U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

Amiram Cohen
Haaretz
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."

Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)

Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.

In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.

Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity.

A Push to Rewrite Wiretap Law

Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

The Bush administration is pressing Congress this week for the authority to intercept, without a court order, any international phone call or e-mail between a surveillance target outside the United States and any person in the United States.

The proposal, submitted by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to congressional leaders on Friday, would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for the first time since 2006 so that a court order would no longer be needed before wiretapping anyone "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

It would also give the attorney general sole authority to order the interception of communications for up to one year as long as he certifies that the surveillance is directed at a person outside the United States.

The administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill have mounted a full-court press to get the Democratic-controlled Congress to pass the measure before lawmakers leave town this week for the August recess, trying to portray reluctant Democrats as weak on terrorism.

Democratic lawmakers favor a narrower approach that would allow the government to wiretap foreign terrorists talking to other foreign terrorists overseas without a warrant if the communication is routed through the United States. They are also willing to give the administration some latitude to intercept foreign-to-domestic communications as long as there is oversight by the FISA court.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) suggested yesterday that a compromise could be reached this week. "The only question," he told reporters, "is how much involvement the attorney general will have" in approving the wiretapping "as compared to the FISA court itself."

The measure faces a number of procedural roadblocks due to the crowded congressional calendar. But the administration, in an effort to speed the process, separated its immediate demands from a more sweeping proposal to rewrite FISA that became tangled in a debate between Congress and the executive branch over access to related Justice Department legal documents.

Civil liberties and privacy groups have denounced the administration's proposal, which they say would effectively allow the National Security Agency to revive a warrantless surveillance program conducted in secret from 2001 until late 2005. They say it would also give the government authority to force carriers to turn over any international communications into and out of the United States without a court order.

In January, the administration announced that the surveillance program was under the supervision of a special FISA court that Congress set up to independently review and judge wiretap requests when it passed FISA in 1978. But critics said that if the proposal succeeds, the court's supervision will no longer be required for many wiretaps.

"It's the president's surveillance program on steroids," said Jim Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Dempsey said that under the new law the government would no longer have to allege that one party to the call was a member of al-Qaeda or another terrorist group. An unstated facet of the program is that anyone the foreigner is calling inside the United States, as long as that person is not the primary target, would also be wiretapped.

"They're hiding the ball here," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "What the administration is really going after is the Americans. Even if the primary target is overseas, they want to be able to wiretap Americans without a warrant."

The measure is intended as an "interim proposal" to close short-term "critical gaps in our intelligence capability," McConnell said in a letter to congressional leaders. It would make clear that court orders are not necessary to "effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas."

Bush, in his Saturday radio address, said that rewriting FISA is necessary because the "the terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again." GOP leaders have accused Democrats of blocking changes, suggesting that if another attack happens, Democrats will be to blame.

"With heightened risk of terror attack, why are Democrats holding up critical FISA changes?" read a news release issued yesterday by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "It's time for Democrats to stop ignoring, downplaying and sidestepping our FISA problem and start working with Republicans to keep America safe."

Democratic leaders have been working with administration officials on altering FISA, aides said. "I am committed to giving our intelligence community the tools they need to fight terrorism and am working very hard with the most senior members of the administration to do that as soon as possible," Reid said.

Democrats have said for more than a year that they are willing to make targeted changes, such as making explicit that wiretapping a call between two suspects overseas, where the call that happens to pass through the United States, needs no court order.

But Reid said, "We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security."

The proposal would also allow the NSA to "sit on the wire" and have access to the entire stream of communications without the phone company sorting, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.

"It's a 'trust us' system," she said. "Give us access and trust us."

Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.

Cheney appears to say that Bush will be remembered fondly on his deathbed

Michael Roston
Raw Story
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

President George W. Bush will be remembered fondly on his deathbed.

Vice President Dick Cheney appeared to deliver that message on CNN's Larry King Live Tuesday night. When asked if he should take the President's poor poll numbers more seriously, Cheney pointed to the administration of Gerald Ford, in which he also served. Ford, who replaced Richard Nixon after his resignation from the Watergate scandal, was remembered well after his death.

"[J]ust last year, when he passed away and we had memorial services and so forth for him, he was held in very high regard; across the country his praises were sung for some of the really tough decisions he made that were very unpopular at the time," Cheney insisted.

The Vice President's paralleling of Bush's 6 1/2 years with Ford's abbreviated succession into a disgraced presidency stood out in the pre-recorded interview, in which a largely defiant Cheney stood by his decisions and acknowledged little error or wrongdoing.

Note: An earlier preview clip with commentary by Larry King can be viewed at this link.

Vice President challenges 'too powerful' criticisms
Cheney attempted to insist that as Vice Presidents have gone, he was more modest because he was not 'angling' for future elected office.

"I made the decision when I signed on with the President that the only agenda I would have would be his agenda, that I was not going to be like most Vice Presidents," he told King. "And that was angling, trying to figure out how I was going to be elected President when his term was over with."

But one verbal slip appeared to show that the Vice President saw himself 'making decisions' for the president.

"Brent doesn't walk in my shoes these days. He's not in the job I'm in," Cheney said, deflecting a criticism by Brent Scowcroft, a George H.W. Bush administration official who is a long time friend of the Vice President. "He's not responsible for making the decisions the President has had to make and those of us who support him and advise him."

As one example, Cheney did not rule out directing then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to visit Attorney General John Ashcroft in the hospital. Gonzales asked Ashcroft to overrule his deputy, who had refused to certify the legality of a counterterrorism spying program.

"I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital," Cheney said.

However, he acknowledged that "[C]ertainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval."

At the same time, Cheney attempted to put to bed the notion that he was not bound by controls on the executive branch because his office was in the legislative branch. However, he also seemed to hold out that the President could give him any authority he needed.

"In the executive branch, you do only what the President asks you to do -- he gives you assignments -- but whatever authority you have is delegated by the President himself," Cheney told King. "The Constitution, on the other hand, provides for your role as the President of Senate."

Cheney acknowledges underestimating Iraqi insurgents
On Iraq, the Vice President admitted he was 'incorrect' when he said that the insurgency was in its 'last throes' in mid-2005.

"I thought there were a series of these milestones that would in fact undermine the insurgency and make it less than it was at that point," he told King. "I think the insurgency turned out to be more robust."

But he insisted that success was not far off, pointing to an op-ed in the 'not exactly...friendly' New York Times from Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution. Cheney noted the two were strong critics of the war effort, and saw success coming.

"They're just back from visiting over there," he said. "They both have been strong critics of the war, both worked in the prior administration; but now saying...that we could be successful."

Cheney also called Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, "a great soldier," and said his September report would point the way toward progress. But he tried to deemphasize the General's role, too.

"I don't want to put the whole burden on him," Cheney said, pointing to the "literally hundreds of thousands of people, especially the young men and women serving, who deserve credit for the effort that's currently underway."

Earlier in the interview, Cheney also invoked the spirits of earlier Presidents, particularly George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, to say that America should fight on in Iraq.

"[I]f you looked simply at public opinion, for example, a lot of the key decisions in our history would never have been pursued or followed through on," he said. "Washington never would have carried through for seven years of the Revolution. Abraham Lincoln would never have stayed with it in order to win the Civil War. We would have been two separate nations by then.

'Glad' Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence
Larry King brought up the subject of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's former chief of staff. After being convicted for perjury and other charges in the probe of the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence.

Cheney supported the decision.

"I am glad that the President saw fit to commute Scooter's sentence," he said. "I thought that was a good outcome, and I supported the President's decision."

Cheney demurred when asked if Libby should have been pardoned. Instead, he focused on Libby's 'burden' from his guilty sentence.

"[H]e still has a very difficult road," he said. "[H]e needs to find work. He's got legal bills. He carries the burden of having been convicted."

'No crime' in US Attorneys controversy
The Vice President strongly defended embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who he said had the President's full confidence.

"[T]he President is the one who has to evaluate the individuals who serve for them," he said. "He has confidence in Al, and that's good enough for me."

Cheney instead dismissed the investigation of the firing of the 8 US Attorneys as a 'witch hunt.'

"What's the allegation of the wrongdoing here? Frankly, there isn't anything," he asked, and answered. "With respect to the U.S. attorneys, there's been, I think, a bit of a witch hunt on Capitol Hill, as they keep rolling over rocks hoping they can find something."

The Vice President went on to reason that the assertion of executive privilege against Congressional subpoenas of key White House advisers needed to be done to protect future presidents.

"[I]t's important for us to pass on these offices we occupy to our successors in as good a shape as we found them," the Vice President argued. "And that means protecting and preserving the integrity of those processes."

Knocks Hillary Clinton; 'probably' done in 2009
Toward the end of the interview, King lured Cheney into 2008's political waters.

First, he praised a letter written by Pentagon official Eric Edelman to Senator Hillary Clinton, accusing her of 'aiding the enemy' by seeking contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq.

"I agreed with the letter Eric Edelman wrote. I thought it was a good letter," he said.

He described himself as "totally neutral in the upcoming presidential contest," only endorsing the Republican Party generally.

"I will support the Republican nominee," he said. "And the fact that others have signed on with Fred [Thompson] or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, they're all good men, I hope one of them is the next President."

And ultimately, Cheney said he 'probably' was done with public service for good.

"Probably not. I can't think of one," Cheney said when King asked if he would serve in any other Republican administration.

He added, "I've had a great tour, Larry....the time comes when you need to recognize it's over, and for me that will be January of '09."

#
The full transcript of Cheney's interview with King has been published on the White House website.

The following video clips are from CNN's Larry King Live, broadcast on July 31.

Cheney: I Was Wrong About 'Last Throes' in Iraq

Reuters
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledged on Tuesday he was wrong in 2005 when he insisted the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes."

It was Cheney's most direct public admission of how badly the administration had underestimated the strength of America's enemies in the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.

But Cheney, an architect of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, otherwise gave no ground in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" as he defended President George W. Bush's Iraq policy.

He said the Bush administration would still send troops into Iraq if it could do it all over again, even knowing what it knows now, including that more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel would be killed.

"I firmly believe," Cheney said, "that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy."

But Cheney made clear he no longer held to a May 2005 assessment, widely mocked by political satirists and Democratic politicians, in which he said, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Since then, unrelenting attacks have brought Iraq to the brink of civil war.

Cheney's words were among many oft-cited quotes marking the U.S. pursuit of the war, which has damaged U.S. credibility around the world. They include Bush's taunting insurgents after the invasion by declaring "Bring 'em on!" and the banner stating "Mission Accomplished" behind Bush as he spoke aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003.

Cheney, known for his secretive ways and rarely one to admit mistakes publicly, said:

"My estimate at the time - and it was wrong, it turned out to be incorrect - was the fact that we were in the midst of holding three elections in Iraq, elected an interim government, then ratifying a constitution, then electing a permanent government, that they had had significant success, we'd rounded up Saddam Hussein.

"I thought there were a series of these milestones that would in fact undermine the insurgency and make it less than it was at that point. That clearly didn't happen. I think the insurgency turned out to be more robust."

Cheney said it had also been made before al Qaeda in Iraq had stepped up attacks, including the 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite mosque that sparked a wave of sectarian killings.

The Bush administration is facing growing pressure from a Democratic-led Congress and a war-weary American public for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, something Bush firmly rejects.

In a further blow to Bush's strategy, Iraq's parliament went into summer recess for a month on Monday after political leaders failed to agree on a series of laws that Washington sees as crucial to stabilizing the country.

"It's better than taking two months off, which was their original plan," Cheney said. "I made it clear, for example, when I was there in May that we didn't appreciate the notion that they were going to take a big part of the summer off and they did cut that in half."

He insisted that since the U.S. Congress takes the month of August off, "I don't think we can say that they (Iraqi lawmakers) shouldn't go home at all."

More On The 9/11 Camp David "Crash"

Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

Related: Camp David "Crash" More Evidence Of 9/11 Media Scripting?

Poster jbrid1138 on the Prisonplanet comments boards writes...

I live within 10 miles of Camp David. On the day of 9/11 we were watching the attacks at the WTC unfold on TV like most people across the world. We have relatives in New Jersey who got word (their tv) that an airplane was on its way to Camp David and expressed concern for your well being, knowing where we live in relation to the same. It was the first we had heard of it.

Long story short, we kept in touch with those relatives and soon learned that the airplane had gone down // I didn't hear anything out the door so I assumed SOUND might be taking a bit longer than usual that day to reach us. It never came -- Because the airplane down was later reported to be many miles away from the Camp David location. There was talk (tv again) that the path was taking the airplane 'towards' Camp David on its way to Washington, DC // which is located @ 100 miles away. I questioned at the time how they picked Camp David out of the air but just assumed because of what it represents -- seemed a stupid target in a way (to me) because it sits in the woods, with little population WHILE on the other hand there are quite a few military bases near (along) that same imaginary path that the airplane never completed. Example (and this is not all of them, certainly no national guard or reserve locations listed but they do exist also along the way -- )

Letter Kenney Army Depot, PA
Fort Ritchie, MD
Fort Detrict, MD
Fort George G. Meade, MD
Fort Myer, VA

Much more going on at any one of those locations, far more target for your buck so to speak, than a location out in the woods, or so it seemed to me at the time. But I figured the terrorist were just too damn dumb to realize that fact. That's what I figured back then.

Now I know that 9/11 was an inside job and the folks pulling the strings knew exactly what they were doing.

New Video Puts Spotlight Back On Putin's False Flag Terror

Beslan siege evidence adds to weight of FSB's criminal history of inside job carnage

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Wednesday, August 1, 2007

A new video that appears to confirm Russian security forces were responsible for the first explosions during the Beslan hostage crisis is the final nail in the coffin, confirming that the raid was deliberately botched and then covered up in order to hand Vladimir Putin a propaganda coup in the war against Chechnya.

A video that remained secret for nearly three years after the horrific Beslan hostage crisis has cast new doubt on official conclusions about what led to the deaths of 334 people, more than half of them children, during one of Russia's worst terrorist attacks, reports the Associated Press.

The footage is far from definitive, but appears to lend credence to the theory that security forces bear at least some of the blame for the high death toll.

The footage depicts explosions taking place outside of the school buildings and contradicts the official explanation that militants were responsible for the initial blasts, while validating survivor's accounts of what took place.

The video was filmed by an onlooker and forms part of the dearth of available footage of the incident, since the FSB refuses to turn its footage over to investigators and has sought to close the book on the case at every turn.

As our investigation at the time highlighted, many aspects of the Beslan siege provide stunning contradictions to the official story and clearly indicate that Russian forces had a hand in staging if not at least provocateuring the massacre.

- The Parliamentary Committee investigation uncovered the fact that high-ranking Russian military officers were involved in the plot and acted as accomplices to the terrorists. These individuals were ranked "higher than a major and a colonel," according to the Committee.

- A former policeman was also exposed as being involved in the plot. Other police involvement was later confirmed.

- The Parliamentary Commission also found evidence that a "foreign intelligence agency" was involved in coordinating the massacre.

- Journalists who reported on the Beslan siege and uncovered evidence of inside involvement were later drugged and detained by Russian authorities as the cover-up swung into high gear.

- During the siege, Russian authorities refused to reveal what the terrorists' demands were, blocking all phone communications and claiming a tape containing the terrorists' demands was blank.

- The alleged Chechen terrorists did not even speak Chechen and received orders from abroad, according to reports.

The Beslan massacre occurred amidst a wave of terror attacks in Russia and shortly after the crashes of two Tupolev passenger airliners, which were blamed on Chechen terrorists by authorities. However, citing the fact that the aircraft debris was scattered over large areas, the independent Russian media accused Vladimir Putin of ordering the planes shot down in a crude false flag ploy to secure an election victory for the pro-Kremlin Chechen President Alu Alkhanov two days later.

Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov denied any involvement in the plane crashes or the school siege, citing "a third force that brought Russian President Vladimir Putin to power" as being responsible for the carnage.

The notorious Russian FSB has a documented history of staging false flag events in order to accomplish political agendas.

Vladimir Putin came to power as a result of an FSB orchestrated reign of terror in the autumn of 1999 which involved blowing up apartment blocks all over Russia and blaming the attacks on Chechen separatists, thus playing on Russian fears of the fierce Muslim Chechens both to start a new war in Chechnya and to win Putin the presidential elections.

FSB agents were caught planting Hexogen explosives underneath an apartment block in Ryazan. Records indicate that the first call the "terrorists" made after planting the bomb was to FSB headquarters and the culprits were allowed to flee the country by authorities.

The FSB admitted planting the sacks of explosives, but later claimed they contained sugar and were used as part of a drill to test security procedures. Authorities had first stated that a terrorist attack had been averted and that the sacks did contain Hexogen, until FSB involvement was discovered at which point the story was changed.

Alexei Kartofelnikov, the first eyewitness to see the explosives and alert the police, went on the record to state that the substance was clearly not sugar, describing the material as looking more like rice and yellow in color - a clear match for the description of Hexogen.

The FSB had planted real explosives and were caught in the act of staging a false flag terror attack, forcing them to concoct an elaborate cover story while blocking any real investigation and silencing whistleblowers.

This instance and many more are documented in the excellent documentary film The Assassination of Russia, which you can watch in full below courtesy of Google Video.

White House says spying broader than known: report

Reuters
Wednesday Aug 1, 2007

Related: FBI Wants Its Own Stasi

The Bush administration's top intelligence official has acknowledged that a controversial domestic surveillance program was only one part of a much broader spying effort, The Washington Post reported in its Wednesday edition.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wrote in a letter that other aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program remain classified, the Post said.

"That is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged," McConnell wrote, according to the Post.

Bush acknowledged the existence of a program that monitored domestic phone calls and e-mails without court oversight in December 2005. The administration has not confirmed other secret spying efforts reported by news outlets, such as one that searched millions of telephone records.

Bush signed an executive order that authorized "a number of ... intelligence activities" following the hijacking attacks of September 11, 2001, McConnell wrote.

The warrantless wiretapping program was put under court supervision in January but the administration now wants Congress to allow it to do many of the same activities without a court order.

The letter was sent on Tuesday to Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The letter was written to defend Attorney General Alberto

Gonzales, who has been under attack over his testimony to Congress about the warrantless spying program, the Post said.

Bush Wants Terrorism Law Updated

DEB RIECHMANN
AP
Sunday July 29, 2007

President Bush wants Congress to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.

"This law is badly out of date," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, provides a legal foundation that allows information about terrorists' communications to be collected without violating civil liberties.

Democrats want to ensure that any changes do not give the executive branch unfettered surveillance powers.

Bush noted that terrorists now use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate, recruit operatives and plan attacks; such tools were not available when FISA passed nearly 30 years ago. He also cited a recently released intelligence estimate that concluded al-Qaida is using its growing strength in the Middle East to plot attacks on U.S. soil.

"Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country," Bush said. "Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Bush was trying to exploit the threat from al-Qaida to push the bill. Feingold said the measure was an "egregious power grab that includes broad new powers that have nothing to do with bringing FISA up to date."

The 1978 law set up a court that meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the National Security Agency and other agencies for warrants to wiretap or search the homes of people in the United States in terrorist or espionage cases.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to spy on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists abroad without FISA court warrants. The administration said it needed to act more quickly than the court could. It also said the president had inherent authority under the Constitution to order warrantless domestic spying.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush put it under FISA court supervision this year.

The national intelligence director, in a letter Wednesday to the House intelligence committee, stressed the need to be able to collect intelligence about foreign terrorists overseas. Mike McConnell said intelligence agencies should be able to do that without requirements imposed by an "out of date" law.

"Simply put, in a significant number of cases, we are in the unfortunate position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas," he wrote the committee chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

Reyes said Saturday that the committee is intently focused on the issue.

"If changes to the law are required, we are prepared to do so," Reyes said. "We are actively working with the administration on any emergency requirements they may have. However, we want to avoid repeating the mistakes made by rushing the Patriot Act into law."

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, contends the White House is asking for more power to conduct warrantless domestic and international surveillance.

"The administration claims the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be 'modernized.' Actually, it needs to be followed," she said. "The reality is, their proposal would gut FISA."

The ACLU said the legislation backed by the administration would give immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for the telecommunication companies that participate in the NSA program. The ACLU urged lawmakers to find out the full extent of current intelligence gathering under FISA before making changes.

"The only thing more outrageous than the administration's call for even more unfettered power is a Congress that would consider giving it to them," Frederickson said.

The House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said Democrats are delaying necessary changes.

"Rather than learning the lessons of September 11 _ that we need to break down the bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis _ Democrats have stonewalled Republican attempts to modernize FISA and close the terrorist loophole," he said Saturday.

Clinton heckled during speech

CNN
Monday July 30, 2007

Speaking before an audience of college Democrats on Saturday, Senator Hillary Clinton was interrupted by a heckler. An older woman carrying a sign that read, “She doesn’t care, all she wants is the power” yelled at Clinton as she spoke. Several Clinton supporters in the audience returned shouts to the protestor and pushed her out of the room.

“One of the things I love about politics, you never know what the day will bring,” Clinton said.

Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, delivered remarks to the College Democrats of America National Convention. It was held on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina.

Fellow competitors for the Democratic nomination, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel also addressed the group Saturday.

And Then There Was One, The Final Holdout: 9-11

Reggie, Contributing Editor
TvNewsLIES.org
Monday July 30, 2007

Not to worry, this is not about truth seekers or conspiracy theories. It’s not about the long list of anomalies and discrepancies in the official story of 9/11. It’s not even about the undeniable fact that the events of 9/11 gave George Bush and his handlers the keys to the neocon kingdom of empire. It really is not.

What it’s about is the strangest phenomenon I can recall in my entire adult life. It’s about what I perceive to be an extraordinary lapse in the logic of millions of otherwise sensible Americans. And it’s about something I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how I try. Maybe someone out there can help me understand what’s going on.

In preface, let me also say that this is not about being uninformed. Granted, the corporate media have suppressed any discussion, debate or investigative reporting about the attacks on the United States that purportedly ‘changed everything.’ That reality aside, even the most fawn-like pundits on the airwaves understand that the ship of state is sinking, and that it is time to challenge the lies of this administration. But, it seems that lie after lie has become fair game for disclosure, or at least for some discussion at this point. As a result, each day, the American people in larger and larger numbers understand that they have been taken for a terrible and costly ride by the lies they were told by this President and his cohorts.

That is, every lie but one.

Finally, nearly seven years after a stolen election that was itself based on lies, greater numbers of Americans are no longer blindly accepting the talking points emanating from the White House as the Gospel truth. In more and more media outlets the Bush lies are openly being identified as such, - rather than by every other euphemism meant to soften the ugliness of a government lying to its people. If people are not totally convinced, at least they hear debates and discussions and competing viewpoints. If nothing else, they are beginning to have doubts about the daily mantras that had them mesmerized for so long.

So let’s take a look at just the short list of these lies, so as better to understand my dilemma about the lone holdout: 9/11. Bear with me:

At this point in time, many, if not most Americans know that the men and women in the Bush White House clearly and deliberately LIED to them, both by omission and commission about:

- The Bush connection to the bin Laden family.

- Escorting dozens of members of the bin Laden family out of US after 9/11

- The Patriot Act having been written decades before 9/11

- The call for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ by the neocons who orchestrated the wars

- A totally invalid and false connection between Iraq and the ‘War on Terror

- Regular, politically timed terror alerts

- Toxic air quality at Ground Zero after 9/11

- The ‘junk science’ of Global Warming and its effects around the globe

- WH orders to suppress and politicize reports on by the Surgeon General

- Plans for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan that were made before 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD

- Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al Qaeda

- Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11

- Saddam Hussein’s threat to the US or his neighbors

- Having NO plans for an extended occupation of Iraq or for keeping the peace

- Inadequate armor and supplies for our men and women in uniform

- Supposed ‘progress’ in Iraq, time after time

- Fudged numbers of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq

- The staged ‘toppling’ of Saddam’s statue

- The staged rescue of Jessica Lynch

- The lies about Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire

- Illegal warrantless spying on US citizens

- Torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan

- Rendition of detainees to other countries for torture

- Outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative

- White House involvement in the firing of federal prosecutors…

There are so many more lies to list, but I think you get the idea.

Am I wrong to believe that in any other life situation there would be a different reaction to a series of important lies? If you became aware that your plumber or your neighbor or your doctor, or anyone at all in your life lied to you over and over and over about issues that were relevant to your well being, would you ever again believe ANYTHING that person said to you? I really don’t think so.

So, after becoming aware of lie after lie after lie by Bushco, why would anyone in his or her right mind FULLY EMBRACE THE OFFICIAL STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11 WITHOUT A SINGLE QUESTION? Why would anyone in the United Sates of America conclude that the official version of the most important event in recent American history AS TOLD BY PROVEN LIARS is true?

Help me out here, please.

It makes no sense to me at all. Especially, since the most telling part of all this illogic is this: NONE OF THE LIES ON THE ABOVE LIST WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY OR EVEN POSSIBLE WERE IT NOT FOR AN UNSWERVING ACCEPTANCE BY MOST AMERICANS OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11.

Bottom line: I fully understand how difficult it is to believe anything other than the official government story of 9/11. The editor of TvNewsLIES.org has examined the reasons behind the refusal of so many Americans to believe the mounds of evidence that challenge the credibility of the story we have been told. Fine and good.

But, frankly, for the purpose of this article, your personal opinion about who was responsible for 9/11 is irrelevant. It makes no difference at all. What matters is that we examine the strange illogic that stops millions of Americans from questioning a possible lie – one that may matter more than any other. These same Americans now seem willing to openly question many of the lies that are told and repeated ad nauseam by the President and his clan. They are now for more skeptical about their messages and far more hesitant to believe anything George W. Bush tells them in his speeches and press conferences.

But they still will not consider for a moment that the official story of 9/11 as told by this lying government may also be a lie. Ergo, the illogic I cannot understand..

The official story of 9/11 has been told by professional, experienced, and successful liars.
Think about that as you try to explain the need to believe it.

Maybe it will take another 9/11, as we’ve recently been warned may happen very soon, to convince Americans that the most egregious and damaging of all the lies told by the Bush administration must not remain off limits.

We really have few choices left. We have to reach that logical moment when we can openly discuss and debate and examine the available information about 9/11, no matter what the outcome may be. We have to retrieve our collective abilities to examine the events of that day. Perhaps, then, we finally can say about the lies we have heard….:

…and then there were none.

Soltz: Bush Needs To Resolve Whether Pat Tillman Was Killed For His Political Views

Think Progress
Monday July 30, 2007

Yesterday, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz wrote on ThinkProgress about Pat Tillman: “Was the man the White House used to promote the war ordered to be killed because he was becoming increasingly critical of the war in Iraq?”

Last night on MSNBC’s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that “Corporal Tillman held a number of personal views that were unpopular within the context of the Bush administration, perhaps also within the Army.” Tillman reportedly favored John Kerry in the presidential election, opposed the invasion of Iraq, and had plans to meet with Noam Chomsky.

The Associated Press reported that in the last moments before Tillman died, another soldier was hugging the ground at Tillman’s side, and Tillman said, “Would you shut your [expletive] mouth? God’s not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling –”

The question of whether Tillman was killed for his political views lingers greater than ever. Appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown, Soltz said:

We know he was a free thinker. But it leads you to think was this guy killed possibly by people that didn’t like his political views or was he killed accidentally? We had a time in the war when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004 in Iraq; we had basically the Iraqi Tet offensive where the Shiite militias rose up and the contractors were burned at the stake; the President was facing the election and he decided not to go into Fallujah for six months. Did they use him to justify, politically, bad policy in Iraq?

Watch it:

The confluence of these factors intensify the need for openness. Despite being warned that Tillman may have died by friendly fire, Bush referenced Tillman in a 2004 speech but made no reference to how he died. The White house has cited executive privilege in refusing to turn over records that would verify how much Bush knew.

Soltz wrote on ThinkProgress that the longer this case lingers, the more damaging it will be to the military: “Those already in the military will lose faith that the leadership actually gives a damn about them, as the Tillman case becomes a hot topic in chow halls. Morale and confidence in the institution will crumble.”

UPDATE: Some commenters incorrectly understand Soltz’s argument to be that the White House had some involvement in or prior knowledge about the death. That is not what is being alleged. Rather, the question is whether Tillman’s political views played any role in motivating the person who shot him. And did the administration subsequently cover up the motive for Tillman’s death?

Administration looks to push through surveillance changes

CNN
Monday July 30, 2007

The Bush administration is looking to speed through a “significantly narrowed” group of changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before Congress leaves Washington for its August recess.

One of them would ensure U.S. authorities could intercept on communications between suspected terrorists overseas without a warrant when those communications — due to modern technology — may travel through a switch in the United States.

According to a letter obtained by CNN, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell informed House and Senate leaders Friday that the administration is willing to temporarily shelve the broader FISA reform plan it’s been advocating for months in order to immediately push through a smaller package of changes that would “close the critical gaps in our intelligence capability in the short-term.”

The letter describes an “urgent” need for the intelligence community to provide warnings.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff told CNN this month that the United States has seen increased activity by al Qaeda and knows al Qaeda wants to launch an attack on the United States. He also noted that the group has launched attacks in various countries during the summer months. But intelligence officials have also told CNN there is no evidence suggesting a specific threat, and none suggesting the group is more likely to strike in the summer than at any other time.

McConnell wrote in his letter, “Although my strong preference is the immediate adoption of the proposal I transmitted to Congress in April, in light of the urgency of the situation, I offer the attached significantly narrowed proposal focused on the current urgent need of the Intelligence Community to provide warning.”

It was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

New Documents Shed Light On Tillman's Death

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors -- whose names were blacked out -- said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

-- In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

-- Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

-- The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

-- No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene -- no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman's death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

With questions lingering about how high in the Bush administration the deception reached, Congress is preparing for yet another hearing next week.

The Pentagon is separately preparing a new round of punishments, including a stinging demotion of retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., 60, according to military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the punishments under consideration have not been made public.

In more than four hours of questioning by the Pentagon inspector general's office in December 2006, Kensinger repeatedly contradicted other officers' testimony, and sometimes his own. He said on some 70 occasions that he did not recall something.

At one point, he said: "You've got me really scared about my brain right now. I'm really having a problem."

Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

"Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It's about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived," she said.

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along.

"Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott.

Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental.

Investigators also asked soldiers and commanders whether Tillman was disliked, whether anyone was jealous of his celebrity, or if he was considered arrogant. They said Tillman was respected, admired and well-liked.

The documents also shed new light on Tillman's last moments.

It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who was at Tillman's side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!" again and again.

But the latest documents give a different account from a chaplain who debriefed the entire unit days after Tillman was killed.

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

US astronauts 'flew while drunk'

US astronauts 'flew while drunk'

A panel reviewing health issues at Nasa has found that US astronauts have been allowed to fly while intoxicated at least twice, an aviation magazine says.

The panel also found heavy alcohol use within the 12-hour "bottle to throttle" ban for flight crew, according to Aviation Week and Space Technology.

The independent panel is due to present its findings later on Friday. Nasa has declined to comment on the allegations.

Separately, Nasa confirmed that a contractor had sabotaged a computer.

The damage to wiring in a network box - which is to be taken to the International Space Station (ISS) - was intentional and obvious, the agency said.

However, it stressed that the equipment was not essential and that astronauts' lives had not been at risk. An investigation is under way.

Warnings

Meanwhile the health panel is preparing to announce its conclusions.

It was set up following the arrest on kidnapping and assault charges of Nasa astronaut Lisa Nowak in February.

The damage is very obvious, easy to detect William Gerstenmaier Nasa Associate Administrator for Space Operations

She is accused of attacking her love rival, the girlfriend of a fellow astronaut.

The panel's findings do not deal with Ms Nowak directly or mention any other crew by name.

According to Aviation Week, the panel found that on at least two occasions astronauts flew after doctors and fellow astronauts had warned that they were intoxicated and posed a flight-safety risk.

The report did not say when the alleged incidents took place, or whether they involved pilots.

Regarding the sabotage allegations, Nasa's Associate Administrator for Space Operations, William Gerstenmaier, said the computer problem had been discovered earlier this month.

"The damage is very obvious, easy to detect," he told reporters on Thursday. "It's not a mystery to us."

Mr Gerstenmaier said wires had been found cut inside the unit before it had been loaded onto the shuttle.

The computer is designed to collect and relay data from sensors which detect vibrations and forces on the space station's external trusses.

The equipment had been supplied by a sub-contractor, he added.

Mr Gerstenmaier said engineers would try to repair the hardware before 7 August, when the space shuttle Endeavour is due to fly to ISS, but that the mission would not be delayed.

The damage is believed to be the first act of sabotage of flight equipment Nasa has discovered.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6918801.stm

Published: 2007/07/27 10:39:44 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Gorbachev: U.S. sowing world 'disorder'

Gorbachev: U.S. sowing world 'disorder'

Ex-Soviet premier blasts Bush as helping create ‘very dangerous’ situation

Reuters

Updated: 10:13 a.m. ET July 27, 2007

MOSCOW - Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev criticized the United States, and President Bush in particular, on Friday for sowing disorder across the world by seeking to build an empire.

Gorbachev, who presided over the break-up of the Soviet Union, said Washington had sought to build an empire after the Cold War ended but had failed to understand the changing world.

“The Americans then gave birth to the idea of a new empire, world leadership by a single power, and what followed?” Gorbachev asked reporters at a news conference in Moscow.

“What has followed are unilateral actions, what has followed are wars, what has followed is ignoring the U.N. Security Council, ignoring international law and ignoring the will of the people, even the American people,” he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush say they are friends but ties have been strained by U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, disagreements over Kosovo and the war in Iraq, and competition for allies in the former Soviet Union.

Rival and enemy?
Many Russians view the United States as a rival and enemy.

Gorbachev, 76, who left politics after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, is deeply unpopular in Russia. Though feted abroad, he is blamed in Russia for sinking the Soviet empire and plunging millions into poverty.

“When I look at today’s world I have a worrying feeling about the growth of world disorder,” he said.

“I don’t think the current president of the United States and his administration will be able to change the situation as it is developing now — it is very dangerous,” he said.

‘Massive strategic mistake’
Gorbachev said Russia’s hopes of building stronger ties with Washington had waned in the face of a series of U.S. administrations interested in building an empire.

“It is a massive strategic mistake: no single center can command the entire world, no one,” he said. “Current America has made so many mistakes.”

He said the U.S. administration was apparently unable to adapt to a swiftly changing world and had ignored — or was unable to see — the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China as economic heavyweights.

Treaties limiting the number of nuclear weapons should be observed, he said, adding that officials in Washington should be wary of sparking a new arms race.

Gorbachev, who became Soviet leader in 1985, battled against the conservative wing of the Communist Party to push through reforms that dismantled the one-party system, freed the press and ended restrictions on religion.

The father of “glasnost” (openness) said he supported Putin’s policies but that the pro-Kremlin United Russia party had eroded democratic rights.

He said Putin’s “seriousness” as a leader would be assured if he left office according to the constitution. Putin says he will leave office in 2008 after two terms in office.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19994563/

The EU constitution is back and more dangerous than ever!

DANIEL JOHNSON
UK Daily Mail
Wednesday July 25, 2007

Do you remember the European Constitution? Yes, the one rejected by the French and Dutch? That same European Constitution on which the Labour Government promised the British people a referendum before the last General Election?

Well, it's back with a vengeance. Like some old Hammer horror movie, the constitution has returned from the dead, now repackaged as a 'treaty'.

But the so-called 'new' EU Treaty has all the same ingredients as the old constitution. In fact, it was revealed yesterday that it is 96 per cent identical to the old constitution.

And so the response to this newly repackaged threat to British freedom and independence must be exactly the same: a referendum to give the people the final word.

As usual, our politicians in Westminster have woken up late to the full significance of the 16-page mandate that Tony Blair signed with a flourish at his swansong EU summit last month.

In contrast, the speed with which the Eurocrats have moved to head off any British objection to their power-grab has astonished political observers more accustomed to the leisurely habits of Brussels.

Over the years the EU, aided and abetted by our own Foreign Office, has given the impression that the process of what it terms 'pooling' sovereignty is inevitable. But the EU's notion of 'pooling' is suspiciously similar to what will actually renounce all individual sovereignty.

So, while our fresh-faced Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was in Brussels on Monday to launch the Intergovernmental Conference that will decide the exact wording of the new treaty, the first stirrings of resistance could be heard in London.

William Hague, who has done a good job of stiffening David Cameron's backbone on Europe, gave a speech yesterday in which he renewed the call to 'trust the people' with a referendum on the new treaty. The Tories seem to have woken up to their duty to defend British democracy.

Similarly, the Commons European scrutiny committee has belatedly sounded the alarm at the proposed wording of the treaty that purports to tell the British Parliament what to do. The treaty text reads: 'National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union.'

Rightly, the committee is worried that these words would be interpreted by unelected European judges to force our elected representatives to put the interests of the EU above those of the member states. Parliament would be reduced to the status of a regional assembly.

Such a loss of parliamentary sovereignty is incompatible with Gordon Brown's promise to restore Parliament to its past glory. But even if Mr Brown tries to renegotiate the draft text to neuter its proposed powers, other member states will try to block him.

And the more closely the Prime Minister examines the text of the proposed treaty he has inherited from Mr Blair, the more worried he should be. Apart from a few trivial changes in wording - instead of a European Foreign Minister, for example, we will have a 'High Representative' - the treaty incorporates virtually the entire constitution.

On defence and foreign affairs, for example, it reads: 'The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security.'

Meaning that its explicit aim is a common EU defence policy that would undermine Parliament's right to decide when to go to war: a centrepiece of Mr Brown's programme of legislation.

It is the same story across the entire spectrum covered by the treaty, from immigration to the environment. Out goes the free market and in comes the 'social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, with a high level of protection'.

If anyone doubts this treaty is simply the old discredited constitution under another name, they need only listen to an architect of the constitution, former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

He has admitted that the changes made were 'few and far between, and more cosmetic than real'. The term 'constitution' was dropped simply to 'make a few people happy'.

This time, not content with allowing other member states to accelerate the creation of the superstate, the treaty would let the EU kick out countries that rock the boat. It isn't hard to guess which nation the gentlemen in Brussels have in mind.

Britain still sees its role in the world very differently from its Continental neighbours. For all the bonhomie between Mr Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy at their meeting in Paris last week, the British and the French do not see eye to eye on Europe.

Mr Sarkozy has no intention of giving his voters a chance to reject the treaty for a second time. Nor does the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, who has ruled out such a vote.

So this time Mr Brown will not be able to rely on continental voters to save him the trouble of holding a referendum. If the British don't want to be part of a European superstate, they will have to force their leaders to grant them a vote.

That is why Mr Hague's speech was so vital. Unless at least one of our major parties is serious about a referendum, it is not going to happen.

But if Mr Hague can rally the Tories behind the cross-party campaign for a referendum, then it will acquire the momentum it needs to force the Government to give the people a say.

After all, we have come to a crossroads in our relations with the EU. This treaty marks the point of no return - the point at which the British must decide who they are.

Do they wish to be submerged in what the EU Commission President JosÈ Manuel Barroso calls the 'empire' of Europe? Or do they want to continue as an independent nation state?

The leader who dares to tell us the truth about the choice we face on Europe will transform the political landscape. If David Cameron were to put half as much effort into the referendum campaign as he does into more modish causes, he might soon restore some of his flagging fortunes.

We should be grateful to William Hague for putting the issue back at the centre of Westminster debate.

While Europe may not be a fashionable issue, like climate change or poverty in Africa, it is the key to all the others. Once Britain has lost the power to control its own destiny, it won't matter what other policies future governments adopt.

Already up to 70 per cent of our legislation comes from the EU. Unless this treaty is stopped, the nation that gave freedom, democracy and the rule of law to the world will wake up to find that it has forfeited all three.

It takes a statesman to tell people things that they do not want to hear. In 1941 Winston Churchill told the Commons the British people are 'unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst'.

Whatever Euro-fanatics may say about him, Churchill's instincts and actions were those of a British patriot - one of the greatest who ever lived.

Our leaders should follow his example, and come clean with the electorate about the extent to which the powers delegated to them by the people have been lost to Europe - before the loss becomes irrevocable.

The Police State Takeover Of Schools

Conditioning the kids for their future on the global plantation

Steve Watson Infowars.net Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Email Print Friendly Page Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us

Schools have become hi-tech prisons. Children all across America and the UK are being conditioned to accept that they are not free and that they must submit to draconian laws and measures for their own safety. Soon enough children will not even know what it is like to act as a private individual within society. Don't believe this? Read on.

All over the United States and Britain children are increasingly being subjected to measures that wouldn't look out of place in maximum security prisons.

Everyday we post reports from mainstream news sources documenting this disturbing trend.

Today The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that schools across America are banning backpacks that are made of non see-through materials .

If students walking between classes want to use a backpack, it must be made of clear plastic or mesh so its contents can be seen at a glance. Cloth backpacks can be carried into the school in the morning but must be stored in lockers.

So the students should all now feel much safer due to the fact that they can all see each other's personal items right? Wrong.

The move has unleashed a torrent of protest from some Wissahickon students, who say high schools are coming to resemble "prisons or police states," in the words of one. Brandon Hemmen, a senior, said the clear bags will make it easy for thieves who already rip off students every day. And "bags will get mixed up; we'll have to use name tags," he added. "This is wrong. They can't take all our freedoms away."

A second item today comes from Security tech website Security Park which reports that Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania is to deliver the convenience and security of contactless payments by cell phone to students and the faculty.

Beginning in July, Slippery Rock University's 8,500 students, faculty and staff will receive a new official campus ID card and a separate contactless token designed for use with their mobile phones.

Using either the card or the phone, they will be able to make payments at on-campus locations as well as participating merchants in the surrounding community....

The new mobile phone tokens incorporate the same standards-based contactless technology (ISO 14443) used worldwide by MasterCard, Visa and leading card issuers in the payment and identity sectors.

Good, prepare the kids first and then bring in the cashless society nationwide, with an ID card of course, which you will need to be able to buy and sell. We have long warned of the dangers of a cashless society putting total control into the hands of state regulated and private corporations and the break down of basic freedoms that it encompasses.

Still don't feel there is anything to worry about in schools?

Do a prisonplanet.com google search on the word "school", you will be confronted with literally hundreds and hundreds of news articles from the past few years that detail the police state takeover of schools all over the US and throughout the UK.

There are far too many to mention, however, a quick overview of linked headlines follows.

Fingerprinting, Iris Recognition and biometric hand scanners in schools

Children as young as five to be fingerprinted in schools

High school in Irvine drops plan to scan fingerprints

Children tricked into giving fingerprints... by headmaster

Iris recognition added to school security

Hand scanners to keep tabs on students at Boca middle school

Cameras in school halls, school bathrooms and school buses

School puts CCTV in toliets to beat bullies

More Cameras Used In School Bathrooms

Big Brother To Monitor High Schools

U.S. schools resort to security cameras

School buses may get spy cams

Cameras let police peer down high school halls

Kids Being Conditioned To Big Brother and Police State

RFID tracking devices, microchips and GPS tracking devices for students

Mandatory Student ID Cards Contain RFIDs

Privacy Advocate Feels Student Radio Tracking System Sets Bad Precedent

Buffalo children tracked by plastic cards with embedded RFID microchips

School district considers GPS tracking for buses

School daypack features satellite tracking

Armed police raids, sniffer dogs, use of tasers, handcuffs, and other police state measures in schools

Schools may use spray to trace kids' drug use

Drug dogs could be checking schools

Officer Shows Up To School Because Of 8-Year-Old's Overdue Books

Students handcuffed at elementary school

5-year-old is handcuffed at school

Fall River police handcuff 7-year-old outside his elementary school

planetarabia.com No homework Tell it to the judge

Tasers in schools trigger disputes

St. Paul police add Tasers to school patrols

Taser Used To Break Up School Fight

Officer's Taser is used on girl, 9

Police used Taser gun to subdue 6-year-old student wielding piece of glass

School official asks police to stop Tasers

Armed Men Terrorize School

Goose Creek Police tape prompts questions on school raid

Little cop lesson: Students participate in mock raid

Fla. Student Shot by SWAT Team Member

School District Demands Biometric Data From Parents In Return Parents Get Access To Children

School Says Police, Social Services Will Snatch Kids Of Late Parents

These are not isolated incidents, I could have posted hundreds under each category.

Our Schools and institutes of higher education are now total breeding grounds for the big brother police state. Kids are conditioned from day one to accept surveillance and draconian security policies as the norm.

The youth are being indoctrinated to accept the fact that they must swipe or be scanned to have access to buildings or books. In schools it is now normal to be chipped, tagged, tracked, traced and filmed by cameras at all times, while having all items on their person in clear view to everyone.

There is also a dangerous precedent being set whereby kids are made to feel important if they carry a card or a chip. They can gain access to places other people cannot go, open doors electronically and have the use of superior resources. In actual fact the technology given to them merely tracks their every move and is nothing more than a form of control.

By the time students leave education and move into the wider world, encountering surveillance technology everywhere, they are completely unfazed and totally conditioned to it.

In even more alarming circumstances armed SWAT teams are busting into lessons for children barely out of Kindergarten in "mock" raids while parents are having to give their biometric data in order to pick their children up from school, if they are not late that is, in which case the CPS may already have grabbed the kids.

Do you know what big brother measures are already in place in your child's school? Are you a teacher in a school that has been overrun by Orwellian technology? It is clearly up to parents and teachers to do something about this if not for the sake of their own freedom then for the freedom of their children.