Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Obama's first hundred days (34 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/86486...

    Judge freezes 9/11 terror trial at Obama's request


    GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- An Army judge on Wednesday ordered a 120-day freeze on the Sept. 11 capital conspiracy trial -- a move sought by President Barack Obama but opposed by accused al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who asked again to plead guilty.

    Army Col. Stephen Henley halted the 9/11 military commission proceedings at midday, after a Pentagon prosecutor argued at the war court created by President George W. Bush that the trials themselves are the prerogative of the new commander in chief.

    In Washington, news reports said that the Obama administration was circulating a draft executive order in which the president would order the closure of the prison camps within the year.

    ''In the name of God I would like to continue with the motion that . . . five of us confess,'' Mohammed said during a brief court appearance that echoed earlier efforts to enter a guilty plea.

    The Pentagon prosecutor had sought military execution in the case of Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators. Mohammed has said more than once that he welcomed martyrdom.

    Now, under the stay sought by the White House on Obama's first day, the new administration will study the war court formula and the individual cases to see whether to continue with the prosecutions.

    In parallel, Obama has pledged to empty the prison camps of the 245 or so war-on-terror detainees here in a bid to restore U.S. standing internationally.

    Obama's plans have been met with fury and frustration by Sept. 11 families whom the Pentagon has escorted to this remote base to observe the proceedings -- the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II.


    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Obama's plans have been met with fury and frustration by Sept. 11 families whom the Pentagon has escorted to this remote base to observe the proceedings -- the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II.

    Pentagon's hand-picked Sept. 11 families.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    exactly.

    I think this is actually good news when viewed in concert with Obama's other initiatives:

    • Declarations on a new policy of openness and transparency in government.

    • Closing Guantanamo.

    • Closing CIA prisons abroad.

    • Stopping harsh interrogation techniques.

    • Imposing strict rules on lobbying and corporate relationships with White House staff.

    • Signing an executive order to reverse policy on government funding associated with women’s reproductive rights.

    • Immediately convening meetings to commence withdrawing troops from Iraq.

    • Redefining the FOIA guidelines for the executive branch – relinquishing the Unitary Executive & Executive Privilege precedents set by the previous administration.

    So far Obama has not given me a reason to NOT support his initiatives. Although, i do fully expect at some point to be disappointed. But, so far so good.

    the question now is whether this new era of 'openness and transparency' will apply to FOIA requests associated with the last 8 years - or if Obama's 'looking ahead' philosophy will seek to limit this approach to his own administration - while continuing to protect the provacy of the previous one.

    but - am i alone in seeing the potential for getting excited here?

    IF IF IF ethics is the cornerstone of this administration - as Obama is bending over backwards to DECLARE - isn't it only a matter of time before some piece of evidence - or a whistleblower - comes forward and creates a policy crisis for this administration where they are forced to either pursue or silence prima facie evidence?

    what IF a REAL 9/11 trial is, by executive order, forced into the light of day - with real evidence demanded? that would be interesting. dontcha' think?

    but of course - with the accused soooo eager to confess - you really have to wonder how that could happen.

    But let me ask an important question:

    Can Obama's new definition of executive privilage and FOIA requests be a new foundation for 9/11 Truth activism? Could we use that as the basis of renewing our petition for accountability? Can we place responsibility -legally - firmly in Obama's court?

    Can we get the victim's families to challenge this administration - legally?

    it seems other 9/11 Truth websites appear VERY eager to discount Obama - and poison this movement against him. but - i wonder if alienating our natural allies is the right move in this situation.

    i for one think we should take Obama at his word - and test it.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. NicholasLevis
    Member

    It would be foolish not to press Obama on absolutely all of these points. For example, don't assume he will block any given disclosure; make the new administration take a stand either way.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    Hmm..

    The Obama Administration and 9/11 Truth: A Fresh Start

    Written by Nicholas Levis

    (fill in the rest)

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. NicholasLevis
    Member

    And note this is the approach the oft-maligned Janice is taking at 911truth.org.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    cautious optimism. i second that approach.

    this is big also:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has issued an executive order that limits the ability of former presidents to block the release of sensitive records of their time in the White House.

    i just hope that someone somewhere organizes a legitimate legal challenge ASAP - before we see a FOIA request coming from Dr James Fetzer, kevin Barrett and Nico Haupt demanding transparency on the all-important 'little green men' issue.

    you KNOW they are going to do it.

    but we do have one ace in the hole (Jon Gold if you are out there listening). Family members. With the right amount of publicity and press coverage a very convincing case could be made.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    Wow, even Kevin from Cryptogon is being positive about the latest from Obama:

    Obama Orders Closure of CIA’s Secret Prisons

    http://cryptogon.com/?p=6397

    Sec. 4. Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

    (a) CIA Detention. The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

    (b) International Committee of the Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals. All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.

    Don’t get me wrong, don’t put words in my mouth, don’t get too happy, BUT, this is a very big deal. This is a substantive, positive development.

    Now, the tendency of people in desperate situations is to think that any positive development means that the crisis is over, nothing more to see here, let’s go buy a new iPod, etc. This is what the Obama Cult is doing now. Obviously, that’s dumb. I must, however, acknowledge substantive positive developments when they occur. Since I expected no substantially positive developments out of the Obama regime at all, this is a welcome development, and after just a couple of days.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. JohnA
    Member

    i'm not sure how the statement: "I expected no substantially positive developments out of the Obama regime at all" is any different from the "Obama cult" mentality. Isn't it just the opposite side of the same coin? Isn't the use of the phrase "regime" demonstrate a bias?

    Aren't both positions (i.e. the Obama cult and the Obama bashers) pre-judging Obama's intentions and effectiveness and accomplishments and motivation and integrity BEFORE he has actually even taken office and taken substantive action?

    Aren't both sides claiming an almost clairvoiyant ability to discern what motivates Obama on a personal level? who is this man? Can any of us really claim to be able to peer into this man's soul and discern what HE wants for America?

    Anyone can cherry pick facts from Obama's affiliations and selective quotes - and patch together a conspiracy theory about what this man's intentions are.

    but - i think all these posts we see seeking to poison people's perception of Obama - effectively demonizing him - are no different than the silly hero worship we see on the other side of the coin.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. christs4sale
    Administrator

    On Day One, Obama Overturns Era of White House Secrecy

    CHICAGO In his first full day in office, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum ordering government agencies to examine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with a bias toward release of the documents -- overturning eight years of a Bush administration directives to find ways not to disclose information.

    "For a long time now there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said. "The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known."

    Obama's "Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" was immediately hailed by open government advocates, including the Sunshine in Government Initiative, an umbrella of media groups including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists.

    "It's wonderful that Priority One on Day One for this administration is transparency and restoring public trust," said Rick Blum, the coalition's coordinator. “Yesterday’s policy of 'When in doubt, leave it out,' today became, 'When it doubt, let it out.' And this policy will help keep the public informed in our technology-driven, connected society. On open government, the dawn is breaking."

    Obama's memorandum orders an administration task force to come up with an "Open Government Directive" within 120 days laying out the specifics of the new marching orders on FOIA.

    It also orders the attorney general to issue new guidelines favoring disclosure. Under the Bush administration, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed agencies to err in favor of non-disclosure -- promising legal backup from the Justice Department.

    Obama also signed an "Executive Order on Presidential Records" that removes many of the barriers to public access to documents of past administrations. "This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends," a White House press release said.

    That's an allusion to the Bush administration's novel interpretation of the Watergate-era law that allowed current and former vice presidents, including George H.W. Bush, to assert executive privilege to bar release of historic documents.

    "Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse," the White House said. "And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution."

    "I will also hold myself, as president, to a new standard of openness," Obama added.

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/artic...

    Executive Order -- Presidential Records

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

    (a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

    (b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.

    (c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

    (d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.

    (e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

    (f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

    (g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

    (h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.

    Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.

    (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

    (b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

    Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.

    (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

    (b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

    (c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

    (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

    Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.

    (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.

    (b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

    Sec. 5. General Provisions.

    (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

    BARACK OBAMA

    THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2009

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executi...

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    Is it my imagination or is Sec. 4 HUGE!

    Posted 15 years ago #
  12. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Aren't both positions (i.e. the Obama cult and the Obama bashers) pre-judging Obama's intentions and effectiveness and accomplishments and motivation and integrity BEFORE he has actually even taken office and taken substantive action?

    Well, yes and no. After two years of constant exposure to the man you can't expect people not to have impressions. It's not like he hasn't gone on the record with his votes, stated beliefs and positions, including announced plans to double the US force in Afghanistan, continue full support for Israel and, well, stay in Iraq for several years more. And it's also not like there isn't a historical baseline from which to judge what any government is going to do, or to construct more or less likely scenarios for how things will develop under this system and in this society.

    One hopes nevertheless for surprises, and for the first time in about 30 years, I can say that for this day I applaud what a US president has done -- and righly expect a lot more nevertheless, as we are far from the basic minimum of either justice or truth.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  13. emanuel
    Member

    I emailed Mike Ruppert about his thoughts on the Obama administration opening any doors to 9/11 truth or justice. I forwarded JohnA's first reply above. Here is his response:

    "It's a stretch beyond belief to think it might happen and totally poor judgment at a time when the survival of the human race is on the line. Obama is wedded to the official story. This is a one-in-a-million shot and be careful what you pray for. Distracting the country, paralyzing government at a time of the gravest emergency. It's sheer stupidity. All we can do is pray that some future window will show itself at a time when I can leave Sustainability and Species Survival aside."

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
  14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    Mike needs to cut down on the absolutist rhetoric. It's been a problem for him the whole time I've known him.

    Gravest emergency? Oh, it can get worse - like if 9/11 is allowed to stand. It's exposure would be a very constructive "distraction" and possibly help shift power balances in just the way we need.

    .

    Meanwhile, for all the hope of the first couple of days, there was the counterpoint of the Predator strikes in Pakistan.

    Guardian says Obama gave go-ahead:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakist...

    [quote][b]President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area[/b] Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Saturday 24 January 2009 Article history

    Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

    Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

    The US believes they are hiding in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and made 30 strikes last year in which more than 200 people were killed. In the election, Obama hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The US marine corp commander said yesterday that his 22,000 troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan. Gen James Conway said "the time is right" to leave Iraq now the war had become largely nation-building rather than the pitched fighting in which the corps excelled; he wanted the marines in Afghanistan, especially in the south where insurgents, and the Taliban and al-Qaida, benefit from both a nearby safe haven in Pakistan and a booming trade in narcotics.

    Obama has warned that he is prepared to bomb inside Pakistan if he gets relevant intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. He had also said he would act against militants along the border if the Pakistan government failed to.

    The US missiles were fired by unmanned Predator drones, which hang in the sky gathering intelligence through surveillance and, when commanded and directed by remote control, to launch attacks.

    The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.

    The first attack yesterday was on the village of Zharki, in Waziristan; three missiles destroyed two houses and killed 10 people. One villager told Reuters of phonethat of nine bodies pulled from the rubble of one house, six were its owner and his relatives; Reuters added that intelligence officials said some foreign militants were also killed. A second attack hours later also in Warizistan killed eight people.

    The Pakistan government publicly expressed hope that the arrival of Obama would see a halt to such strikes, which stir up hostility from Pakistanis towards the government; in private, the government may be more relaxed about such attacks.

    There is a lot of nervousness in the new administration about the fragility of Pakistan, particularly as it has nuclear weapons, but it also sees Afghanistan and Pakistan as being linked. In the face of a Taliban resurgence, there is despair in Washington over the leadership of the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, and there will not be much disappointment if he is replaced in elections later this year.

    But Washington insists on seeing as one of its biggest problems the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida to maintain havens in Pakistan. Obama on Thursday announced he was making veteran diplomat Richard Holbrooke a special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, spoke by phone to the Pakistan president, Asif Ali Zardari.[/quote]

    Please note: [b]I find it very unlikely that Obama wasn't a full cheerleader on these strikes.[/b] But no WH statement has been forthcoming, despite what the Guardian says. A source is only implied: "commanders." The strikes are part of an ongoing covert program involving 30 strikes in the last year and at least 100 civilians killed (according to the Pakistani military). There is also the precedent of Bay of Pigs or Somalia -- Pentagon roping into immediate military involvements a new president who by virtue of being Democratic is considered soft or potentially disloyal. (I know that it sounds ridiculous to you, RI readers, but you're not a Pentagon hardliner are you now?)

    [b]The WH is going to be forced into a statement on this soon, given Pakistan's reaction.[/b]

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...

    [quote][b]Pakistan urges Obama to halt missile attacks[/b]

    By ASIF SHAHZAD – 3 hours ago

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan urged President Barack Obama to halt U.S. missile strikes on al-Qaida strongholds near the Afghan border, saying Saturday that civilians were killed the previous day in the first attacks since Obama's inauguration.

    Pakistani security officials said eight suspected foreign militants, including an Egyptian al-Qaida operative, were among 22 people killed in Friday's twin strikes in the Waziristan region.

    But the Foreign Ministry said that the attacks by unmanned aircraft also killed an unspecified number of civilians and that it had informed U.S. officials of its "great concern."

    "With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," a ministry statement said.

    "We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued," it said.

    Pakistani leaders complain that stepped-up missile strikes — there have been more than 30 since August — fan anti-American sentiment and undermine the government's own efforts to counter Islamist militants.

    [b]But their protests have had few practical consequences, fueling speculation that Islamabad's cash-strapped, pro-U.S. government has given tacit approval in return for political and financial support from Washington. [/b] [b]Obama has not commented on the missile strike policy. [/b] However, he has made the war in Afghanistan and the intertwined al-Qaida fight in Pakistan an immediate foreign policy priority. Few observers expect him to ditch a tactic that U.S. officials say has killed a string of militant leaders behind the insurgency in Afghanistan — [b]and who were perhaps plotting terrorist attacks in the West.[/b][/quote]

    NOTE: Perhaps is good enough to kill them and 100 bystanders. Is that sort of what the New York Police Department was doing with Sean Bell?)

    [quote]Three intelligence officials told The Associated Press that funerals were held Saturday for nine Pakistanis killed Friday in Zharki, a village in the North Waziristan region.

    The officials, citing reports from field agents and residents, said Taliban fighters had earlier removed the bodies of five suspected foreign militants who also died in the first missile strike Friday. Initial reports put the death toll from that attack at 10.

    A senior security official in the capital, Islamabad, identified one of the slain men as a suspected al-Qaida operative called Mustafa al-Misri. He said it was unclear if the man was a significant figure.

    The second strike hit a house in the South Waziristan region. Residents and security officials say eight people died in the village of Gangi Khel.

    [b]Resident Allah Noor Wazir said he attended funerals for the owner of the targeted house, Din Faraz, his three sons and a guest. [/b] "I also heard that three bodies had been taken away by Taliban. They say they belong to foreigners," Wazir told the AP by telephone.

    The security officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

    The United States does not directly acknowledge firing the missiles, which are believed to be mostly fired from drones operated by the CIA and launched from neighboring Afghanistan.

    [b]Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.[/b]*

    While protesting the missile strikes, Pakistan's government on Saturday also welcomed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

    A Foreign Ministry statement Saturday said the move was a step toward "upholding the primacy of the rule of law" and would add a "much-needed moral dimension in dealing with terrorism."

    Pakistan helped the United States round up hundreds of militants in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including several al-Qaida leaders still incarcerated at Guantanamo.

    Associated Press writer Munir Ahmad contributed to this report.[/quote]

      • again, recall Prince Turki interview yesterday giving a tacit imprimatur to US action there by guaranteeing OBL is there.

    My impression of the Pakistani authorities is that they are not at all happy with this situation, or giving any willing "tacit" approval. Normally there'd be a tension between the new civilian govt under Zardari and the military, but if you saw the military spokesman yesterday on CNN, you'd have heard a very clear condemnation of the US action.

    [b]What does China have to say on all this?[/b]

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/25/conte...

    [quote][b]Pak president protests against U.S. missile strikes [/b]

    www.chinaview.cn 2009-01-25 00:17:03

    ISLAMABAD, Jan. 24 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari Saturday protested over U.S. missile strikes on the tribal regions and said that such strikes were counterproductive, according to local press reports.

    [b]The private NNI news agency quoted official sources as saying that Zardari told U.S. ambassador N.W. Patterson that the drone attacks could affect the war on terror.

    Zardari made it clear to the U.S. envoy that only Pakistani security forces had the right to act against the militants, according to the report. [/b]

    He hoped that the new U.S. administration would stop missile strikes on the tribal regions, adding that the Pakistani democratic government was under tremendous pressure due to the issue, it said.

    [b]The Pakistani parliament has adopted a unanimous resolution which clearly says that any U.S. and NATO attacks would be considered as attack on the country's sovereignty.[/b]

    [b]Zardari was quoted as saying that the Pakistani government is holding dialogue with those militants who give up weapons and accept the writ of the government, saying that multi-pronged policies have proved fruitful in the tribal regions. [/b]

    Meanwhile, in a brief story, the official APP news agency only reported that the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan had a luncheon meeting with Zardari here Saturday and current regional situation and bilateral issues came under discussion.

    Around 20 people were killed Friday in two separate missile strikes from drones in South and North Waziristan of Pakistan.

    The strikes were the first since U.S. President Barack Obama took office and came one day after he appointed a veteran diplomat as his special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistani

    Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has sent out an invitation to the newly-appointed special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke to visit Pakistan.

    Editor: Yan[/quote]

    The fact that a butcher like Holbrooke's been sent to this region indicates that it's a hot spot and priority. (Otherwise a defuser-type like Mitchell would have been sent.)

    .

    Posted 15 years ago #
  15. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Tried to fix formatting, but the edit period really is too short hereabouts!

    Posted 15 years ago #
  16. truthmover
    Administrator

    Formatting problem fixed. It's caused by indents.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  17. truthmover
    Administrator

    I think Ruppert is correct. I think it's an absolute waste of time lobbying Obama to address 9/11 truth.

    "Change.Gov's First Big Failure"

    Robert Gibbs, Obama's chief spokesman and a seasoned press operative, knows how to maneuver around prickly issues. So when the most popular question on Change.gov asked whether Obama would appoint a special prosecutor to "independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping"--besting 76,000 other questions submitted in recent weeks by citizens--Gibbs simply ignored it. Instead, he recorded a YouTube video tackling other popular questions. Then Obama aides posted a note on January 9 inaccurately categorizing the special prosecutor question as "previously answered." That gambit was the first obvious failure at Change.gov, Obama's admirable attempt to create a portal for more open and transparent government.

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/397...

    Posted 15 years ago #
  18. Victronix
    Member

    4th man pleads guilty to Election Day attacks targeting blacks CNN - 1 hour ago NEW YORK (CNN) -- A fourth Staten Island man pleaded guilty Monday to charges stemming from three assaults targeting African-Americans in the hours after Barack Obama was declared the winner in the November presidential election, authorities said. . . . According to the indictment, the four "knowingly and intentionally" conspired to intimidate African-Americans for exercising their right to vote. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/02/election.night...

    7 East Bay teens arrested - hate crime alleged Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, February 2, 2009 One minute he was hanging out with seven seemingly friendly guys in a park, the next he said he was on the ground, the blows coming from all sides, a fist or foot landing hard enough to fracture six bones in his face. But it was the words accompanying the blows that made Manning, 24, think he was about to die. "Coon." And then, "How do you like this, you f-ing n-?" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2...

    This kind of stuff is partly why the over-the-top attacks on Obama strike me as having other motives, whether some people realize it or not.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  19. NicholasLevis
    Member

    "I think it's an absolute waste of time lobbying Obama to address 9/11 truth."

    I think it's a waste of time lobbying him to pursue any policy whatsoever that isn't already consensus within his administration. Unless you've got a few million to start up your lobbying campaign.

    Do you also think it's a waste of time getting 2 million people back on the street in DC, this time for social justice and an end to the wars? Because, unlikely as it seems to organize such a thing in this country at this time, I think that if that happened, it would (begin) to make a big difference.

    It's the same with 9/11 truth. A break would come from the pressure of new revelations and public demand -- not from asking nicely, though the suspended change.gov vote is a small positive. And the break may come from a prosecutor, in which case what it would need from a president is ... not to get in the way.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  20. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Or to be simple about it:

    Do you think of Martin Luther King as a lobbyist?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  21. JohnA
    Member

    i would settle for the Obama administration simply not BLOCKING grassroots activism.

    in case you haven't noticed there has been a coordinated campaign to block and disrupt grassroots activism - not just in the 9/11 Truth movement - but in the environmental truth and antiwar movements. even jounalists have been subject to illegal wiretapping and fear tactics.

    we have documented cases of infiltration and disruption. FOIA requests by the ACLU have been stonewalled and blocked. peace activists have been labeled as 'terrorists' in government databases. law enforcement agents have attended grassroots meetings posing as disruptors and informers.

    these things we know.

    do i expect the Obama administration to open a top-level investigation into 9/11? of course not.

    but- i would settle for a shift in philosophy and approach among law enforcement to 'back off' and honor the 1st amendment and let the people lobby and petition and speak freely for these issues.

    once the atmosophere of fear is somewhat alleviated, and retaliation appears to have stopped, i think we have a fair chance of some real revelations coming out about the last 8 years.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  22. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/03/...

    Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending. True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $527 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan). That is more than the U.S. allocated for defense in 2009 and equals what the Bush administration budgeted for 2010:

    The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said Monday.

    If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  23. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ACLU_Hope_flickering...

    After Obama praises torture ruling, civil liberties group appalled

    The American Civil Liberties Union, which has generally been harshly critical of President George W. Bush and praiseworthy of President Barack Obama, has fired a torpedo across the Obama bow.

    "Hope is flickering," Romero said in a statement. "The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."

    Posted 15 years ago #
  24. JohnA
    Member

    the 'looking forward - not back' policy is going to create a political crisis for this president - because the problem is not going to go away.

    i hope people keep hammering him on the issue - and not just let it slide.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  25. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Is it obvious enough yet that regardless of how status-quo Obama may be, there will always be enormous pressure on him from the right, with media echo, to move ever more to the right and commit ever greater barbarism?

    Just in the last couple of days:

    • Cheney promises big horrible attacks coming, because Obama closed Gitmo.

    • Right wing picks up as gospel Saudi report that "14 former Guantanamo detainees" are now back in "al-Qaeda," as though this justifies Guantanamo, Bush torture and detention policy etc. (Plus: It's the Bush regime who let these supposed evildoers out, gets to blame Obama anyway.)

    • The following, with a simultaneous total black out on the Jersey widows' statement praising the closure of Guantanamo:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052009/news/politics...

    OBAMA INVITES 9/11 KIN TO WHITE HOUSE

    By CARL CAMPANILE

    Last updated: 4:58 pm February 5, 2009 Posted: 12:52 pm February 5, 2009

    President Obama - under fire for suspending trials of suspected terrorists and phasing out Guantanamo military prison in Cuba - has invited family members of victims killed on 9/11 to the White House for a meeting tomorrow.

    The White House sit down is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room.

    Attendees told The Post they will urge Obama to swiftly prosecute the terrorists responsible for the evil 9/11 slaughter.

    Relatives said they will grill the new president over his controversial plans to close Gitmo and temporarily suspend the trials against Gitmo detainees - including those who bragged of plotting to blow up the World Trade Center.

    Retired Deputy Fire Chief Jim Riches - whose firefighter son Jimmy died at Ground Zero - was ticked off when Obama ordered those actions. Riches last month visited Gitmo and attended the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other alleged 9/11 plotters, who stood up and admitted their guilt.

    "We saw these people face to face. I want to tell the president what happened at Gitmo. That these detainees were laughing about what they did. I wish these trials were on TV. Americans would be outraged."

    "I don't want what happened to my son happen to anyone else," Riches said.

    Riches said he was pleased that the White House agreed to meet 9/11 families and hopes the president shows up at the meeting. It was unclear if he would personally attend the staff meeting.

    Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles, was the pilot of hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon, said she was eager to hear from the new commander-in-chief.

    "I'm hoping it's a substantative meeting," she said.

    --~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.