Wise Up Journal
02.01.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara
The majority of this article is made up from an absolutely horrifying section of the National Medical Bill. Horrors that you’ve not heard about in 70 years are actually written down and are legal. Everything in this article has a link to the official bill. The section in question of the Medical Bill springs from the World Health Organisation standards and recommendations. Most countries are likely to have the same bills because most follow the WHO’s lead, however in some countries these emergency plans can not be seen even by homeland security so this Irish Medical Bill could be a window into what other Governments are also prepared to do.
These specific emergency measures can legally be carried out without the so called emergency ever happening in your country, all that is required is a simple alert from the unelected people at the WHO. As we will see, these psychotic Government actions to a so called “imminent” emergency will actually do more damage than if the emergency hit.
We’ll come to the Medical Bill in a moment but first we’ll look at this 2008 pamphlet from the Government that states a worldwide pandemic would be caused by “a new influenza strain” and they are pretty confident when they state “there will be more pandemics”. It also lets us know who is in control of kicking off the alert and actions when it says, “You will be advised to begin these preparations if and when the World Health Organisation confirms that a pandemic is imminent.” The Department of Health & Children’s National Pandemic Influenza Plan shows the WHO puts our global society currently at phase 3 of a phase 6 global pandemic, “The World Health Organization (WHO) uses six phases of pandemic alert as a system for informing the world of the seriousness of the threat.“ Phase 3: “Human infection(s) with a new subtype, […] We are now in Phase 3 (January 2007).” The power to alert/get nations into implementing WHO actions is further consolidated in to the hands of one person, the current Director-General (Chinese Margaret Chan) and the pandemic plan says, “the designation of alert phases, including decisions on when to move from one phase to another, is made by the Director-General of the World Health Organization. The transition between phases may be rapid and some phases may be skipped. “
National Pandemic Influenza Plan also lists the following:
“A number of legal issues may arise from the public health management of pandemic influenza.”
“The World Health Organization has identified and categorised non-pharmaceutical public health interventions as follows:”
“Measures to increase social distance”
“Measures for people entering or exiting an infected area within a country”
“Section 31 [Health Act] gives power to the Minister to make regulations to prevent the spread of an infectious disease and to treat people suffering from infectious disease. The regulations envisaged by the Act include:”
“Requirement for adults and children to stay in their homes”
“Requirement for adults and children to submit to examination, vaccination, immunisation”
It then lists “suspension of travel”, “suspension of other gatherings”, and finally lists “possible security issues” as a wider scope of power given to them.
Lets look at Part IV of the the Health Act which deals with infectious diseases and see how Governments will treat us when the WHO gives the ok. Lets look at how the law will make all our rights evaporate when we need them the most. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1947/en/act/pub/0028/
Section 38 contains a purposeful loophole to detain anyone. It legalizes the detention of, by force if necessary, people who are not identified as infected but are a “probable” source. The name of section 38 is “Detention and isolation of person who is probable source of infection” and it states the following, “force may, if necessary, be used for the purpose of carrying out any provision of this subsection.”
Part 2 of section 38 redefines the word person into patient: “(2) Where an order is made under this section in relation to a person (in this subsection referred to as the patient), the following provisions shall have effect[….]”. This makes it legal for the government imprison people known not to be infected and label them as patients.
Part K of section 38 tries to pretend that a person or a parent of a detained child can make an appeal to be released but it is entirely up the decision of the minister and this “nice” sounding part actually allows the legal interpretation for people to be detained for what ever amount of time the state demands. The key word of part K is “determination” which has a couple of definitions in the dictionary one being “settlement of a dispute”. Part K states, “if no determination of an appeal under paragraph (h) of this subsection is made by the Minister and communicated to the person in charge of such hospital or other place within twenty-one clear days from the receipt by the Minister of such appeal, such person shall release the, patient”. If a determination/decision is made by the Minister for the status quo then the men, women and children detained will not be released. It also makes it legal for Government officers to detain people even if the Minister has not made any decision because it says if the government officer (”the person in charge of such hospital or other place“) is not told (”communicated to”) that the Minister has not made a decision (or even that there is an appeal) the officer does not have to release the person. If the detention officers are not told there was an appeal, they don’t know to release you based on a “no determination“.
The Health act gives the power of relocating people (persons) to government facilities/camps/accommodation: Health Act section 40, “A health authority may provide accommodation for persons who are compelled to leave their homes on account of any steps taken under this Act or the regulations made thereunder for the prevention of the spread of infectious disease.” It gives the government the right to detain people in government facilities not just hospitals with the following line, “the order to allow for the patient’s isolation in a hospital or other place convenient“.
Health Act section 32 A and B below deals with the entire population not just the infected and uninfected population incarcerated in hospitals and “other places”. It gives the Minister power to order the injection of the entire population (quote: “all adult persons” and “all children”) with a vaccine they believe might immunise against a pandemic “caused by a new influenza strain“. You are probably thinking how could they create a vaccine so fast, doesn’t it take years to prove it is safe? They are prepared to alter the entire population’s immune system and DNA with what would be officially an untested experimental vaccine, are you prepared for that? It’s the law now.
Health Act section 32:
“The Minister may by order declare that-”
“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all adult persons should submit themselves to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against such infectious disease”
“The Minister may by order declare that—”
“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all children should be submitted to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against that infectious disease”.
Going back to the little public pamphlet that looks like it was designed for children it mentions 8 possible emergencies. All the other emergencies beside a pandemic are played down, even a nuclear incident at Sellafield is nothing to worry about according to the pamphlet as it says “any radioactivity from an incident would be diluted before reaching Ireland.” For other emergencies they use words of possibilities like, “in the event of such an incident”, “you may be asked”, but with the pandemic, which is allocated more pages, they have definite statements such as, “there will be more pandemics”, “if and when”, “every household in the country will receive a leaflet before the pandemic reaches Ireland”, follow “advice from the telephone hotline that will be set up or from official Government announcements to the media.” Months after this pamphlet was released the Irish government performed for the first ever time test announcements over all media as the Irish Times reported in Dec 2008: “the State’s radio and television airwaves fell silent for the first time early this morning as part of a Government exercise on giving urgent messages to the nation.”
The National Pandemic Influenza Plan says when a pandemic is completely over “it may be a long time before the health services recover”. Business, farming, and food supplies will take just as long if not longer to recover. How will a family whom are not incarcerated at a government facility during a WHO pandemic phase feed themselves when public gathering are illegal, when food markets are closed and leaving the home is forbidden? Issuing people masks and gloves, keeping stores open, not injecting the entire population with an experimental vaccine, and not rounding up people into camps would save more lives. The goal of these “legal” measures are clear. “If and when” (as the government say’s) they implement the World Health Organisation measures because of a pandemic or phantom pandemic alert we’ll find that these actions will kill more people than a real pandemic ever could. The legal measures have been adopted for such a disaster to take place and you wont be able to counter them when implemented. You might want to think of getting these laws taken out before the WHO announces it’s alert.
Government links:
Health Act: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1947/en/act/pub/0028/
National Pandemic Influenza Plan: http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/...n.pdf?direct=1
Emergency Pamphlet: http://www.emergencyplanning.ie/down...ok-English.pdf
Showing posts with label ZOG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ZOG. Show all posts
Monday, May 4, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
How ZOG Runs America!
Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman,
Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC
Gleen Greenwald
Monday April 20, 2009
http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2009/04/20/ harman/index. html
Other obligations prevent me from writing until later today -- and I intend to focus on Rahm Emanuel's war-crimes-protecti ng proclamation that Obama's desire for immunity extends beyond CIA officers perpetrating torture to the "policy makers" who ordered it (watch today as the hardest-core Obama loyalists start explaining how the UN doesn't matter, international treaties are irrelevant, and war criminals need not be held accountable) -- but, until then, I wanted to highlight this extremely important and well-reported story from CQ's Jeff Stein, which involves allegations of major corruption and serious criminal activity on the part of Democratic Rep. Jane Harman. Here's one crucial prong of the story:
Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."
That's not even the most significant part. Back in October, 2006, Time reported that the DOJ and FBI were investigating whether Harman and AIPAC "violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee" and "the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. " So that part has been known since 2006.
Stein adds today that Harman was captured on an NSA wiretap conspiring with an Israeli agent to apply pressure on DOJ officials to scale back the AIPAC prosecution. But the real crux of Stein's scoop is that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonazles intervened to kill the criminal investigation into Harman -- even though DOJ lawyers had concluded that she committed crimes -- because top Bush officials wanted Harman's credibility to be preserved so that she could publicly defend the Bush administration' s illegal warrantless eavesdropping program:
[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to break in The New York Times and engulf the White House. . . .
Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a "completed crime," a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said. . . .
Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department's FISA application. . . . Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman's rank as the panel's top Democrat.
But that's when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened.
According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities. "
And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.
Indeed, as I've noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" to repeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," and that the whistleblowers were "despicable. " And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.
Stein's entire story should be read. It's a model of excellent reporting, as it relies on numerous sources with first-hand knowledge of the NSA transcripts (and what sweet justice it would be if Harman's guilt were established by government eavesdropping) . It should be noted that Harman has issued a general denial of wrongdoing (but does not appear to deny that she had the discussion Stein reports), and the sources in Stein's story are anonymous (though because they're disclosing classified information and exposing government wrongdoing, it's a classic case of when anonymity is justifiable; and note Stein's efforts to provide as much information as possible about his sources and why they are anonymous).
There are many questions that the story raises -- Josh Marshall notes just some of those vital questions here -- and Harman's guilt therefore shouldn't be assumed. But obviously, given all the very serious issues this story raises -- involving what seem to be credible allegations of very serious wrongdoing by a key member of Congress, the former Attorney General and one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country -- full-scale investigations are needed, to put it mildly.
===
Harman was allegedly heard saying she'd 'waddle into' the AIPAC case in return for support for her bid to become chair of the Intelligence Committee.
Bombshell: Rep. Jane Harman Caught on Tape Agreeing
to Lobby for Alleged AIPAC/Israel Spies?
Jeremy Scahill
Rebel Reports
April 20, 2009
http://www.alternet .org/blogs/ rights/137494/ bombshell% 3A_rep._jane_ harman_caught_ on_tape_agreeing _to_lobby_ for_alleged_ aipac_israel_ spies/
This is a huge story: Representative Jane Harman, a hawkish, influential "Blue Dog" Democrat "was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington," according to a report from CQ Politics:
Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."
The case, known as the AIPAC espionage scandal centers around allegations that at least two AIPAC staff members passed sensitive US intelligence on Iran, provided by Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, to Israel. In early 2006, Franklin pled guilty to espionage-related charges and was sentenced to 13 years in prison. The case against two indicted AIPAC staffers, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, is ongoing.
Allegations that Harman intervened in this case in an effort to win the spot as chair of the Intelligence Committee have been widespread since 2006, but an FBI investigation into Harman was dropped for "lack of evidence." As CQ Politics reports:
What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.
And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.
When Justice Department officials reviewed the transcript of the wiretaps on Rep. Harman, its attorneys determined she had committed a "completed crime," which, according to CQ Politics is "a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it." The Justice Department attorneys wanted to open a case on her, but they needed the green light from top intel officials to confirm it rightly constituted a national security investigation. Porter Goss, who was then the CIA director reportedly approved the investigation and was preparing to notify then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Speaker Dennis Hastert and, through them, Harman herself:
But that's when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened.
According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities. "
Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing.
And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.
On his Salon blog today Glenn Greenwald points out:
Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" to repeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," and that the whistleblowers were "despicable. " And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.
There may be some who attempt to portray Harman as a victim of blackmail by Gonzales (and the wiretapping of members of Congress—and other Americans— should be thoroughly investigated) but Harman is a right wing Democrat who was often in sync with the heinous policies of the Bush administration. Over at TalkingPointsMemo, Josh Marshall raises some interesting issues on this story, particularly relating to the wiretap itself:
Among the many questions the story raises are some that Harman should probably answer, but not all. High on my list would be finding out more about the circumstances under which a member of Congress ended up having her phone conversations recorded by the NSA. The article suggests it was a by-the-books wiretap — part of a highly-classified probe of Israeli agents in the US, which led to the indictments of two AIPAC employees — and not one of the `warrantless' ones. But we've seen so much funny business on that front that I'm not sure that's enough information.
In a prepared statement, Harman said: "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact… I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves."
Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC
Gleen Greenwald
Monday April 20, 2009
http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2009/04/20/ harman/index. html
Other obligations prevent me from writing until later today -- and I intend to focus on Rahm Emanuel's war-crimes-protecti ng proclamation that Obama's desire for immunity extends beyond CIA officers perpetrating torture to the "policy makers" who ordered it (watch today as the hardest-core Obama loyalists start explaining how the UN doesn't matter, international treaties are irrelevant, and war criminals need not be held accountable) -- but, until then, I wanted to highlight this extremely important and well-reported story from CQ's Jeff Stein, which involves allegations of major corruption and serious criminal activity on the part of Democratic Rep. Jane Harman. Here's one crucial prong of the story:
Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."
That's not even the most significant part. Back in October, 2006, Time reported that the DOJ and FBI were investigating whether Harman and AIPAC "violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee" and "the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. " So that part has been known since 2006.
Stein adds today that Harman was captured on an NSA wiretap conspiring with an Israeli agent to apply pressure on DOJ officials to scale back the AIPAC prosecution. But the real crux of Stein's scoop is that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonazles intervened to kill the criminal investigation into Harman -- even though DOJ lawyers had concluded that she committed crimes -- because top Bush officials wanted Harman's credibility to be preserved so that she could publicly defend the Bush administration' s illegal warrantless eavesdropping program:
[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to break in The New York Times and engulf the White House. . . .
Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a "completed crime," a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said. . . .
Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department's FISA application. . . . Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman's rank as the panel's top Democrat.
But that's when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened.
According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities. "
And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.
Indeed, as I've noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" to repeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," and that the whistleblowers were "despicable. " And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.
Stein's entire story should be read. It's a model of excellent reporting, as it relies on numerous sources with first-hand knowledge of the NSA transcripts (and what sweet justice it would be if Harman's guilt were established by government eavesdropping) . It should be noted that Harman has issued a general denial of wrongdoing (but does not appear to deny that she had the discussion Stein reports), and the sources in Stein's story are anonymous (though because they're disclosing classified information and exposing government wrongdoing, it's a classic case of when anonymity is justifiable; and note Stein's efforts to provide as much information as possible about his sources and why they are anonymous).
There are many questions that the story raises -- Josh Marshall notes just some of those vital questions here -- and Harman's guilt therefore shouldn't be assumed. But obviously, given all the very serious issues this story raises -- involving what seem to be credible allegations of very serious wrongdoing by a key member of Congress, the former Attorney General and one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country -- full-scale investigations are needed, to put it mildly.
===
Harman was allegedly heard saying she'd 'waddle into' the AIPAC case in return for support for her bid to become chair of the Intelligence Committee.
Bombshell: Rep. Jane Harman Caught on Tape Agreeing
to Lobby for Alleged AIPAC/Israel Spies?
Jeremy Scahill
Rebel Reports
April 20, 2009
http://www.alternet .org/blogs/ rights/137494/ bombshell% 3A_rep._jane_ harman_caught_ on_tape_agreeing _to_lobby_ for_alleged_ aipac_israel_ spies/
This is a huge story: Representative Jane Harman, a hawkish, influential "Blue Dog" Democrat "was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington," according to a report from CQ Politics:
Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."
The case, known as the AIPAC espionage scandal centers around allegations that at least two AIPAC staff members passed sensitive US intelligence on Iran, provided by Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, to Israel. In early 2006, Franklin pled guilty to espionage-related charges and was sentenced to 13 years in prison. The case against two indicted AIPAC staffers, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, is ongoing.
Allegations that Harman intervened in this case in an effort to win the spot as chair of the Intelligence Committee have been widespread since 2006, but an FBI investigation into Harman was dropped for "lack of evidence." As CQ Politics reports:
What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.
And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.
When Justice Department officials reviewed the transcript of the wiretaps on Rep. Harman, its attorneys determined she had committed a "completed crime," which, according to CQ Politics is "a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it." The Justice Department attorneys wanted to open a case on her, but they needed the green light from top intel officials to confirm it rightly constituted a national security investigation. Porter Goss, who was then the CIA director reportedly approved the investigation and was preparing to notify then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Speaker Dennis Hastert and, through them, Harman herself:
But that's when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened.
According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration' s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities. "
Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing.
And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.
On his Salon blog today Glenn Greenwald points out:
Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" to repeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," and that the whistleblowers were "despicable. " And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.
There may be some who attempt to portray Harman as a victim of blackmail by Gonzales (and the wiretapping of members of Congress—and other Americans— should be thoroughly investigated) but Harman is a right wing Democrat who was often in sync with the heinous policies of the Bush administration. Over at TalkingPointsMemo, Josh Marshall raises some interesting issues on this story, particularly relating to the wiretap itself:
Among the many questions the story raises are some that Harman should probably answer, but not all. High on my list would be finding out more about the circumstances under which a member of Congress ended up having her phone conversations recorded by the NSA. The article suggests it was a by-the-books wiretap — part of a highly-classified probe of Israeli agents in the US, which led to the indictments of two AIPAC employees — and not one of the `warrantless' ones. But we've seen so much funny business on that front that I'm not sure that's enough information.
In a prepared statement, Harman said: "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact… I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Oath Keepers is an association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God...
Orders We Will Not Obey
http://oath- keepers.blogspot .com/2009/ 03/oath-keepers- declaration- of-orders- we.html
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order. Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal. In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed "assault-weapons" ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of warrantless searches known as "writs of assistance" and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written. We expect that warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal. The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic "militia" groups the government brands "domestic terrorists," is an act of war and an act of treason.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt "to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power" by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as "military governor." The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army. The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty. Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm. Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted. Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war. Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boars, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, to the Cossacks, and to the Chechens, for example. Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it. "NOT on Our Watch!"
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people. Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war. We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people's natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord. Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone. Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams "setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!" Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom. Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.
Orders We Will Not Obey
http://oath- keepers.blogspot .com/2009/ 03/oath-keepers- declaration- of-orders- we.html
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order. Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal. In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed "assault-weapons" ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects - such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of warrantless searches known as "writs of assistance" and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written. We expect that warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal. The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic "militia" groups the government brands "domestic terrorists," is an act of war and an act of treason.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt "to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power" by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as "military governor." The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army. The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty. Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm. Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted. Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war. Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boars, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, to the Cossacks, and to the Chechens, for example. Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it. "NOT on Our Watch!"
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people. Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war. We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people's natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord. Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone. Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams "setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!" Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom. Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
