Ron Brown rip1995 Alamo Girl Google search Wm Casey rip1989 Go ogle search Wm E Colby rip1996 Prados bio Jan 2003 Patrice Lumumba rip1972 Google search	ß loody shirts & lack marbles	& links new Ron Brown Wm Casey Vince Foster David Kelly Patrice Lumumba John Millis Alex Odeh John O'Neill Leo Ryan Ilan Ramon Mike Vreeland bin Laden Cpls Morrison & Medders historical icons JFK Thomas Sankara Rep. Lawrence McDonald GA Daniel Pearl Ronald Rewald Richard Taus roll call
		yesterday's horror story,   today's bronze plaque
	Arkancide   Alamo Girl Cat Box News Etherzone Progressive Review Zpub Margie D. Schoedinger r.i.p.9.03 Google search Paul D. Wilcher   rip ~ 6.20.93 PACC 6.18.00 David Martin, GSB Consp.Nation NL 9.96 Google search House Perm. Select Committee on Intelligence   rm SH-211 ph# 41700 ¹   jurisdiction HIAC Subcomm chair Gibbons, NV Cong. J.Harman D-CA Cong. S.Bishop, D-GA 2nd dist. 107th Cong. budget 106th Cong. committee assignments 12.20.00 105th ? Cong. committee assignments 3.99

Porton Down, directly, and the CIA, indirectly, received their samples of the particular anthrax spores used in the attacks from the US Army Medical Research Inst. of Infections Diseases at Ft Detrick, about 50 miles north of Washington. Since First World War, Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down carried out experiments on volunteers to understand effects of chemical agents that might be used against British troops in warfare and improve protective measures.
In the 90s, Porton Down's cooperation with the British Govt became stronger again and ended basically in a merger: By 1991 the Chemical Defence Establishment of Porton Down became the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment and was one of 6 new Defence Support Agencies.

In 1995, the Establishment became part of the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA), an executive MoD agency evolved in 1994 from proposals of the "Front Line First Defence Cost Studies. In 2001, DERA split into 2 organisations: QinetiQ, a private company, and DSTL (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory), which remains an agency of MOD. Porton Down is now known as DSTL, Porton Down.
Today, DSTL delivers defence research, specialist technical services and the ability to track global technological developments. In July 2002, the Carlyle Group took a 34% stake in QinetiQ.

Alex Odeh ^rip1985   Google search

Algerian-American sculptor of Alex Odeh Memorial honors Cesar Chavez
1.96   Pat & Samir Twair Wash.Rpt on MidEast Affairs

Bendib met Alex Odeh at USC. After Odeh was killed by a bomb in 1985, Bendib vowed that someday he would create a lasting memorial to the regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The concept of a statue incubated for years. No sooner did Bendib take his sketches of the statue to Odeh's widow, Norma, and to radio personality and Arab-American activist Casey Kasem, than the project was underway. With Kasem spearheading a national fund-raising campaign, within one year the statue of Alex Odeh was erected in Santa Ana, the county seat of Orange County, and the city where he was assassinated.

Leo Ryan ^rip11.78  

Mexico claims arrest victory in 'dirty war' probe
2.19.04   Reuters

Nazar Haro commanded a now-defunct federal police unit notorious for brutality. Ibarra, seized in the northern industrial city of Monterrey, is believed to have been killed. Nazar Haro, now in his 70s, and 2 other suspects in the case were at large for 2 months after the arrest warrants were issued, leading Carrillo and rights activists to question security forces' commitment to capturing them. The two others are still fugitives.
A fourth "dirty war" suspect, a former Guerrero police chief wanted in another case, died in December without being arrested. Press reports said he had been spotted being escorted by state police when he was supposedly on the run. Atty General Rafael Macedo said Nazar Haro's arrest showed the govt's will to punish past crimes. "In this country there is no space for impunity," he told reporters.

Nazar Haro was flown to Monterrey overnight to face charges after his arrest in Mexico City while driving with his wife & daughter. Officials said he was in poor health with high blood pressure. His son & lawyer, Jose Luis Nazar Daw, called the charges "political" and said he hoped the court would not be pressured by political interests & the media.
The case is crucial to President Vicente Fox's drive to fulfill a campaign promise to punish past atrocities committed under the long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which was ousted by Fox in 2000. Rights groups called the arrest a step toward ending impunity in Mexico, as well as a boost for Fox.

Rosario Ibarra, mother of the disappeared rebel in the case, remained skeptical on Thursday of achieving justice in this & other atrocities. "This man didn't do all this alone," she said, claiming that the orders came directly from Former President Luis Echeverria and other senior govt officials.
Prosecutors are trying to build a case against Echeverria, who ruled Mexico from 1970-76 at the height of the dirty war. "What's needed is a real airing of everything that happened, and to find out, above all, what happened to our family members," said Ibarra, 76.
Carrillo said more charges will be presented soon.

The Supreme Court ruled in November that the statute of limitations did not apply in the Ibarra case. That ruling paved the way for the arrest of Nazar Haro and others implicated in hundreds of forced disappearances from the 1960s to the 1980s.
Nazar Haro is also wanted on U.S. federal charges, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City said. In 1982 he was arrested in California in connection with a car theft ring, but was freed on bail and never tried. That case generated headlines when the U.S. atty in San Diego claimed Nazar Haro was being protected from prosecution by the CIA due to his collaboration with the agency. Then-President Ronald Reagan later fired the federal attorney.

ninja   U.S. assassination policy U.S. policy on assassinations 11.4.02   CNN In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of U.S. Govt shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination. In 1981, President Reagan, through Exec.Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect. The ban, however, did not prevent the Reagan administration from dropping bombs on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's home in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. troops. Additionally, the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles at suspected guerrilla camps in Afghanistan in 1998 after the bombings of 2 U.S. embassies in Africa. Following 9.11.01, the White House said the presidential directive banning assassinations would not prevent U.S from acting in self-defense. According to 10.21.01 Wash.Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization. White House & CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude U.S. taking action against terrorists.

[ Dean demonstrates he is still an imperial stooge plumping for genocide's tortured rationale: The Sudanese factory was not a munitions plant; "war on terrorism" waged with troops is still war, a Congressional perogative ] Examining the president's powers to fight terrorism 9.14.01   John Dean Findlaw … There is no single or simple definition of terrorism in our laws. The well-understood term, plainly defined by Webster's dictionary as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes; and the state of fear and submission so produced", has been made unduly complex by lawyers and bureaucrats. For example, the FBI, which will be the lead federal agency investigating 9.11.01 terrorism, has its own definition, which differs from the definition in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which in turns differs from the definition in Title 22 of the U.S. Code. Unfortunately, all the legal definitions ignore the objective of the terrorist's violence. Terrorism is about creating fear. One commentator, recalling a Chinese proverb, explains that the purpose of terrorism is "to kill one & frighten 10,000." In short, terrorists succeed when they create fear. Thus, a priority of the President, seeking to defeat the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., must be to lessen the fear. Recent presidents have addressed the nation's fear in the wake of terrorist activities with quick fix remedies. For example, following the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Pres.Bush pere created a Commission on Aviation Security & Terrorism. Implementing the recommendations of this Commission, Congress wrote a new law that required the FAA to adopt new security technology. That helped, for it reduced fear. But it was a band-aid. Similarly, following mid-air explosion of TWA Flight 800, which was initially believed to have been the work of terrorists, President Clinton created another commission, which his vice president headed. At the president's request, the Gore Commission made recommendations within 45 days. This study, and a new anti-terrorism law enacted by Congress, helped reduce fears. But the proposed law was almost toothless by the time it reached the president's desk, and the Gore Commission recommendations have been largely ignored.

Following the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in OKC, President Clinton had one of the finest moments of his presidency when he spoke to the family and friends of the 168 killed by the terrorist bomb, and spoke to the nation as well, with heartfelt words. He was a president who felt America's pain, and the nation knew it. It helped, as did the quick arrest of Timothy McVeigh & his accomplices.

… Americans a good reason to be fearful. 18 terrorists breached security at 3 of the country's busiest airports, … . Calling for another commission or study or more new laws is not going to give anyone comfort. Nor will words alone do so. Every American now knows how vulnerable this nation is to terrorism. Many ignored the wake- up call in 1993 when the World Trade Center was first bombed. … fears of future acts are not unfounded.
President Bush must take decisive action quickly. Otherwise trepidation will only fester & grow. Then the terrorists win. So also will the terrorists win if the President, & Congress, overreact. Should Americans lose their freedom either because of fear, or because the govt clamps down too hard on its citizens to prevent further similar, if not more devastating acts, the terrorists would win.

… examples of what has worked, and what has not. From the founding of the nation to the presidency of the current president's father, terrorism has been dealt with swiftly & resolutely by our presidents. … Samuel E. Morison's Oxford History of the American People tells us that Thomas Jefferson, in one of his first acts as President, took a preemptive action to destroy the "Barbary Pirates" based in Tripoli. Rather than let the pirates attack our merchant ships, Jefferson sent the Navy into another nation's harbor to protect American vessels. … established a precedent.
During Reagan presidency, U.S. intelligence learned of Libyan diplomatic communications regarding a bomb that killed 2 people, incl an American soldier and injuring 230 others, in a West Berlin nightclub. President Reagan's reaction was to begin lobbing missiles at Libya, claiming it was self-defense. This action was taken 10 days after the bombing incident.

Following the Gulf War, when Pres. Bush pere expelled Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the former President was invited to Kuwait to be honored. As he traveled there with his wife, former officials of his administration, and a contingent of Secret Service agents, the trip seemed uneventful. The former President was awarded Kuwait's highest honor, spoke to their parliament, visited battle sites and reviewed American troops. But after the visit, it was learned that Kuwait forces had foiled an assassination attempt against the former President, arresting 16 Iraqi & Kuwaiti nationals who had been involved in the plot.
President Clinton dispatched Secret Service, FBI and CIA investigators who confirmed the Iraqi-sponsored plot. The day after receiving the report, 6.26.93, the President ordered warships in the Persian Gulf to fire missiles at the Mukhabarat Iraqi Intelligence Service in downtown Baghdad, because the Mukhabarat was believed to have planned the effort to assassinate former President Bush. The strike was successful.
In 1998, U.S. embassies in Dar es Salanni & Nairobi were bombed, killing 258 people, incl U.S. Ambassador &11 Americans. 14 days later, President Clinton, acting on "the strongest evidence ever obtained in a major terrorist case," attacked Osama bin Laden's forces. U.S. warships fired cruise missiles at bin Laden's Afghan camp & a Sudanese chemical plant.

Each of these actions by Presidents, from Jefferson to Clinton, has generated debate about the legal authority for the actions undertaken. When Presidents have acted without consulting the Congress, or the United Nations, criticism has been particularly harsh. Notwithstanding talk of unity in Washington following this latest terrorist attack, Congressional leaders, reminded the President of their Constitutional authority over war-making. This power of the President has been tested & re-tested by Congress in the years following Vietnam.
As I write this, Congress is discussing actions that would grant the President blanket authority to take such military action as he deems appropriate to deal with the most egregious terrorist attack in American history. In fact, this is political posturing. Congress knows the American people are going to overwhelmingly support the President's actions, so its members are merely positioning themselves to make it appear he is acting with powers they have legally authorized. In fact, the President does not need Congressional authority to respond.

Since Vietnam, many scholars & politicians have taken the position that the President can only make war with the authority of Congress. They claim, accordingly, that the Presidents, from George Washington to Bill Clinton, who have done otherwise have acted illegally. Those who take this view cite Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have the power to declare war, and to raise and support military forces. But, in fact, this clause does not put the Congress in charge of counter-terrorism, which is an Executive function.
In a recent symposium addressing legal responses to international terrorism, reported in the Fall 1999 Houston Journal of International Law, Robert F. Turner, former legal adviser to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an experienced legal scholar & practitioner in the national security area, addressed the President's constitutional powers to respond to terrorism. Professor Turner's analysis is particularly instructive given his 5 years as a national security adviser to the U.S. Senate.

Turner reminds those who question the President's powers to look at Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which vests "the executive Power … in a President of the U.S.." He notes that since John Locke penned his treatises on govt, foreign affairs have been considered an executive function. Turner adds, as well, that this was the interpretation given to Article II by James Madison (speaking as not only a member of the Constitutional Convention but during the first session of the First Congress), George Washington (acting as the first President), and Thomas Jefferson (supporting this conclusion as the first Secretary of State).
Thus, no declaration of war is necessary for the President to act against terrorists. "The right of the President to protect the nation against terrorist threats is constitutional rather than statutory in origin," Turner reports. Accordingly, he notes, this Constitutionally-based power "may not be taken away by a simple statute like the War Powers Resolution, any more than Congress could, by statute, vitiate the pardon power."

Congress does, however, have the power of the purse. While Congress cannot put strings on the money it authorizes, its power to fund is a significant power nonetheless. This power, together with the nature of the undertaking and the need to project a unified front, dictate that "a wise President" will consult with Congress and seek a bipartisan approach. While we don't know how President Bush will respond, consistent with need for secrecy, it appears he is consulting with Congress. As all his predecessors realized, when it gets down to how, when and where to respond, the President can do whatever he feels necessary, whether Congress agrees or disagrees. Article II, Section 1 has vested him with that power.

If the President is free to act from a domestic standpoint, what about from the standpoint of international law? There is a debate in the country as to whether or not international law is binding on the President, dictating what he can & cannot do. Without opening that debate here, suffice it to say that the overwhelming weight of authority says that the U.S. is subject to international law, a reality recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1815, when the case of The Nereide was decided. Under the rules of international law, President Bush cannot unilaterally take retaliatory actions against the terrorists' acts. The use of military force as reprisal or punishment is prohibited.

However, international law does give states the right to respond to armed attacks in self-defense, and to engage in "anticipatory self-defense." As with most areas of law, there is no clear agreement as to what is and is not permissible under these exceptions to the general prohibition against retaliatory force. Traditionally, Presidents both seek to build an international coalition through diplomatic efforts and then seek the authorization of the U. N. Security Council to use force. But as recently as 1998, President Clinton responded to the U.S. embassy bombings is Dar es Salaam & Nairobi by attacking Osama bin Laden's Afghan camp, thus taking unilateral action against this terrorist organization.
Great care, however, was taken to justify the President's actions. President Clinton explained that he had overwhelming evidence (although he refused to say what that evidence was) of bin Laden's role; that bin Laden had been responsible for prior terrorist attacks against the U.S.; that there was "compelling information" he was planning further attacks; and that his organization was seeking to obtain or develop chemical weapons. These facts were provided to establish that the U.S. was undertaking its attack within the bounds of international law, and under the self-defense exceptions.

It must be noted that the more time that passes between the incident and the military response, the less it appears to be self-defense. For this reason, if President Bush has evidence of who is behind the recent attacks on American soil, he will likely respond sooner rather than later. According to the New York Times, once again Osama bin Laden is the leading suspect in Tuesday's attacks. The man, and his compatriots, already stands accused of prior terrorist attacks against the U.S.
  [ Press allegations parroting surreptious propaganda do not constitute legal evidence. ]
For many, that raises a simple question: Why doesn't Bush just "take him out"? … Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, prohibiting the use of force in international affairs, has been viewed as precluding assassinations for political purposes. The U.S. Army's field manual, interpreting applicable international agreements, similarly prohibits "assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy's head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy 'dead or alive.'" It does not, however, "preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere."

During the Nixon administration, the U.S. became a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents. This is one of the few multinational agreements that addresses, and prohibits, assassination of foreign leaders. It is not clear, however, that bin Laden would be protected by this agreement. Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan all issued Executive Orders precluding the use of assassinations, following the revelation of the Senate investigation into activities of prior Presidents. Reagan's Executive Order 12333 states that "[n]o person employed by or acting on behalf of the U.S. Govt shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." That Executive Order was left standing by Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush & Clinton. Thus, it currently remains the law.

Professor Turner … found no legal restraint against "targeting of an individual terrorist or terrorist leader when necessary to neutralize an ongoing series of terrorist attacks, as long as peaceful remedies have been exhausted and alternative strategies would result in a greater loss of human life." More specifically, Turner contends that:

Killing someone like Osama bin Laden, who is engaged in an ongoing campaign of lethal violence against Americans, is an act of self-defense, not an act of murder, and since "assassination" is by definition a form of "murder," that issue is not raised by such a policy. Further, even were this not true, the prohibition against "assassination" in Executive Order 12333 is not a "law," but merely a Presidential pronouncement which may be repealed, modified, or suspended on an ad hoc basis by an incumbent President.

reference tools

§ite map courtesy of FreeFind

presented by §

OCIAL JUSTICE