Thread: Who Are the Terrorists?

From The Republican,Springfield,Connecticut

EDITORIALS
U.S. says shoot first, ask questions later
Wednesday, September 21, 2005

In a commencement address three years ago at West Point, the military academy that produces the nation's future generals, President Bush said that the United States must take "pre-emptive action" against its potential enemies.

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said, "we will have waited too long."

Now, three years later, senior Pentagon officials are putting the finishing touches on a policy that would give military commanders the option to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike attack by the U.S.

When arms control advocates and members of Congress first learned that the Bush administration was serious, senior White House officials cautioned that the tactical use of nuclear weapons is being studied, not actively contemplated.

That sounds like a line from the Cold War.

They used the same argument when seeking to end a decade-old ban on the research and development of small nuclear weapons - known as "mini-nukes."

Even if that's true, any formal U.S. national security strategy that endorses the use of nuclear weapons will make it more difficult, if not impossible, to convince rogue nations that they don't need nuclear weapons.

Again, the United States, as it did with the global warming treaty and other international treaties, is sending a signal to the world that there are two sets of rules: one for the U.S. and one for everybody else.

Proponents argue that the U.S. should have the option to use nuclear weapons in a first strike against nations or terrorists who might intend to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against the U.S.

They are assuming that U.S. intelligence agencies will be able to provide the president with proof that those chemical, biological or nuclear weapons exist and that they pose a significant immediate threat to the United States.

These are the same intelligence agencies that claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, although careful inspections before and after the invasion failed to find any.

Even if the intelligence were correct, imagine if something went wrong in the attack and radioactive material was released into the atmosphere risking thousands of innocent lives.

If it's preemptive action that the White House wants, the Pentagon can begin by taking out the nuclear option.

We talk about it a lot here -- that very old, and very important legal
concept -- due process of law.

For Americans it's guaranteed in the 5th Amendment that states "no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Fundamental to procedural due process is adequate
prior notice and an opportunity to be heard and defend those rights.
That includes a clear definition of what is, and what is not, a crime.
(Of course, these days in America virtually anything could be a crime,
especially if it pertains to financial activity).

We mention due process again as the trial of nine defendants in the
KPMG tax shelter case draws nigh in New York. These former KPMG partners
are charged with criminal conspiracy to evade taxes by selling what the
IRS claims are "abusive tax shelters." Oddly enough, no court of law has
ever ruled that the shelters in question are illegal. We have only the
IRS' jaundiced opinion that they are.

The way due process in tax law used to work had the IRS issue a warning
against a specific tax shelter, putting taxpayers on notice. The IRS
then took the taxpayer to court on the shelter issue, where he had a chance
to respond before a judge, who ruled on legality. In this case, the IRS
called in the prosecutors first without ever determining in a court of
law whether these so-called "abusive" shelters are legal or not.

The Wall Street Journal thinks the IRS may have taken this backdoor
prosecution route because it has been losing cases in Tax Court lately.
Last year we reported to you how the government froze $500 million in
assets at Xelan, a charitable trust set up for doctors in California,
alleging the trust was used for tax fraud. A US District Court threw
out the case, ruling the IRS didn't show that any court had ever held
that Xelan's activities were illegal under the tax code.

Now we have no special brief for KPMG or its ex-employees, but we do
have very serious concerns if federal prosecutors are permitted to accuse
and prosecute Americans for a conspiracy to promote a tax arrangement
that is legal until proven otherwise. If government has the unfettered
power to indict and try citizens for entering into agreements to do
legal acts bureaucrats don't like, none of us are safe.

The IRS has been engaged in a blatant, long-time attempt to blur the
valid distinction between proper tax 'avoidance' and illegal tax
"evasion." Since the US tax code is a complex morass, small wonder that
resourceful experts such as those at KPMG, try to interpret the Code to
favor their taxpayer clients rather then surrendering to the IRS.

The KPMG case is another nasty part of the highly aggressive IRS
campaign against anything it deems to be an "abusive tax shelter."
So aggressive, in fact, that the leading Washington, DC tax law firm,
Caplin & Drysdale, suggested that the IRS "objective is not to win in
court, but rather to create an in terrorem effect." (The phrase "in
terrorem" is Latin, meaning "so as to produce terror").

In other words, this respected law firm thinks that the IRS is engaged
in a form of tax terrorism, attempting to intimidate attorneys and tax
accountants into failing to give even legitimate tax avoidance advice.

The problem is that the IRS sees any and every attempt legally to avoid
taxes as tax evasion. What is "abused" are the enormous IRS
investigative powers backed by US Justice Dept. prosecutors.

A few years ago congressional hearings on the IRS exposed publicly what
many Americans knew already: the IRS too often conducts its affairs like
a financial Gestapo, running roughshod over citizens rights. The IRS
still views taxpayers as adversaries, assuming them guilty until they
can prove otherwise.

I guess it is just too much to expect that an administration that is
bogged down in an unending, losing war in Iraq, trillions in debt,
unable to meet emergencies at home and without respect abroad, could
concern itself with the due process of law that the Constitution
guarantees.

No doubt Ms. Justice Harriet Miers (who?) will take care of that. As the
President is wont to say: "Trust me."

That's the way it looks from here.
BOB BAUMAN

Hi Rahly,

mind sharing the links??

Thanks!

Originally Posted by rahly

You're most welcome,my dear Watson.

As for "conspiracy theories";there ARE no "conspiracy theories",only conspiracies and the theories that surround them,if you catch my drift.

If you like,I can point you to some VERY intriguing full-length documentaries,some over 2hrs. long,that you can download and watch on your PC.Just PM me,and I'll send you the links.
You really can't argue with what's actually going on in these docues.It's all there for you to witness for yourself,not just cheap talk and sensationalism.Michael Moore's got nothing on these guys!
If everyone knew who was REALLY behind 9/11,there'd be open civil war in the States,I'm sure.By the time people finally succumb to the truth,they'll have been boiled like the proverbial frog.
It's really too bad,but it was destined to happen.

Cheers,Mate.

micky,you've got mail.

After watching the video on the Utah rave it reminds me of another time in history when the police would break up every good concert clubbing people who were just trying to get out of the way, being stuffed into paddywagons after being beat up and hauled to jail with no charges and kept for 48 hours. Many things are similiar but this time it feels scarier as Bush seems to keep the nation in his lieing grips and media propaganda. Like in those days many people think something was wrong with the crowd or the police would not have gone in but as was in the sixties the police did not act like these were humans but as a sub spicies who feel no real pain and don't deserve human rights. They say this is a free nation but look again. These people mean to squash our freedom in the name of security. This is not right Aloha Brant