SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (458644)9/14/2003 3:42:03 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Profile
Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky

from
redress.btinternet.co.uk

Israel's great dissembler
12 March 2001

We have chosen to profile Anatoly Sharansky, the Israeli deputy prime minister and leader of Yisra'el Ba'aliyah, the Russian immigrants' party in Israel, because he encapsulates the paradox of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel, a paradox that is the hallmark of Zionists throughout the world. That is, how can a people that has suffered so much over the ages, from pogroms in Europe to Nazi genocide, emulate their historical oppressors and be so lacking in empathy with their victims, the Palestinian Arabs? (We salute the tiny minority of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who have risked opprobrium by consistently speaking out for Palestinian rights.) Anatoly Sharansky (we shall call him by his birth name, Anatoly, rather than Natan, the name given to him by the Israeli ambassador to West Germany upon his release from prison) was born in Ukraine and educated in Russia as a mathematician. In 1973 he applied for an exit visa to Israel, but, like all Soviet citizens who had worked in the military-industrial complex, he was refused on security grounds. He then became involved in an Israeli-sponsored worldwide campaign to put pressure on the Kremlin to give special treatment to Soviet Jewish citizens by allowing them to emigrate to Israel, irrespective of whether or not they had worked in the defence sector. In 1977 he was arrested on suspicion of spying for the US, and in the following year he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. He was released in 1986 in a US-Soviet spy exchange. Prior to his emigration to Israel, Sharansky liked to portray himself as a symbol of the struggle for human rights, and since then he has made much of his status as a former "victim of totalitarian oppression". However, his belief in human rights, nurtured at the height of the Cold War, appears to have been heavily tainted with the culture of the Soviet-American power struggle, which justified the cynical use of practically anything as ammunition in the superpower rivalry for global dominance. Unlike most of us, Sharansky apparently does not believe that human rights are universal and indivisible, that is, applicable to all human beings everywhere and irrespective of their race, colour or creed. Not only does he oppose any Israeli concessions that may eventually lead to the realization of the Palestinians' right to self determination, but he advocates policies that could only mean the dispossession of more Palestinians living in Israel, and the illegally occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. No wonder that he was one of the very few people to have amicable relations with the former ultra right-wing prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. Sharansky began his political career in Israel by becoming head of the Zionist Forum, an organization dedicated to lobbying on behalf of Soviet immigrants. However, not content with being a mere "welfare worker", in 1995 he founded the Yisra'el Ba'aliyah party, with the immediate aim of bringing in another million Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union and of encouraging a further million Jewish citizens of the United States and the European countries to immigrate to Israel. For him, the value of peace with the Palestinians is measured solely by the extent to which it would work towards achieving the overriding goal of encouraging Jewish citizens of other states to immigrate to Israel. Thus, addressing the founding congress of Yisra'el Ba'aliyah in June 1995, he said: "Without the hope for peace, you cannot convince people to come here." That the "ingathering of the Jews", that is, the bringing into Israel and the occupied territories of millions of foreign Jews who, like Sharansky himself, had no link whatsoever to those lands, could only mean the dispossession of more Palestinians from the land of their ancestors is a fact that could hardly have escaped our human rights hero. Or perhaps, having been brought up in a society where ideology and the class struggle dictated one's view of life and where all conflicts were seen as a zero-sum game, with victors and vanquished, be they a class or a superpower, he was blinded by his own ideology, Zionism. For almost in the same breath as reiterating his commitment to the "ingathering" of millions of foreign Jews, Sharansky is perfectly at ease with publicly objecting to any hint of allowing Palestinians to take up residence in the territories administered by the Palestinian National Authority or to the right of refugees to return to those territories, even if they had families living there. Indeed, the impact of the Soviet system on Sharansky's mind appears to have gone much deeper. Thus, like the Soviet habit of remoulding the history books to suit themselves, our human rights hero insists that any Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories should be made contingent on, among other things, the Palestinians rewriting their school books "to remove all language that denies the legitimacy of Israel and Zionism". In other words, Palestinian children should be taught that their uprooting from the land of their forefathers by foreigners from the former Soviet Union, Europe and the United States was perfectly legitimate. Sharansky resigned as Israeli interior minister in former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's government over rumours that Barak was contemplating some trivial "concessions" over Jerusalem, territory and the refugees at the Camp David talks with Palestinian leaders in July 2000. But, judging by the unpopularity among Israelis of making any concessions to the people they had uprooted, and given his solid support among the Russian immigrants, Sharansky must now have his vision firmly fixed on the position of Israeli prime minister. In the meantime, it would do him well to learn from the history of his Slav cousins in the Balkans. For while the Zionists have the dubious honour of being the twentieth century's first ethnic cleansers, Sharansky's kith and kin in the Balkans (let us not forget that our human rights hero is a Russian, albeit of the Jewish religion), have taken that tradition to its logical conclusion, with tragic consequences for themselves and their victims. His blind ambition aside, Sharansky has a responsibility to his compatriots and co-religionists in Israel because, as in the Balkans, the burden of history weighs heavily on the shoulders of the indigenous people of Palestine whose continuing misfortunes are unlikely to let them forget the architects of their plight. As a Russian, Sharansky should know more than anyone else that great powers, even nuclear ones, come and go and that the fall can be sudden and cruel. But, with his contradictions and double standards, our human rights hero is unlikely to learn anything. Rather, when the time comes to write his obituary Anatoly Sharansky will most probably be remembered as Israel's great Russian dissembler, with his years as a so-called "human rights campaigner" not warranting even a footnote.

NOTE: This is the man behind the nonsense of Bush's promotion campaign for "democracy" in the Arab world. Is it little wonder that "the Arab street" and some Arab leaders suspect that the real goal is the expansion of Greater Israel?



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (458644)9/14/2003 3:42:50 PM
From: laura_bush  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Your "knowledge" about someone to whom you intimately refer as "Bonnie" and "bonnuss_in_austin" is quite remarkable.

Care to share other personal information about this person with the thread?

What else do you know?

Full name, address and phone numbers? Email addresses?

Business affiliations; employer?

Tell us.

lb



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (458644)9/14/2003 3:46:32 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Bush takes facism to new levels....or tries to....Hell...we don't need Grand Juries....they are made up of REAL AMERICANS
Administration Calls for Unprecedented Subpoena
Powers
Bush's proposal to bypass grand juries to fight terrorism is likely to meet with resistance.

By David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — If federal regulators want to check on the companies
they regulate, they can order the firms to turn over their records.

These "administrative subpoenas" are commonly used to enforce federal law in
areas ranging from banking and stock trades to pharmaceuticals and pollution
controls.

Last week, President
Bush proposed to make
administrative subpoenas
a key tool in the war on
terrorism — and not just
to obtain records.

The president said Atty.
Gen. John Ashcroft
should have the legal
authority to order any
person who might have
information that is
"relevant in any
investigation" related to
terrorism to submit in secret to being questioned
and to turn over "any books, papers, documents or electronic data" that the government seeks.

Unlike in ordinary criminal investigations, Ashcroft would not need the approval of a grand jury or a
judge to order witnesses to appear for questioning.

"The attendance of witnesses and the production of records may be required from any place in any
state or in any territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at any designated
place of hearing," the administration's bill says.

President Bush unveiled his plan for broader investigative authority at the FBI's national training
academy on the eve of the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

"Under current law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting terrorism," Bush
said. "The House and Senate have a responsibility to act quickly on these matters. Untie the hands of
our law enforcement officials so they can fight and win the war against terror," he said to applause.

Administration officials say the new authority is needed so agents can quickly check hotel or bank
records when they are pursuing a terrorist.

"Suppose we find out that a terrorist has gone to a chemical plant and made a purchase. And it's a
Saturday afternoon, and there's no grand jury sitting. You need to move quickly because lives could be
at stake. Any reasonable person would say that kind of authority should be available in the fight against
terrorism," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department.

Most hotels or banks — or in this example, the chemical plant — are glad to turn over the records, he
said. The subpoena, or legal order, ensures they will not be held liable for doing so, Corallo said.

Although Bush administration officials say their proposal would simply update the law to apply to
terrorism cases, civil libertarians and defense lawyers say it would mark a fundamental change if it were
adopted by Congress. Administrative subpoenas are now limited to civil and regulatory matters, and
cannot be used in criminal probes.

The 4th Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches." Rather than allow random searches by the police or federal
agents, it says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

For much of its history, the Supreme Court interpreted this provision as barring the government from
seeking a person's papers and records without a search warrant. In one famous opinion, Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes in 1924 said Congress was not free to authorize a "fishing expedition" into the private
affairs of citizens in hope of finding evidence of a crime.

But the New Deal and the growth of the federal regulatory state made it clear that officials needed
broad powers to check business records. The tax laws could not be enforced, for example, if agents
were not able to obtain financial records.

By 1940, the courts had made it easier for agencies to gain access to information. Since they were
enforcing the law, not prosecuting criminals, courts lowered the standards set by the 4th Amendment.

These days, administrative subpoenas are routine. In 2001, for example, federal prosecutors issued
2,102 of these orders in investigations of health-care frauds, according to Justice Department figures.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Election Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission also make regular use of subpoenas.

But the Bush-Ashcroft proposal breaks through a new barrier by authorizing these orders in strictly
criminal probes, critics say.

"It is unprecedented to apply administrative subpoenas for use in a wholly criminal investigation. They
want to eliminate the traditional check on overzealous prosecutors, which is the grand jury," said
Georgetown University law professor David Cole, a frequent foe of the administration's legal tactics.

Under the proposal, prosecutors could question witnesses in a closed room.

The bill includes a "nondisclosure requirement" as well. "If the Attorney General certifies [there] may
result a danger to the national security, no person shall disclose to any other person that a subpoena
was received or records were provided," it says.

Grand juries operate in secret as well. And though they are often seen as a rubber stamp for the
government, Cole said the mere presence of the jurors restrains prosecutors. "There is a real difference
when a prosecutor knows 23 citizens are there observing what's going on," he said.

In criminal cases, the Supreme Court has continued to insist that the 4th Amendment puts a check on
the government's power to conduct searches.

"No assistant U.S. attorney has an independent regulatory purpose when issuing a subpoena like this.
[It] abrogates complete power to the executive," said Joshua Dratel, a criminal defense lawyer in New
York.

The administration proposal was introduced in the House last week by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.).

Feeney came to national prominence in December 2000 during the dispute over the Florida election
results. As speaker of the Florida House, he called a special legislative session to appoint a slate of
electors for Bush, then governor of Texas, even though the outcome of the vote remained in doubt.

His bill says: "In any investigation concerning a federal crime of terrorism, the Attorney General may
subpoena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and require the production of
any records that he finds relevant or material to the investigation."

The proposal is likely to meet stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. During the debate about the Patriot Act in
the fall of 2001, lawmakers said they would not go along with giving federal agents unchecked authority
to conduct searches.

The Senate does not have a similar bill, and a spokesman for Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G.
Hatch said the Utah Republican is not ready to endorse the use of expanded administrative subpoenas.

"We haven't said anything on that yet, and we're continuing to examine legislative options," said
Margarita Tapia, a spokeswoman for Hatch.
CC



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (458644)9/14/2003 3:47:00 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
You're all about threats.....how about free speech>
CC