The Columbine Massacre Unravels

Columbine has never made any sense. On a close examination of eyewitnesses, and events, one can easily see that there were at least seven people involved, and maybe a third shooter.

Basically, there were 100 bombs found that day, and Klebold and Harris didnt' bring them in alone. And the fact that an eyewitness said he saw two cars, with seven kids, at the school early that morning confirms there were accessories to the massacre.


John Stone, the Sheriff of Jefferson county at the time, believed there were others involved, but he was constantly blocked by an FBI agent named Dwayne Fuselier. To make matters worse, Fuselier had two sons in the Trench Coat Mafia, and the FBI saw no conflict of interest.

Memo Linked to Warrantless Surveillance

April 3, 2008

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

''Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,'' the footnote states, referring to a document titled ''Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.''

Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear. But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.

That program intercepted phone calls and e-mails on U.S. soil, bypassing the normal legal requirement that such eavesdropping be authorized by a secret federal court. The program began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and continued until Jan. 17, 2007, when the White House resumed seeking surveillance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that the Fourth Amendment finding in the October memo was not the legal underpinning for the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

''TSP relied on a separate set of legal memoranda,'' Fratto told The Associated Press. The Justice Department outlined that legal framework in a January 2006 white paper issued by the Justice Department a month after the TSP was revealed by The New York Times.

The October memo was written just days before Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, briefed four House and Senate leaders on the NSA's secret wiretapping program for the first time.

The government itself related the October memo to the TSP program when it included it on a list of documents that were responsive to the ACLU's request for records from the program. It refused to hand them over.

Late Wednesday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said department officials believe the October 2001 memo was not about the eavesdropping program, but he did not explain why it was included on requests for documents linked to the TSP.

Earlier, Roehrkasse said the statement in the footnote does not reflect the current view of the department's Office of Legal Counsel.

''We disagree with the proposition that the Fourth Amendment has no application to domestic military operations,'' he said. ''Whether a particular search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires consideration of the particular context and circumstances of the search.''

Roehrkasse would not say exactly when that legal opinion was overturned internally. But he pointed to the January 2006 white paper.

''The white paper does not suggest in any way that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military activities, and that is not the position of the Office of Legal Counsel,'' he said.

Suzanne Spaulding, a national security law expert and former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said she found the Fourth Amendment reference in the footnote troubling, but added: ''To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring.''

''The recent disclosures underscore the Bush administration's extraordinarily sweeping conception of executive power,'' said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. ''The administration's lawyers believe the president should be permitted to violate statutory law, to violate international treaties and even to violate the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. They believe that the president should be above the law.''

''Each time one of these memos comes out you have to come up with a more extreme way to characterize it,'' Jaffer said.

The ACLU is challenging in court the government's withholding of the October 2001 memo.

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn

By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Contributing Writer

WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.

“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

Resources:

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

Webster G. Tarpley is a journalist. Among other works, he has published an investigation on the manipulation of the Red Brigades by the Vatican’s P2 Suite and the assassination of Aldo Moro, a non-authorized biography of George H. Bush, and more recently an analysis of the methods used to perpetrate the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Why Do We Allow This to Go On?

by Dennis Diehl

Why do the average people on the planet abide fools as their leaders? How many murdering, narcissists, psychos, misfits, dictators and generally unseemly human beings can you think of who rise to places of leadership in this world?

In the past we had our Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and only God knows all the others, who eliminated millions from the planet. ONE human piece of slime determines whether millions live or die. And "we" allow it. Many join it to save themselves. Why do we do that?

Today we have the enigmatic and odd Kim Jon, IL, threatening to turn South Korea into ashes. Is this guy bored or just drunk again? He's turned his entire country into a POW camp of the darkest and dankest kind. He's sucked the spirit out of the people and those who seek to save their own hides enable one to do so. Why do the many support the one to oppress most? Why do we allow that?

Time would fail us to note how Africans tolerate the one man psychopath. Same formula. One out of touch, depraved psychopath, using the few to support the repression of the many. They rape the country literally and financially and then look around in utter innocence when confronted and ask, "who me?" When voted out, they stay and when pushed they kill. And it's allowed to be so. Why do we do that?

Over the past 18 years we have allowed our own homegrown dynasties to rape the treasury, enrich themselves and eliminate a couple million folks from the planet in the process, that we know about. More chilling is that these are the deeply Christian types who claim to know Jesus and deeply appreciate the Sermon on the Mount, or the Plain depending on which Gospel you read. Truly the most frightening kind of one man show.

Our duly elected leader, or not, hears the voice of God telling him to do God's work in the world by conquest and stealth. The voice of his God is decidedly Old Testament in it's tone. And no one questions it very much. Now I might talk to God in prayer, but when God talks back, it's really mental illness. Why do we allow that?

Our Constitution has been edited. Our laws turned against us. Criminal acts go unpunished, and criminals in high places not only go unpunished but thrive. They exempt themselves from obeying the very things they sign into law for us and set up our society in such a way as to literally take it over, by law, should they ever feel the need. Why do we allow that?

If elections get cancelled to keep these types in the jobs they have covet, will we allow that too? What will we think after we have to admit, "I guess we saw it coming?"

Our Vice President is asked if it matters that most of the American public are against the war in Iraq and that it was based on less than truth. He says "so," and no one blinks. When followed up with whether he cares what the public thinks, he just says "No." Why do we allow that? Why is that not bigger news? Does everyone have a folder on them somewhere listing all their sins and sexual preferences that may make it to the front page long before we find out those in power don't care what Americans think?

It's an enigma to me. The Bush Dynasty has eliminated 1,200,000 non-Americans and 70,000 US military men and women from the planet since 1990. Why did we allow that? They seem to sleep well. Barbara Bush made it clear that she was not about to sully her beautiful mind thoughts about such things. Why do we allow that? George W. gives everyone the finger in his oft shown speech and pumps his fist to tell us he feels good in launching Operation Piss and Vinegar. He even made annoying faces prior to going live on 9-ll, not knowing they were recorded. Why do we allow this? Why are these things not played for everyone to see? I'm not naive...I actually know why.

Why have we allowed any of this to go on and on? Because and evidently, unlike the French, Americans are afraid of their government. Enough has been put in place to make them afraid of it. It's how the evil few get to rule over the fearful and compliant.

I was told by a retired CIA acquaintance that the lesson he learned in his work for America was that "nothing in this world is as you are being told." I believe him. I don't want to, but I do. Why do we allow that?

It used to be a proper blessing for the Czar was, "May God Bless and Keep the Czar Far Away from Us."

I'm not sure that works anymore. They just get us all into more mischief when ignored. And the average person just can't afford to keep ignoring this much longer. What we will end up with is no Second Coming, which seems a ridiculous goal of the Christian Loons who advice this administration, and a huge sanitation problem on the planet to deal with.

Of course, it will be cleaning up what's left of the little people.

DennisCDiehl@aol.com

Paul Lectures Bernanke: U.S. Moving Towards Fascism

Congressman says we've "given up on the Republic, freedom, the marketplace and sound money"

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet

Thursday, April 3, 2008
|
The Federal Reserve's insistence on rewarding its own failures by granting itself new powers was harshly rebuked by Congressman Ron Paul during yesterday's Joint Economic Committee meeting, as Paul all but accused Ben Bernanke of contributing economicallly to a broader move towards fascism in America.

"There's a political philosophy that advocates merging together the interests of business and government at the same time with a loss of civil liberties of the people and I'm afraid we're moving in that direction," said the Congressman, citing warrantless searches, lack of medical, Internet and financial privacy as well as the loss of habeas corpus since 9/11.

"I see....the proposal by the Treasury as a massive move to a lot closer association of business and government," said Paul, adding that a military-industrial complex, a medical-industrial complex and a media-industrial complex were already in place.

Paul was refering to the Treasury Department's recent proposal to give the Fed, "Broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system," as the New York Times reported.

"We should be regulating the government - when you think of the authority you as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve can do, it really goes unaudited and very little oversight," said Paul, adding that the creation of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets meant that "we had really given up on the Republic, freedom, the marketplace and sound money".

"It looks like this is a massive increase in the combination of government and big business," said the Congressman.