Title: IMPEACHMENT
BILL AGAINST RUMSFELD FILED IN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Title: IMPEACHMENT
BILL AGAINST RUMSFELD FILED IN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
|
Resources to aid your Understanding
|
Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!
Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.
YOU ARE NOW ON
THE CUTTING EDGE
On May 6, 2004, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives to impeach Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for "high crimes and misdemeanors". This impeachment bill is "H. RES. 629" and its allegations prove much of what Cutting Edge Ministries has been teaching for the past several years, i.e., since 9/11 and since the build-up to invade Iraq began in earnest. Since all Congressmen have access to "Top Secret" material on a daily basis, the fact that these Impeachment Articles so closely parallels Cutting Edge teachings is very significant.
Let us now examine this Bill of Impeachment against Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Article by Article.
PREAMBLE
"RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.
Resolved, That Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors."
Article I
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, urged and oversaw the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false premise that the United States was in imminent danger of attack from weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States."
Immediately, we can see that this bill seems designed to limit the level of damage to the Secretary of Defense, thus protecting President Bush. As we have stated on many occasions, one of the responsibilities of any administration official is to insulate the President from harm on any issue. Thus, we witnessed Oliver North taking full responsibility for the Iran/Contra Affair, thus sealing off President Reagan from any further implication concerning this most unconstitutional plan! North walked into Congress to testify, outfitted in full Marine Corps Dress Uniform, wearing all his medals. North's demeanor during the entire testimony was that of a well-disciplined, knowledgeable Marine Corps officer. His testimony sparkled so wonderfully that President Reagan was spared any of the "political dirt" kicked up by Iran/Contra. Before his testimony, Democrats were completely positive they had the scandal which would bring Reagan down.
Today, President Bush is facing a wartime scandal far graver than Iran/Contra. His failed war against Iraq is clearly coming down upon his head; the torture and sexual degradation portion of the scandal is actually not the most damaging to American interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. Our inability to secure a lasting, stable peace, our killing of civilians and our desecration of Islamic mosques are far, far more serious to regional stability and world peace.
Note that the Article I Bill of Impeachment "begins at the beginning", with the buildup to war, beginning in mid-2002. This bill alleges two "high crimes and misdemeanors" worthy of removing Rumsfeld from office. They are:
1. That Rumsfeld "urged and oversaw the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false premise that the United States was in imminent danger of attack from weapons of mass destruction."
2. Rumsfeld propagated the lie that "Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States."
We were reporting these events as they happened and wrote several articles at the time they occurred. Let us review.
The Lie that Iraq posed an imminent danger to nations in the region and, ultimately to us, from their Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Cutting Edge published two articles entitled, "BUSH/BLAIR JUSTIFICATION OF IRAQ INVASION: NOW PROVEN TO BE LIES, DISTORTIONS, EXAGGERATIONS!" Two-part series:
Part 1 -- NEWS1890: "CIA said Saddam Hussein posed 'no imminent threat' in the months before last year’s invasion" [George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency] -- "What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Part 2 -- NEWS1890b - "Smoking Gun" evidence that President Bush deliberately lied to the people, saying Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Bush and Rumsfeld collaborated to create a bogus "Intelligence Service" which would publicly issue the types of scary "hard intelligence reports" Bush needed to justify an invasion.
Let us quickly review the original key story.
NEWS BRIEF: "There was no failure of intelligence: US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war", The Guardian (London), February 5, 2004, carried in Daily News Updates 2/8/2004.
"Precisely because of the qualms the administration encountered, it created a rogue intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans (OSP), located within the Pentagon and under the control of neo-conservatives. The OSP roamed outside the ordinary inter-agency process, stamping its approval on stories from Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and feeding them to the president. At the same time, constant pressure was applied to the intelligence agencies to force their compliance. In one case, a senior intelligence officer who refused to buckle under was removed." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1141116,00.html ]
On a number of occasions, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell made the speeches which laid the false groundwork for invasion. This Guardian article addresses this issue as well.
"When Bush insisted that Saddam was actively and urgently engaged in a nuclear weapons programme and had renewed production of chemical weapons, the DIA reported otherwise ... Greg Thielman, chief of the INR at the time, told me: 'Everyone in the intelligence community knew that the White House couldn't care less about any information suggesting that there were no WMDs or that the UN inspectors were very effective ...In October 2002, the White House inserted mention of the uranium into a speech Bush was to deliver, but the CIA objected and it was excised. Three months later, it reappeared in his state of the union address'."
Since the Illuminati had planned in the mid-1950's that America would invade Iraq to trigger World War III (Former Satanist Bill Schnoebelen), you have to realize that President Bush knew the "evidence" upon which they were basing their invasion was false. The goal had been set long, long ago; "evidence" just had to be created to support that goal.
One news article from ABC News places Bush's decision to go to war before the attacks of 9/11.
NEWS BRIEF: "Corroborating O’Neill’s Account: Official Confirms Claims That Saddam Was Bush’s Focus Before 9/11", by John Cochran, ABC News, January 13, 2004, http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html
"President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in a book written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001 ... In The Price of Loyalty, O'Neill says that from the very start of his administration, Bush was focused on ousting Saddam. Bush says that his policy at the time was merely a continuation of the Clinton administration's stance."
Therefore, this story confirms that President Bush intended from the beginning of his administration to attack Iraq! All he had to do was create the excuse by which he could justify the attack to the American people. The emphasis is on the word, "justify". The goal was set a long time before Bush was elected; what he and his administration had to do was to create a lie big enough, scary enough, and coherent enough to deceive the electorate.
Oh, yes, they also had to repeat the bogus warnings about Iraq's
threat often enough. Thus, our Daily News Updates reveals that the first news
stories about invading Iraq occurred in October, 2001, just weeks after the
9/11 attacks! The buildup to invasion took a very long time, consumed a lot
of media print, and raised the "need to invade" high in public consciousness.
Throughout the buildup to war, beginning in mid-2002, Cutting Edge posted many
news articles warning that the case against Saddam was not proven, and that
much evidence existed to support the contention of the United Nations arms inspectors
that no WMD existed in the country. To review these articles, go to the bottom
of Daily News Updates and click on "Archives". Select the date you
want to review. Some of the links may not be active, but many still are and
the headlines really tell the story.
Now, let us go to the second part of Article I, stating the case for impeachment:
"Rumsfeld propagated the lie that "Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States."
The idea that a secular dictator would closely cooperate with a militantly religious fundamentalist like Osama bin Laden was laughable in the extreme. Still, Bush and Rumsfeld continued to boldly state that Saddam had established a close link to Al Qaeda and was likely to funnel WMD warheads to that terrorist organization. We posted some news stories which demonstrated that Bush continued to say there was a provable link between Saddam and Al Qaeda even though his intelligence services had told him repeatedly that there was no link whatsoever!
NEWS BRIEF: "Clarke's Take On Terror", CBSNews.com, March 21, 2004, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one. The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes ... After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
" 'Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq', Clarke said to Stahl.
'And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.
And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are
lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets
in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection'. Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft."
Later in the interview, Clarke related how President Bush pressured him to find a connection between 9/11 attacks and Iraq.
" 'The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now, he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. 'I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report." [Ibid.]
Since Clarke is relating a personal experience, his testimony is exceedingly valid. He personally told President Bush, "there is no connection". President Bush knew, when he was making all those speeches and when Powell was addressing the United Nations. President Bush knew!
A respected London news source then informed us that even Secretary of State Powell finally stopped trying to create a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Powell withdraws al-Qa'ida claim as hunt for Saddam's WMD flags", By Raymond Whitaker. 11 January 2004, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=480031
"The faltering American and British case for war in Iraq has suffered another blow with an admission by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that there was no hard proof of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida, contrary to his claims before the invasion."
Consider this article from the Taipei Times on the same subject: Powell finally admitted that we had no proof, despite his oft-repeated and bold claim to the contrary, a claim repeated so often people were really convinced that Saddam had WMD which threatened our very existence!
NEWS BRIEF: "We had no Saddam, al-Qaeda link: Powell", Taipei Times, January 10, 2004 (Article quoting N.Y, Times, 1/10/2004)
"EVIDENCE: The US secretary of state admitted he had had no `smoking gun'
proof to back up his claims when he was making a case for war before the UN.
Secretary of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions
to the UN last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between
the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda."
The evidence is now in, and it is just as this impeachment bill states: Rumsfeld
propagated the lie that "Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the
September 11, 2001 attack against the United States."
From this point onward, numerous news organizations began to run editorials stating that the truth was now out: there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and/or Osama bin Laden.
Article II
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, directed the expenditure of funds in contradiction to appropriations as enacted by using funds appropriated for the action in Afghanistan to plan and develop plans for the invasion of Iraq." [Ibid.]
Cutting Edge has no further information to substantiate this charge. If Rumsfeld was illegally diverting monies which Congress appropriated to fight in Afghanistan so he could plan the invasion of Iraq, that information is not readily in the public realm. We posted no articles in Daily News Updates relating to this issue. We shall have to take this Congressman at his word.
Article III
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, ignored the recommendations of uniformed leaders at the Pentagon and sent American troops into war undermanned and under-equipped, thus undermining our military efforts in Iraq." [Ibid.]
We have posted numerous articles on Rumsfeld's lie that only 150,000 troops could both take over Iraq and bring about stability and peace.
NEWS BRIEF: "Hackworth: Rumsfeld And The Liar's Club", Col. David H. Hackworth, Military.com, January 8, 2003
"Did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld misspeak last month when he said that the Pentagon could duke it out simultaneously with both North Korea and Iraq? Or did he join the SecDef Liar's Club? In this case, he surely would've been aware that the U.S. forces earmarked for fires on the Korean peninsula are many of the same Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps units now moving at max speed toward Iraq ... there's no way the USA can handle two major scraps at the same time - not to mention the mother of all threats: al-Qaeda - with forces at about half of our strength in Operation Desert Storm and stretched to the breaking point in more countries than there are flags .... Will Congress investigate Rummy's lie? Don't hold your breath ... the White House and all the president's men are now as locked on the agenda as a pit bull with a squeaky Baghdad terrier twisting in its jaws. Why deviate from a plan that's been in place at least since Rummy marched into the Pentagon?"
Col. Hackworth knew the plan of Rumsfeld and Bush was unworkable, that it was stretching our military far, far too thin. And, he publicized it on January 8, 2003!
Two retired generals knew Rumsfeld had committed too few troops.
NEWS BRIEF: "Rumsfeld Under Fire", Sky Way News, March 26, 2003, http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12275965,00.html
"The former supreme allied commander of NATO has accused US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of putting allied troops at risk through poor planning. Wesley Clark said Mr Rumsfeld's insistence on a smaller invasion force had left troops vulnerable and the 300-mile oil supply line between Kuwait and Basra open to guerilla attack ... Retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said Mr Rumsfeld had ignored warnings that he was underestimating the number of troops needed."
Finally, consider this article, as it best reveals the understanding in both the Pentagon and the Congress that the troop strength Rumsfeld was planning was simply inadequate to the task of both conquering and subduing Iraq.
NEWS BRIEF: "Brass turns on Rumsfeld", DailyKos, March 30, 2003, http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002195.html
"I think it's worth noting, given the media has finally discovered Rumsfeld's incompetence, how conservative columnist Robert Novak has been all over this story for over a year ... Rumsfeld incompetence is all over the news these days ... Current and former U.S. military officers are blaming Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his aides for the inadequate troop strength on the ground in Iraq, saying the civilian leaders 'micromanaged' the deployment plan out of mistrust of the generals ... Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported ... Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way ... If there is no effective revolt, the generals and their friends on Capitol Hill worry that the unknown plans may not call for sufficient U.S. forces."
Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki literally put his career on the line when he told Congress exactly how large the American force needed to be in Iraq.
"In his latest policy disagreement with Rumsfeld, [Army Chief of Staff, General] Shinseki on Feb. 25 testified to Congress that 'several hundred thousand soldiers' might be necessary for postwar occupation of Iraq. White last week did not join the Pentagon's civilian leadership in contradicting Shinseki's estimate but endorsed the general's credentials. Not only did this undermine Rumsfeld's efforts to gain control of the officer corps that he felt ran wild during the Clinton days, but it raised the specter of a long and difficult occupation of Iraq." [Ibid.]
What do we have now? "a long and difficult occupation of Iraq."
This charge in the Impeachment Bill is entirely correct.
On a side note, General Shinseki lost his coveted position as Army Chief of Staff because of his truthful testimony to the Congress. He testified on March 30, 2003, and was relieved in mid-June, 2003. Listen as an Illuminist organization reports this fact, in an article fairly critical of President Bush.
NEWS BRIEF: "History Will Credit Shinseki", The Japan Times, June 19, 2003, Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030618.htm
"As he stepped down from office this week as the U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki probably breathed a big sigh of relief. He had been put through the meat grinder in his job, particularly during Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's tenure. Shinseki deserved better ..."
When you see one Illuminist criticizing another, you are looking at the working
out of some Dialectic Struggle. In this case, the Dialectic seems to pit pro-war
Illuminist Bush against an anti-war segment deliberately created to manage the
disastrous turn of events in Iraq. We have said all along that Bush's Iraq invasion
must be seen, in the final analysis, as a disaster; else, who would need the
United Nations to deliver the world from the excesses of one leader wrongly
exercising his powers of sovereignty?
DETAILED EXAMINATION OF RELATED PRISON ABUSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
At this point, several of the Articles of Impeachment deal with the prison abuse. Therefore, we shall list them in a row and then comment on them all.
Article IV
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, contributed to an atmosphere of lawlessness in the administration of United States military prison facilities in Iraq by rejecting United States compliance with the Geneva Convention."
Several articles have appeared in the recent past reporting that the stage for this deliberate campaign may have been set by a memo written shortly after the 9/11 attacks which set forth the legal argument that the United States did not have to abide by the International Geneva Accord in the treatment of prisoners. Let us review one such article:
NEWS BRIEF: "Did counsel's memo open way to abuse?", by Gail Gibson, The Baltimore Sun, May 22, 2004, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.gonzales22may22,0,6321691.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
"As the top lawyer in the White House, Alberto R. Gonzales has built the foundation for the Bush administration's most sensitive legal maneuvers, including the creation of military tribunals for terror suspects and the assertion of executive privilege to keep private an array of presidential documents ... But he now faces high-profile questions about whether his legal advice in the aftermath of Sept. 11 opened the door for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers ... At issue is a Jan. 25, 2002, memorandum to the president in which Gonzales outlined the legal argument for exempting Taliban and al-Qaida fighters from Geneva Conventions protections, noting as one factor the ability to quickly extract intelligence from prisoners."
At this point, Gonzales argued that we could treat prisoners any way we wanted to so we could "quickly extract intelligence from prisoners". In other words, Gonzales is advocating the old, tired Illuminist argument that the "Ends Justify The Means". Old Communist fighters will recognize this doctrine as being Communist, and they are right! Illuminism created Communism from 1846-1848 ("Seminar 2: America Controls The Flow Of History"), and then persuaded that old Black Magick Satanist, Karl Marx ("Marx & Satan" Book) to allow the Communist Manifesto to be published under his name.
Now, let us return to this Baltimore Sun article for more information. White House lawyer Gonzales is speaking in this memo:
" 'In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners', Gonzales wrote. The memo, marked 'draft', also said the war on terror 'renders quaint' provisions such as supplying detainees with 'commissary privileges [or] athletic uniforms'. The White House rejected suggestions that the 2-year-old document cleared the way for mistreatment of war prisoners in Iraq. But its blunt conclusions touched off a series of questions that drew the White House back into the churning abuse scandal ... Some Democratic lawmakers raised the possibility of a link. In a letter to Gonzales, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, requested a copy of the memo 'in light of recent revelations regarding the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody'." [Ibid.]
The Pentagon and the White House are to be expected to deny, deny, and deny again. In my years in US Army Intelligence, I witnessed the spectacle of seeing top Administration and Pentagon officials deny matters which I knew to be fact, given my Top Secret Crytpo security clearance. Repeated denials on a single subject are very effective in finally convincing the average undiscerning citizen. Remember President Nixon: he and his henchmen successfully denied every single charge again and again, until the "Smoking Gun" tapes were uncovered. That denial mentality is firmly entrenched in Washington, D.C., in both Democrats and Republicans.
Now, let us return to this Baltimore Sun report:
"At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Connecticut Democrat Christopher J. Dodd, called the memo 'unsettling', in part because of the position of its author. 'This wasn't a memo from some freshman law student who may have an ideological point of view', he said. 'This is the counsel to the president of the United States' ... The memo from Gonzales followed an opinion from the Justice Department's highly regarded Office of Legal Counsel, which concluded that the Geneva Conventions protections did not apply to al-Qaida or Taliban fighters ... Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland law professor who served in the Clinton-era Justice Department, said the Office of Legal Counsel 'traditionally plays the role of being the straight shooter'." [Ibid.]
Thus, President Bush had the legal opinion from his White House lawyer, Gonzales, plus the Office of Legal Counsel, that al-Qaida and Taliban fighters did not deserve the human protections afforded by the International Geneva Convention. And, Bush, who does not seem to be guided by any genuine Christian principles, wasted no time implementing this recommendation, thus plunging Islamic "terrorists" into the living hell uncovered in Abu Ghraib.
We have also just touched on the real reason the White House is so vociferously denying any link between this memo from Gonzales and President Bush. If Bush has any hope of keeping the scandal away from his door, by relegating the blame to his subordinates, he must deny that his policies followed the recommendations of this damning memo. We now know that this internal memo (January 25, 2002) preceded the attack on Iraq and even preceded the similar abuses in Guantanamo Bay Prison. When we read that Abu Ghraib Prison was "Gitmo-ized" that means the abuses uncovered at Abu Ghraib were imported from Guantanamo! Therefore, a timeline absolutely permits the probability that Bush was influenced by this memo.
We know one other fact concerning Gonzales: he did influence the President in the matter of declaring arrested "terrorists" as "Enemy Combatants", thereby denying them elementary legal rights and independent court oversight. The result is now provably disastrous, for, as I said above, we now know that the torture and sexually degrading humiliations forced upon Iraqi prisoners were initiated and perfected at Guantanamo! Let us now go back to this article in The Baltimore Sun to see this how influential Gonzales was in taking away elementary legal rights from persons simply accused of terrorism.
"In three years at the White House, Gonzales has gained attention for serving as a key architect in the controversial efforts to create military tribunals to try terrorism suspects and to hold detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, indefinitely and without access to courts." [Ibid.]
As I stated earlier, depriving suspects of elementary legal protection began fairly soon after the 9/11 attacks. American Jurisprudence has always been based upon the premise that governments tend to turn evil, and begin delivering that evil upon the citizens of the land. Therefore, our Founding Fathers set up a system of Checks and Balances in our government to prevent the Executive Branch from gaining absolute, dictatorial power; furthermore, our Fathers armed the Judiciary Branch with the authority to intervene on behalf of accused citizens whenever the circumstances warrant it.
Historically, many of the legal protections afforded American citizens have applied to foreigners as well, except in wartime. And, do not think we are officially at war. Congress has not declared war on any country, and has certainly not declared war on that nebulous enemy, "Terrorism". We are not officially at war, the public rhetoric from the White House and the Mass Media notwithstanding.
Numerous stories have appeared indicating that a number of the suspects who have been detained in Guantanamo Bay for nearly three years now are innocent of any involvement in terrorism, and our government knows it. However, since these men have no access to a lawyer, or to an open courtroom, or to press scrutiny, they sit and rot in prison. However, one man from Oregon recently accused of being a terrorist was released because of a lack of evidence, and he even got an apology from the FBI. Let us review this story now, for it bears greatly on the threat posed to all of us from these "Enemy Combatant" rules. (Remember, in this "Brave New World" into which America entered after 9/11, an official accusation that one is a "terrorist" is equal to guilt, which automatically labels that accused as an "Enemy Combatant".)
NEWS BRIEF: "FBI apologizes to American lawyer accused in Madrid bombing", By ANDREW KRAMER, Associated Press, May 25, 2004, http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/nation/story/1392697p-8656555c.html
"PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Offering a rare public apology, the FBI admitted mistakenly linking an American lawyer's fingerprint to one found near the scene of a terrorist bombing in Spain, a blunder that led to his imprisonment for two weeks. The apology Monday came hours after a judge dismissed the case against Brandon Mayfield, who had been held as a material witness in the Madrid bombings case, which killed 191 people and injured about 2,000 others. Mayfield, a 37-year-old convert to Islam, sharply criticized the government, calling his time behind bars 'humiliating' and 'embarrassing' and saying he was targeted because of his faith."
Notice that Mayfield was accorded his Constitutional right to a lawyer and to a hearing in a public courtroom with a judge. The government was put into the position of having to prove that Mayfield was associated with the Spanish terrorist bombing in Madrid. Once they could not physically prove their case, the judge threw out the accusation, setting the accused free. This is how the American system of Jurisprudence works!
However, had Mayfield been one of the 660 accused in Guantanamo Bay Prison, he would still be sitting there, unable to gain access to a lawyer or to a public, open courtroom where the government has to prove its accusations! This incident -- plus the horrors still unfolding at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan -- should squash all government efforts to play the Stalinist-type dictator to these Muslims accused -- but not proven -- to be terrorists.
Now, let us go back to this Baltimore Sun article for the last quote on this subject.
"What we've seen and continue to see is that the average American voter doesn't give a hoot about how we are treating terrorism suspects ..." (Op.Cit., The Baltimore Sun)
This attitude amongst Americans must change! I know why most American citizens do not "give a hoot" about how we are treating Muslim suspects; they believe the government rhetoric that Arab terrorist commandeered those three jets on 9/11, driving two into the World Trade Center towers and one into the Pentagon. Once a person believes this rhetoric, they are going to have very hard feelings toward all Muslims accused of being terrorists.
Furthermore, the undiscerning American citizen also believes the rhetoric that these tough anti-terrorist prison methods are necessary in order to protect our Constitutional freedoms. Few people stop to wonder why we have to strip all legal protections from some people in order to protect the legal protections of our own citizens. These people do not realize that the government has already redefined what constitutes "terrorism" and who is to be considered a "terrorist". This redefinition occurred just days after 9/11; did you notice?
NEWS1553 -- "BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS ALREADY REDEFINING TERRORIST! That redefinition began yesterday [10/3/01] by Governor Tom Ridge of Homeland Security! Christians who write the plain truth may suddenly be pursued as terrorists!"
"NEWS BRIEF: "Ridge Vows Balance of Rights, Security", News-Item Newspaper, Shamokin, Pennsylvania, 10/3/01, Page 1.
"To those Americans who would lash out at your fellow citizens, simply because they worship differently, or dress differently, or look differently than you, there is one word for such behavior: terrorism." [Governor Tom Ridge, in his farewell address to the State Legislature as Pennsylvania Governor, before taking up his new position at the White House as Director of Homeland Security]. The Bush Administration has just redefined who is a terrorist and what a person has to do in order to be classified by the Federal Government as a terrorist. In NEWS1550, "Bitter Fruits of Bush's War On Terrorism", I predicted that such a redefinition would take place! However, I thought this inevitable redefinition would wait until after President Bush had received the Congressional legal authority to expand intrusive intelligence measures against "terrorists". Now, we see that this new definition has occurred even as the bills are working their way through Congress."
It is a very big deal -- a huge threat beyond comprehension -- that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft demanded Stalin-type dictatorial powers in order to "combat terrorism"; yet, most people are so unaware of the precise provisions of the Patriot Act that they actually support these terrible powers!
We shall examine the next two articles together:
Article V
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, abdicated his role as the head of the United States military by allowing the breakdown of discipline in the administration of military prison facilities in Iraq, and by ignoring warnings by the International Committee of the Red Cross."
Article VI
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, failed in his responsibility to fully investigate and address the breakdown of discipline and attendant atrocities at those prison facilities."
From the beginning, President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the willing Media tried to portray this scandal as being the result of just a "few bad apples". However, no one who ever served in the Military believes that lie, for our Armed Forces are the most rigidly controlled on the planet. Officers daily and routinely fill out detailed reports on the details of what happened on their watch that day.
Further, we posted many articles in Daily News Updates since the beginning of the scandal which demonstrated the reality that the types of abuses were so carefully calculated to offend specific sensibilities that Muslims have because of their religion, that the effort had to have been well thought-out by very high superiors. Let us quickly examine some of these articles:
NEWS BRIEF: "Brutality starts at home", By Ritt Goldstein, Asia Times, May 15, 2004
"The Army Times - an independent paper read widely in military circles - called for the removal of America's top Pentagon mangers, saying that "while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership". NOTE: This charge was leveled by The Army Times, obviously a very conservative voice.
NEWS BRIEF: Rumsfeld accused on abuse: US defence secretary 'authorised tough
intelligence programme'," The Guardian (London), May 17, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1218400,00.html
"The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, personally authorised the expansion of a special programme which ultimately led to the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison, the New Yorker magazine claims today. The operation, which encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation to obtain intelligence, was known to President George Bush and fewer than 200 operatives. It was approved by the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, according to the report. The programme was governed by the rules: "Grab who you must. Do what you want," a former intelligence officer told the magazine ... According to the article, Mr Rumsfeld set up the secret access programme, which is subject to the most stringent defence department security, a few months after September 11 ... The Pentagon regarded the programme as one of its most successful strategies in the war on terror in Afghanistan. With the Iraqi resistance growing and intelligence gathering failing, Mr Cambone decided to apply the programme to Iraq."
NEWS BRIEF: "The religious warrior of Abu Ghraib: An evangelical US general played a pivotal role in Iraqi prison reform", The Guardian (London), May 20, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1220622,00.html
"Saving General Boykin seemed like a strange sideshow last October. After it was revealed that the deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence had been regularly appearing at evangelical revivals preaching that the US was in a holy war as a 'Christian nation' battling 'Satan', the furore was quickly calmed ... Boykin was not removed or transferred. At that moment, he was at the heart of a secret operation to 'Gitmoize' (Guantánamo is known in the US as Gitmo) the Abu Ghraib prison. He had flown to Guantánamo, where he met Major General Geoffrey Miller, in charge of Camp X-Ray. Boykin ordered Miller to fly to Iraq and extend X-Ray methods to the prison system there, on Rumsfeld's orders."
NEWS BRIEF: "US general linked to Abu Ghraib abuse: Leaked memo reveals
control of prison passed to military intelligence to 'manipulate detainees',",
The Guardian (London), May 22, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1222301,00.html
"Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq, issued an order last October giving military intelligence control over almost every aspect of prison conditions at Abu Ghraib with the explicit aim of manipulating the detainees' "emotions and weaknesses" ... The October 12 memorandum, reported in the Washington Post, is a potential "smoking gun" linking prisoner abuse to the US high command. It represents hard evidence that the maltreatment was not simply the fault of rogue military police guards."
NEWS BRIEF: "Report links U.S. general to Iraq prison abuse", SwissInfo, May 23, 2004, http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=4952736
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib
abuse case said a captain at the Iraqi prison has charged that Army Lieutenant
General Ricardo Sanchez was present during some unspecified 'interrogations
and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse', The Washington Post
has reported. Citing a recording of a military hearing obtained by the newspaper,
The Post said on Sunday that the military lawyer, Captain Robert Shuck, was
told Sanchez, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq, and other senior
officials were aware of what was taking place at Abu Ghraib."
Since the proof of a matter can often be determined by the results it forces, we are greatly interested that Lt. General Sanchez was suddenly removed from his position and may lose any command position whatsoever!
NEWS BRIEF: "General in jail abuse scandal replaced", The Guardian (London), May 26, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1224715,00.html
"Washington is to replace its most senior general in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, after he came under intense political pressure to explain the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Lt Gen Sanchez is likely to be replaced by a much more senior commander, probably a four-star general, according to reports in the American press."
How about that? Lt. General Sanchez was accused on May 23 of being present during some of the brutal interrogation techniques being used at Abu Ghraib, and the fact that he is being replaced runs three days later, May 26! The idea that this entire episode occurred because of some low-level soldiers in the prison system is absurd.
Sanchez knew; Rumsfeld knew, and President Bush probably knew. If a "Smoking Gun" is ever uncovered that positively links President Bush to this scandal, you will begin to hear calls for the President's impeachment as well.
Article VII
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, failed in his responsibility to fully inform the President of atrocities committed by United States troops at military prison facilities in Iraq."
A Fox News timeline article demonstrated that Rumsfeld informed President Bush on or about January 15, 2004.
NEWS BRIEF: "Timeline: Iraq Prison Abuse Scandal", Fox News, May
6, 2004, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119224,00.html
"2004 • Jan. 13: A Member of the 800th Military Police Brigade tells superiors about prison abuses, and Pentagon officials are informed. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is told a day or so later. Shortly afterward, Rumsfeld tells Bush."
President Bush knew of the prison scandal, even though this Article of Impeachment implies that Bush did not know. Once people realize Bush knew, they will add this reality to his deliberate lying and twisting of facts about Saddam's WMD and his supposed link to Osama bin Laden, and start demanding his impeachment.
At this point, the discrediting of President Bush will be working its way toward its planned conclusion. If Bush goes down and is thoroughly discredited, all his close supporters will be discredited with him. Evangelical Christianity will then rue the day they ever got close to the Bush Presidency.
At this point, we feel no need to comment further on Articles VIII and IX, as they are rather redundant.
Article VIII
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, misled the Congress and the American people of those atrocities by seeking to suppress information about the misconduct."
Article IX
"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, through his malfeasance as the leader of United States military forces, is responsible for the atrocities committed by United States troops in Iraq."
The following statement appeared at the end of each Article. "Wherefore, Donald M. Rumsfeld, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification for any further office of profit or trust under the United States."
RALPH NADER CALLS FOR BUSH TO BE IMPEACHED
As we were getting ready to publish this article, the news broke that Ralph Nader had called for President Bush to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". What caught my attention was NOT that Ralph Nader was making this proposal, for Nader has long been a far-out Liberal, Environmentalist Extremist, and a political lightweight; what caught my eye was that he was making this proposal at the New York headquarters of that most powerful, heavyweight Illuminati organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)!
Let us examine this story now.
NEWS BRIEF: "Nader Slams `Messianic Militarist' Bush: In Speech to Council on Foreign Relations: Says Bush Should Be Impeached", NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK, Reported in Taipei Times, Wednesday, May 26, 2004
"Ralph Nader, the independent candidate for president, condemned US President George W. Bush on Monday as a 'messianic militarist' who should be impeached for pushing the nation into a war in Iraq 'based on false pretenses'. Bush's actions 'rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors', Nader said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan. He said Bush had exceeded his authority in the face of widespread opposition at home and abroad ... Nader also accused Bush of exaggerating the threat to the US of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.
"To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of al-Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest', he said. But he said it was time to ask whether the threat had been 'exaggerated for a purpose'."
To reiterate, the important part of this story is that the Council on Foreign Relations invited Nader to give this speech at their Manhattan headquarters! This fact gives strong credibility that the impeachment proposal uttered by Ralph Nader represents the official Illuminist position! If this is the case, then this impeachment noise will probably not go away. Bush may be in the same initial position of risk in which Nixon found himself just weeks after the break-in of the Democrat Party office at the Watergate Complex.
Notice that Nader made reference to Bush's "messianic" militarist views. He can only be referencing Bush's defacto leadership of the Evangelical Christian Right. If this is the case, the coming persecution of all Fundamental Christians may not be too far away.
We shall have to watch this situation very carefully to see how -- and if -- this impeachment talk goes any further than just rhetoric.
CONCLUSION
This impeachment bill against Rumsfeld, and this Nader talk about impeaching Bush, may go absolutely nowhere. The odds are that this is exactly the case. However, if our original premise is correct that the Bush invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq must be seen as a disaster so that National Sovereignty is discredited, then we might be looking at the Beginning of the End for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and/or President Bush.
I have often believed that, for National Sovereignty to be so thoroughly discredited that people will demand its demise in favor of a global sovereignty, a world war must break out. Once Antichrist arises on the world scene, he can point to Bush's exercising of National Sovereignty in Iraq as THE major culprit. He could then declare that, from that moment on, no nation will be allowed to exercise National Sovereignty; all sovereign decisions would be made through the United Nations.
Clearly, this handwriting may be already on the wall.
Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.
If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.
If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.
If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.
We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us by mail or email.
God bless you.
