Please visit our sponsors

Rolclub does not endorse ads. Please see our disclaimer.
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Indicted?!?!

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Feedback Score
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Indicted?!?!


    A Chicago grand jury has indicted the President and Vice-President of the United States along with multiple high officials in the Bush administration

    Chicago -- August 2, 2005 -- -- U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's Chicago grand jury has issued perjury and obstruction of justice indictments to the following members of the Bush Administration: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Senior Cheney advisor Mary Matalin.

    There were no indications given as to whether the President and his top staff members would appear publicly before cameras at the grand jury proceedings, given the gravity of the charges.

    Besides the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, the Fitzgerald probe is reportedly far-reaching and expanding much deeper into past White House criminal acts involving Bush-Clinton drug money laundering in Mena, Arkansas to White House involvement in 9.11; but also for sending America's young people to their deaths or to be maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretenses.

    British Prime Minister Tony Blair was indicted for obstruction of justice and is reportedly consulting with members of Parliament and legal aides regarding how to avoid appearing in the U.S.A. for interrogation before Fitzgerald in Chicago.

    The revelations emanated from sources close to the grand jury who spoke with federal whistleblower Thomas Heneghen in California who said White House Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove was also indicted for perjury and was reportedly involved with Mary Matalin in a major Bush administration document shredding operation to cover-up evidence.

    Heneghen had reported over ten days ago on a <> broadcast that his sources close to the grand jury said former Secretary of State Colin Powell had been subpoenaed and had testified against President Bush, telling the citizen panel that the President had taken the United States to war based upon lies--a capital crime involving treason under the United States Code.

    Heneghen also reported a week ago that Gonzalez and Card had been subpoened and that Tony Blair had defied his subpoena after the response time limit had expired.

    Sources close to the investigation report that members of the House, Senate, 9.11 Commission and other members of the media are also under investigation as potential targets by a grand jury regarding obstruction of justice and other oversight failures linked to the 9.11 attacks--indicating that citizen panelists working with Fitzgerald may be seeking a wholesale cleansing of what many have said is a crime-wracked White House and Congress.

    Also last Monday, the whistleblower reported that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts was planning to obstruct justice by calling Fitzgerald for Senate hearings to question the prosecutor's motives for the far-reaching investigation.

    This, giving rise to questions as to whether Roberts and other Republican legislators--some now under secret investigation--would join President Bush in seeking to fire Fitzgerald in the same manner that President Nixon had fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in order to obstruct justice and cut off further investigations into White House crimes.

    Two weeks ago Heneghen said he had talked to sources just ten minutes prior to French and U.S. intelligence agents intercepting British intelligence agents who were attempting to bomb the subway underneath the Dirksen Federal Building where Fitzgerald was presiding over grand jury hearings.

    Serious questions can also be raised as to whether intelligence forces linked to President Bush and Tony Blair had participated in a failed attempt to scuttle the Fitzgerald probe by literally blowing it up--at a time when UK reports reveal that military-grade explosives were used to blow up the London subway on July 7.

    Sources say the alleged Chicago subway bombing attempt has been attributed to an underground and closeted enmity involving warring intelligence and military factions within the United States government.

    Moreover, reports indicate that the disturbance occurred at the same time that the Chicago Tribune and local web blogs had reported that the subway had been evacuated for 45-50 minutes regarding a "suspicious package" late on Monday afternoon, July 18.

    Also confirming the under-the-radar-screen hostilities involving agents loyal to the administration and others who are disturbed about the cover-up of government involvement in the 9.11 attacks was a recent contact made with this writer by a major New York media outlet which called seeking "names of those who could confirm its own reports of warring factions within the government which were threatening the safety of U.S. citizens."

    developing.....please link or copy--and distribute widely.,95688,

  2. Sponsored Links
  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Feedback Score
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Panel indicts US, UK over Iraq
    By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul

    Tuesday 28 June 2005, 3:04 Makka Time, 0:04 GMT

    The World Tribunal on Iraq delivered its verdict in Istanbul

    An independent anti-war tribunal has found the United States and United Kingdom guilty of a variety of crimes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    The World Tribunal on Iraq, which has roots in the anti-war movement in the West and is intended to collect testimony for legal cases connected with the war, met over three days in Istanbul, Turkey.

    The independent panel of academics, writers and activists in its concluding verdict on Monday found the US and UK governments guilty of "planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles".

    It also found the US-led forces had been "intentionally directing attacks upon civilians and hospitals, medical centres, residential neighbourhoods, electricity stations, and water purification facilities" in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

    The tribunal, which was set up in 2003 after the invasion, includes novelist Arundhati Roy. She opened the final session in Istanbul on 24 June by explaining that the tribunal exists "to examine a vast spectrum of evidence about the motivations and consequences of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq".


    Speakers such as former UN assistant general secretary Denis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Hans von Sponec, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation Chairman and former Euro MP Ken Coates and UNESCO Peace Prize winner Richard Falk addressed the tribunal.

    Panelists like Arundhati Roy
    raised their fists after the verdict

    Evidence was presented before a panel of international jurists on a range of issues, from the use of depleted uranium weaponry to conscientious objection, and from the privatisation of the conflict to the war’s standing in international law.

    "It was good to hold this final session in Turkey from a symbolic point of view," Falk, the co-coordinator of the panel of advocates, told "It represents a movement of the 'moral compass' away from the Christian West."

    Held at the historic Ottoman imperial mint, part of Istanbul's Topkapi Palace, about 100 participants from across the globe attended.

    One of the objectives of the tribunal, as it has toured the globe, has been to keep the anti-war movement in the West focused. After the enormous demonstrations of February 2003 in Europe and the US against the conflict, the movement experienced a lull once the war and occupation took place.

    "There was disillusion and disappointment when the invasion happened anyway," says Falk, a veteran of the anti-Vietnam war movement in the US. "People tend to expect a quick fix - but you can't change fixed policies through one dramatic gesture like the mass anti-war demonstrations. With Vietnam, people had the same experience."

    Documenting crimes

    By collecting the testimony of soldiers, civilians and other witnesses to the conflict, the tribunal also aims to act as a resource for legal cases connected with the war.

    "We are here to make concrete records, documents and analysis," says organiser Ayca Cubukcu. "The findings of the WTI are then being taken to the International Criminal Court."

    The US and UK are accused of
    crimes in the invasion of Iraq

    This is being done by a collection of international bar associations, with the Istanbul Bar Association a leading light in the prosecution of the UK government for its part in what the Istanbul lawyers claim is an illegal war.

    "We only have the documentation and facility to indict British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the UK foreign secretary," said Kazim Kolcuoglu, president of the Turkish Bar Association. "We'd like to have Bush and Powell in there too, but we can only cite them as witnesses."

    The legal documentation is also vital in other areas of the anti-war campaign.

    "The evidence we collect can also strengthen the cases of conscientious objectors in the UK and US," adds conference organiser Muge Sokmen.

    Establishing truth

    The tribunal has its critics.

    As a 'court' judging the attack on Iraq and subsequent occupation, there were no speakers to defend the actions of London or Washington. Did this not make the tribunal something of a 'kangaroo court'?

    "The tribunal is not set up to discover the truth but to confirm it"

    Richard Falk,
    co-coordinator of advocates' panel, World Tribunal on Iraq

    "I think that comes from a misunderstanding about what the tribunal is," answers Falk. "The tribunal is not set up to discover the truth but to confirm it… The real importance, for example, of the Nuremburg trials at the end of second world war was that they established a record of the Nazi regime and its crimes. When governments and the United Nations are essentially silent over aggression in Iraq, this tribunal is trying to fill that vacuum."

    The point is taken up by Cubukcu.

    "We know that history is written by the victors," she says. "Our aim here is to write an alternative history."

    The big question for participants is what's next.

    "We're now thinking about campaigns to enforce the tribunal's decision - such as holding a conference in Baghdad and the US, boycotts of US goods, 'Americans Go Home' protests and so on," Falk said.

  4. 03-08-2005, 07:30 AM

  5. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Feedback Score
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    David Ray Griffin
    Address at the National Press Club
    June 22, 2005
    David Ray Griffin

    After the attacks of 9/11, I accepted the blowback thesis, according to which the attacks were payback for US foreign policy. About a year later, a colleague suggested that the attacks were orchestrated by our own government. My response was that I didn't think the Bush administration---even the Bush administration---would do such a thing.

    A few months later, another colleague suggested that I look at a website containing the massive 9/11 timeline created by Paul Thompson. This timeline, I found, contained an enormous number of reports, all from mainstream sources, that contradicted the official account. This started a process that led me to publish The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, which summarized much of the evidence that had been discovered by previous researchers---evidence, I concluded, that provided a "strong prima facie case for official complicity."

    In a criminal trial, once the prosecution has presented its initial case, the defense asks the judge for a dismissal on the grounds that a prima facie case for guilt has not been presented. However, if the judge declares that such a case has been made, then the defense must rebut the various elements in the prosecution's case. The defense cannot simply ignore the prosecution's case by stating that it is "too outrageous to be dignified by a response." If the defense fails to offer a convincing rebuttal, the prima facie case is presumed to be conclusive.

    The Bush administration responded to the charges against it as a defense attorney would, declaring them too outrageous to be taken seriously. President Bush himself advised people, perhaps especially reporters, not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." What the president really meant is that people should not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories except his own, according to which 19 Arab Muslims defeated the most powerful and sophisticated defense system in history and also defeated the laws of physics, bringing down three steel-frame building in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition.

    In any case, what was needed at that stage was someone to play the role of the judge, determining, from an impartial perspective, whether a prima facie case for the guilt of the Bush administration had been made.

    This role should have been played by the press. But the mainstream press instead offered itself as a mouthpiece for the administration's conspiracy theory.

    The role of the impartial judge has, nevertheless, been played by civil society, in which tens of millions of people in this country and around the world now accept the 9/11 truth movement's contention that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.

    The fact that the president was finally forced to appoint a 9/11 commission provided an opportunity for the Bush administration to rebut the allegations made against it. You might assume that the 9/11 Commission would have played the role of an impartial jury, simply evaluating the evidence for the competing conspiracy theories and deciding which one was more strongly supported.

    The Commission's investigative work, however, was carried out by its staff, and this staff was directed by the White House's man inside the Commission, Philip Zelikow, a fact that the mainstream press has not emphasized. Under Zelikow's leadership, the Commission took the role of the prosecution for the Bush administration's brief against al-Qaeda. In doing so, it implicitly took the role of the defense for the Bush administration. Accordingly, an important question to ask about The 9/11 Commission Report, especially since we know that the Commission had many copies of The New Pearl Harbor, is how well the Commission rebutted the prima facie case against the Bush-Cheney administration, which was summarized in that book.

    In a second book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I showed that the Commission simply ignored most of that evidence and distorted the rest. I will summarize a few of the 115 sins of omission and distortion that I identified.

    The New Pearl Harbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he "had never even heard of Pennsylvania," let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

    The New Pearl Harbor cited reports that although Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader, had been portrayed as a devout Muslim ready to meet his maker, he actually loved alcohol, pork, and lap dances. Zelikow's commission, however, said that Atta had become "fanatically" religious.

    They also claimed that they could find no credible explanation as to why Atta and the other hijackers went to Las Vegas. The mainstream press has let the Commission get away with these obvious contradictions.

    People who have seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 know that President Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota when he was told that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, a sign that the country was suffering an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the president just sat there.

    Many critics have asked why he did not immediately assume the role of commander-in-chief, but the more important question is why the highly trained Secret Service agents did not immediately rush him to safety. Bush's location had been highly publicized. They should have worried that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on them at that very moment. And yet they allowed the president to remain at the school another half hour, thereby implying that they knew the president was not a target.

    The 9/11 Commission's only response was to report that "[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the President] to run out the door." The Commissioners evidently accepted the implied suggestion that maintaining presidential decorum was more important than protecting the president's life. The mainstream press has had no comment on this remarkable response to that remarkable incident.

    Another big question created by the official story is how the hijackers, by crashing planes into the Twin Towers, caused them and Building 7 to collapse. One problem is that Building 7 was not struck by an airplane, and steel-frame buildings had never before been caused to collapse by fire alone, even when the fires had been much bigger, hotter, and longer-lasting. The Commission avoided this problem by simply not mentioning this fact or even, incredibly, that Building 7 collapsed.

    Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds." But it never explained how fire plus the impact of an airplane could have produced such a collapse.

    Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow's commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."

    James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. This book contains an extensive discussion of the construction of the towers around the 47 interior columns. And yet when the Commission in 2004 published its incredible denial that these columns existed, the Times did not protest.

    Another example: Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow's final report.

    The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez's story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it.

    The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. The Commission in particular failed to subpoena the film from the video cameras, confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks, which could at least clear up one of the questions---whether the attacking aircraft was a Boeing 757.

    The Commission did allude to one problem---the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was known to be completely incompetent, incapable of flying a Boeing 757, let alone performing the remarkable maneuver reportedly executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The Commission handled this problem simply by saying in one place that Hanjour was considered a "terrible pilot" while saying elsewhere that he was given the assignment to hit the Pentagon because he was "the operation's most experienced pilot." The mainstream press has not pointed out this contradiction.

    The Commission also failed to discuss the considerable evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military, perhaps when passengers were about to wrest control of it. The Commission dealt with this problem only indirectly, by claiming that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until 10:10, which was at least four minutes after Flight 93 crashed. In support of this claim, the Commission said that Cheney did not enter the Operations Center under the White House until almost 10:00 that morning. To make this claim, however, the Commission had to contradict all prior reports. It also had to delete Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given during the Commission's public hearings, that when he got down there at 9:20, Cheney was already in charge. Even such an obvious lie, supported by such blatant suppression of evidence, has elicited no murmur from our mainstream press.

    There are dozens of other omissions and distortions the press has allowed the Commission to get away with. For example, the Commission's endorsement of the claim by General Richard Myers that he was on Capitol Hill that morning ignores Richard Clarke's report, in Against All Enemies, that Myers was in the Pentagon, participating in Clarke's video conference. Also, the Commission's account of why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted contradicts the account that had been told since shortly after 9/11 not only by the U.S. military but also by the press, in thousands of stories. But the press now, like Gilda Radnor, says "Never Mind."

    In any case, as these illustrations show, the 9/11 Commission, which had the opportunity to rebut the prima facie case against the Bush administration, failed to do so. This means that the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report needs to be recognized as a decisive event, because it was the moment at which the prima facie case against the Bush administration became a conclusive case.

    What we need now is a press that will let the American people in on this development---which is most important, given the fact that the official story about 9/11 has provided the pretext for virtually every other horrible thing this administration has done.

    # # #

    Received via email from Emanuel Sferios

    For an online version of Dr. Griffin's address below:

    For DVDs of Dr. Griffin's C-Span talk and other 9/11 truth DVDs:

    For photos of last weekend's 9/11 truth event in DC, with images of Dr.
    Ray Griffin, Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, Ray McGovern, Danny Schecter,
    Jenna Orkin, Charles Key, Gael Murphy, Peter Phillips and many others
    (photos by Jan Hoyer, John Gannon, Chris Emery, Jonathan Gold):

  6. Sponsored Links

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Share |