Murderers of the World, Unite!

[Dis]

can anyone confirm this red alert thing. I got it from that Indy website. I'm sure all their information is reliable. Since they claim to not be influenced by big business in any way.

By TOM BALDWIN
GANNETT STATE BUREAU

TRENTON -- If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's anti-terror czar says.

"This state is on top of it," said Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism.

Caspersen, a former FBI agent, was briefing reporters, alongside Gov. James E. McGreevey, Thursday, when for the first time he disclosed the realities of how a red alert would shut the state down.

A red alert would also tear away virtually all personal freedoms to move about and associate.

"Red means all non-critical functions cease," Caspersen said. "Non-critical would be almost all businesses, except health-related."

A red alert means there is a severe risk of terrorist attack, according to federal guidelines from the Department of Homeland Security.

"The state will restrict transportation and access to critical locations," says the state's new brochure on dealing with terrorism.

"You must adhere to the restrictions announced by authorities and prepare to evacuate, if instructed. Stay alert for emergency messages."

Caspersen went further than the brochure. "The government agencies would run at a very low threshold," he said.

"The state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways.

"You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a snowstorm."

"The reason being is, what we're saying is, 'Everybody sit down!'

"If you are left standing, you are probably a terrorist. And if you are not law enforcement or emergency response; That's how we're going to catch you.

"You're not going to have a seat to go to.

"That is the basic premise of it."

[Dis]

I forgot to post the article as it relates to the thread.

Official International Solidarity Movement statement on Rachel’s murder

Rafah: Rachel Corrie Murdered by Israeli Army

At about 5.20 pm today Rachel Corrie from Olympia in Washington State, USA died of her injuries in A-Najar Hospital in Rafah after being deliberately run over by an Israeli military bulldozer.

Rachel had been working as an ISM activist in Rafah for seven weeks when she was killed trying to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes and property in the Hi Salaam area of Rafah.

The confrontation between the ISM and the Israeli Army had been under way for two hours when Rachel was run over. Rachel and the other activists had clearly identified themselves as unarmed international peace activists throughout the confrontation.

The Israeli Army are attempting to dishonour her memory by claiming that Rachel was killed accidentally when she ran in front of the bulldozer. Eye-witnesses to the murder insist that this is totally untrue. Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it advanced towards her. When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of it wearing a fluorescent jacket to look directly at the driver who kept on advancing. The bulldozer continued to advance so that she was pulled under the pile of dirt and rubble. After she had disappeared from view the driver kept advancing until the bulldozer was completely on top of her. The driver did not lift the bulldozer blade and so she was crushed beneath it. Then the driver backed off and the seven other ISM activists taking part in the action rushed to dig out her body. An ambulance rushed her to A-Najar hospital where she died.

Rachel joins 1,900 Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers since September 2000,

Rachel had been staying in Palestinian homes threatened with illegal demolition, and today Rachel was standing with other non-violent international activists in front of a home scheduled for illegal demolition. According to witnesses, Rachel was run over twice by the Israeli military bulldozer in its process of demolishing the Palestinian home. Witnesses say that Rachel was clearly visible to the bulldozer driver, and was doing nothing to provoke an attack.

The photos clearly show that Rachel was well marked, had a megaphone, and posed no threat to the bulldozer driver.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dissident
I gotta admire their creativitiy

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
What kind of elevation change causes distant trees to disappear on the left, a tower to appear on the right, and changes the bulldozer blade color from red to blue?

The color of the blade is because a concave blade is going to reflect different things (you did notice it was polished metal?). When the blade is close to the dirt pile, it's reflecting the dirt. When it's backed up and the blade is higher, it's reflecting sky.

In the middle picture, the camera angle is dead on, but in the third picutre, it is taken slightly to one side, which would account for the missing tree.

As for a tower, I don't see a tower.

[The Mad Monk]

Tower, post, the thing is a cm in from the right and appears taller than the building next to it. The trees being off to one side I can accept, but the fact remains the horizon next to the trees is quite 'lumpy', and the terrain on the left in the lower photo is remarkably flat. If the blade was relfective enough to show the color of the sky, we would certainly see other images reflected in it as well, and we don't.

[Dis]

Bush is being impeached!


Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark spearheads a grassroots campaign for Congress to debate the impeachment of President George W. Bush for repeated violations of the United States Constitution.
Chicago -- Political pundits and academics agree that the Presidency of George Walker Bush will leave a legacy of being one of the most controversial periods in American history. For the first time since the end of the Nixon Era, the policies of the Bush Presidency have incited the largest protests by Americans over a wide-range of issues – most notably over the Bush First Strike War Doctrine. Insisting that the Bush II Presidency is one of mismanagement and exercise of behavior contrary to the basic fundamentals of American idealism, prominent members of past Democratic and G.O.P. administrations have begun deliberations on whether or not to pursue a campaign forcing Congress to institute impeachment proceedings for Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Leading the charge for impeachment is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. In a speech before the crowds assembled at the January 18, 2003 march in Washington organized by National ANSWR against military aggression in Iraq, Clark said, “Impeachment is the direct constitutional means for removing a President, Vice President or other civil officers of the United States who has acted or threatened acts that are serious offenses against the Constitution, its system of government, or the rule of law, or that are conventional crimes of such a serious nature that they would injure the Presidency if there was no removal.”

Attorney General Clark’s remarks sparked an intense grassroots campaign to pursue impeachment proceedings. This past week, Clark’s campaign created a website that explains in detail the legal viability of pursuing such an action against the current American regime. The website is at http://www.votetoimpeach.org. “Congressional proceedings for impeachment can bring about open, fearless consideration of the most dangerous acts and threats ever committed by an American President. If courageously pursued, they can save our Constitution, the United Nations, the rule of law, the lives of countless people and leave open the possibility of peace on earth,” Clark said. “Each of us must take a stand on impeachment now, or bear the burden of having failed to speak in this hour of maximum peril.”

The Articles of Impeachment, drafted by Attorney General Clark, outlines several offenses that warrant a Senate trial and subsequent removal of the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Attorney General. The charges include: provoking war with country that is not an immediate threat to the nation, threatening the sovereignty of another country, violating the United Nations Charter through a first strike campaign in Iraq, authorizing secret military tribunals, authorizing the seizure of personal assets of individuals living in the United States, enacting policies of racial and religious profiling and discrimination, rejecting treaties protecting peace and human rights, among others. All charges brought about in the Articles of Impeachment against the Bush II Administration are backed by constitutional mandates.

One of the most important arguments for impeachment is from Article 16, “Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.” Several Congressmen and Senators have openly stated frustrations with the White House in its refusal to provide information needed for legislative checks and balances to work. Most recent were remarks made on the Senate floor by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) concerning the refusal of the White House for Court of Appeals nominee Miguel Estrada to answer questions provided by Congress. Senators Kennedy and Schumer believe that the White House fails to acknowledge the U.S. Senate’s role as the primary nominating body for U.S. Courts.

The following is the complete Articles of Impeachment draft:

Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Threatening Iraq with a first-strike war of aggression by overwhelming and indiscriminate force including specific threats to use nuclear weapons while engaged in a massive military build-up in surrounding nations and waters.

2) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable.

3) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression.

4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and
individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain
weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to
U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a
part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an
attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United
Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting
treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the
exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering
indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without
opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the
discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without
charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of
detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a
detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens
who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official,
prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identifies and locations of persons who have
been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in
response to Congressional inquiry.

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right
to public trials.

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the
government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not
been charged with a crime.

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to
hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary
designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by
federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and
political activity.

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional
right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of
the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without
consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the
United States and Russia, and recission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

[The Mad Monk]

You were trying to launch a new thread, weren't you?

[Felch]

**** does it matter? She was quite literally in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you stand in front of a car and don't move, just to taunt it, don't be surprised if it hits you.

She should have gotten out of the way. No reason why she should have risked her life over a mere house. It wasn't even that nice of a house.

[Dis]

I want to launch a new thread just about that site. Those sites are so funny.

Yes she was murdered. At best you could say it was manslaughter if it happened the way they said it happened.

[Straybow]

I agree it was unnecessary. There should have been footsoldiers in riot gear to handle the protestors. Then they could post pictures of the bruises and stitches from the batons and rubber bullets.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Look at the last two -- is that the same bulldozer, or even the same location?

Those pictures are too small. Look at these ones.

Looks quite similar.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Felch X
**** does it matter? She was quite literally in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you stand in front of a car and don't move, just to taunt it, don't be surprised if it hits you.

It's not a car that moves at 100 kph, it is a bulldozer that goes at like 15kph. The driver has ample time to change course. If you run over a person knowingly, it's murder. Plain and simple.

If a tank could try not to run over a person, I am sure a bulldozer can.

[The Mad Monk]

Excellent, larger pictures. Makes it glaringly obvious that it's two different locations.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Excellent, larger pictures. Makes it glaringly obvious that it's two different locations.

How so?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Those pictures are too small. Look at these ones.

Looks quite similar.

Those larger pictures seem to merely enlarge the variations in the horizon that make them suspect. Take a look at the photo of the girl with the megaphone in front and to the side of the bulldozer. Note that the horizon contains a lot of trees to the left of the dozer, and that there seems to be a slope downward from left to right. Now look at the photo of her friends trying to save her while she lies in the track. The horizon is flatter, and the slope is reversed. The trees to the left of the dozer in the first picture are gone.

While these photos may be of the same bulldozer in more or less the same place on the same day, they are definitely taken from very different perspectives. Their relation to the photo of Rachel between the house and the bulldozer cannot be readily determined. These photos prove nothing about whether this was an act of murder by the Israeli armed forces (which is the claim in the headline), or whether it was an accident. It seems an extremely unlikely case of murder by the IDF, and a very unlikely case of murder by the bulldozer driver. Manslaughter or an accident seem the most likely, with suicide about as likely as the murder being ordered by the IDF.