate were never very effective," Redden told us. "The FBI quickly figured out
ways around them, and there were agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that never were
under those restrictions. Government surveillance never really ended."
So why all this backtracking, you ask? Why choose this moment to take gratuitous potshots at Clinton?
Well, to point out this: the current clampdown – which may profoundly change the way we live – isn't about
George W. Bush. It's not about John Ashcroft or the FBI's Bob Mueller.
The power grab is being driven by the two dictates both political parties hew to. One is appeasement of the
public. Unnerved, we are clamoring for a sense of security – and this could be the ultimate campaign issue.
From Bush on down, if the pols don't deliver, they're likely to be tossed from office – just like Jimmy Carter,
whose inability to liberate the American hostages in Iran was his undoing.
The other dictate is appeasement of the permanent government: the generals, the high-level law enforcers and
agency chieftains – in other words, the people who really run this country. They are seizing this moment to
expand their spheres of influence and fulfill long-standing policy dreams, Constitution be damned. "These
proposals have been in the pipeline for years; that's why they can whip them out so quickly right now,"
Stanford's Granick says.
And it would've been just the same with Al Gore at the wheel.
angelfire.com
As I remember, Ray loves to use these guys to debunk right wing conspiracy theories:
snopes.com
But now that they're chopping at his pet theory, they're not reliable?
This guy thinks Carter's national security advisor started all the trouble.
unansweredquestions.org
Here, this ought to really fuel Ray's paranoia:
pushhamburger.com |
