Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Friday, 23 November 2007
CIA - ran off of campus at University of California
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Waterboarding-Demo & clowns put a halt to CIA recruiters

CIA Expelled from UCSB Campus
by Richard McChesney Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2007 at 9:46 PM 

Antiwar activists from the University of California, Santa Barbara and the surrounding community kicked CIA recruiters off of their campus today in a nonviolent direct action.

 The CIA was scheduled to hold an “infosession” for students interested in jobs with the agency. Right as the session began, four activists entered the room and began to demonstrate waterboarding, a torture technique used by the CIA. After only one minute of the waterboarding demonstration the room was plunged into chaos by a group calling itself the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army. The Rebel Clowns, joined by several dozen antiwar organizers took over the meeting room and began passing out information on the CIA’s use of illegal torture techniques and literature related to the agency’s long history of subverting foreign governments, assassinating foreign leaders and subverting democracy.  
 The CIA agents fled the room but were pursued by a crowd of protestors chanting, “C-I-A, Go Away!” The agents were caught totally off-guard by the direct action. Protestors were overheard shouting to the escaping agents never to come back to UCSB.

Student protesters dressed as clowns follow a CIA representative from the UCen conference room to his car near Pardall Tunnel on Wednesday evening. The group interrupted the event to perform imaginary torture methods in order to deter recruitment at UCSB.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:02 PM PST
The Right To Bear Arms
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: The proof is in the pudding ... Joe Citizen does have the right to have a gun





November 23, 2007; Page A13

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right "to keep and bear arms" of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right -- that all Americans enjoy -- or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.

The amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose -- that of ensuring an efficient or "well regulated" militia -- it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia -- that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.

To analyze what "the right of the people" means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right.

The Fourth Amendment says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . " The "people" here does not refer to a collectivity, either.

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Here, "the people" are separate from "the states"; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a "state" militia when it uses the term "the people."

Consider the grammar. The Second Amendment is about the right to "keep and bear arms." Before the conjunction "and" there is a right to "keep," meaning to possess. This word would be superfluous if the Second Amendment were only about bearing arms as part of the state militia. Reading these words to restrict the right to possess arms strains common rules of composition.

Colonial history and politics are also instructive. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to provide a political compromise between the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government as an inherent danger to individual rights. In June 1789, then Rep. Madison introduced 12 amendments, a "bill of rights," to the Constitution to convince the remaining two of the original 13 colonies to ratify the document.

Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights. As a result, Madison proposed a bill of rights that reflected, as Stanford University historian Jack Rakove notes, his belief that the "greatest dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted national government." Accordingly, Mr. Rakove writes that "Madison justified all of these proposals (Bill of Rights) in terms of the protection they would extend to individual and minority rights."

One of the earliest scholars of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, confirmed this focus on individuals in his famous "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms," Story wrote, "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of republics, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers . . ."

It is also important to consider the social context at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers lived in an era where there were arms in virtually every household. Most of America was rural or, even more accurately, frontier. The idea that in the 1780s the common man, living in the remote woods of the Allegheny Mountains of western Pennsylvania and Virginia, would depend on the indulgence of his individual state or colony -- not to mention the new federal government -- to possess and use arms in order to defend himself is ludicrous. From the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington to the irregulars at Yorktown, members of the militias marched into battle with privately-owned weapons.

Lastly, consider the empirical arguments. The three D.C. ordinances at issue are of the broadest possible nature. According to the statute, a person is not legally able to own a handgun in D.C. at all and may have a long-gun -- even in one's home -- only if it is kept unloaded and disassembled (or bound with a trigger lock). The statute was passed in 1976. What have been the results?

Illegal guns continue to be widely available in the district; criminals have easy access to guns while law-abiding citizens do not. Cathy L. Lanier, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, was quoted as follows: "Last year [2006], more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13% increase over 2005." Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

This comports with my own personal experience. In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor's Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence (or lack of same), and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.

Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation's capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Cox is the attorney general of Michigan.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:09 AM PST
Updated: Friday, 23 November 2007 11:10 AM PST
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Thanksgiving - Blackwater - Fly on the wall
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: A mother Jones Thanksgiving wish

The Brothers Krongard: Buzzy 'Blown Over,' Calls Cookie Out


State Department IG Howard "Cookie" Krongard's testimony before Waxman's committee earlier this week is becoming the gift that keeps on giving. At the hearing, Krongard stood accused of many improprieties, among them that he'd interfered in a State Department investigation of Blackwater (one being run out of his own office), perhaps due to a conflict of interest: Krongard's brother Buzzy sits on Blackwater's board of advisors.

Shortly after being sworn in at Wednesday's hearing, Krongard flatly denied his brother's connections to Blackwater, even after Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) presented documentary evidence to the contrary—two letters from Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince to Buzzy, one inviting him to join the board and the other thanking him for doing so. During a break in the hearing, Krongard called Buzzy, who admitted that he indeed was a member of Blackwater's advisory board and had, in fact, just returned from his first board meeting. After returning to the witness table, Krongard admitted as much to Waxman's committee and recused himself from involvement in any further matters related to Blackwater.

End of story? Not quite. Later that day, TPMMuckraker's Spencer Ackerman called Buzzy Krongard at home. He said that he'd told his brother Cookie of his decision to join Blackwater's board in early October. So, did Krongard knowingly lie to the committee under oath? If so, who was he trying to protect? Hopefully not his brother Buzzy, who has been very quick to sell him out. Just reference this latest missive from Waxman:

On November 15, I sent a letter to Buzzy Krongard requesting an interview and documents relating to his communications with Howard Krongard about Blackwater. After receiving the letter, Buzzy Krongard called Committee staff and provided information that differed significantly from Howard Krongard’s testimony.
Buzzy Krongard stated that Howard Krongard called him specifically to ask about any relationship he had with Blackwater “in preparation for his testimony” to the Committee. Buzzy Krongard stated: “He asked me whether I had any financial interest or any ties to Blackwater, and so I told him ‘I’m going on their Board.’” According to Buzzy Krongard, “He responded by saying, ‘Why would you do that?’ and ‘Are you sure that’s a good idea?’” Buzzy Krongard then said, “I told him that was my decision, not his, and that we just differed on that.”
Buzzy Krongard stated that during the Committee hearing, he was at home watching it live. He listened to Howard Krongard’s prepared opening statement. Then, he heard Howard Krongard offer spontaneously the comment that his brother had no connection to Blackwater. Buzzy Krongard said: “You could have blown me over.” During the hearing, he attempted to reach Howard Krongard by telephone. Before he could reach him, Buzzy Krongard received a call from Howard Krongard and explained again that he was a member of the Board.
These discrepancies between the testimony of Howard Krongard and the information from Buzzy Krongard raise questions about the truthfulness of Howard Krongard’s testimony. During the hearing, there were a number of other discrepancies between Howard Krongard’s testimony and what the Justice Department and senior officials in the Inspector General’s office told the Committee. This is a serious matter given Howard Krongard’s position as the Inspector General of the State Department. I expect the Committee to hold a hearing during the week of December 3, 2007, to provide members the opportunity to assess whether the Inspector General provided truthful testimony to the Committee.

Wish I could be a fly on the wall at the Krongard family's Thanksgiving.


Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:01 AM PST
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Contractors Keep Killing - which is ... nothing new!
Mood:  d'oh
Now Playing: More deaths from out-of-control US invasion (contractors)
Topic: WAR

Iraq warns foreign


security firms


after shooting


By Mariam Karouny and Waleed Ibrahim


BAGHDAD, Nov 20 (Reuters) - Iraq's government turned up the heat on private security firms on Tuesday, threatening to deal firmly with those that act outside the law and opening an investigation into the shooting of a woman in central Baghdad.

Monday's shooting was the latest in a string of incidents that have triggered widespread anger and prompted the Iraqi government to propose a change to the laws under which foreign security contractors operate.

The U.S. military said those responsible for the shooting on Monday could be charged under Iraqi law because the company involved, Dubai-based ALMCO, is a logistics contractor for food supply, construction and training, rather than a security firm.

Contacted in Dubai, ALMCO declined comment on the incident.

"We demand that all security companies obey the law and orders released by the Iraqi government, otherwise the security forces will be obliged to deal firmly with these companies," Baghdad security spokesman Brigadier-General Qassim Moussawi told a news conference.

Moussawi said Iraqi officials would try to bring charges against those responsible for seriously wounding the woman.

"There was a violation of Iraqi law," he said. "They were driving on the wrong side of the road, there was a random shooting and they hit a woman in her legs."

An investigation has been launched into the incident, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement.

Statements from the firm's employees, taken in front of a civil judge, "revealed attempted murder of Iraqi civilians and other violations", Dabbagh said. "The Iraqi government will release those not found guilty in the Karrada incident once the investigation is concluded."

Moussawi and government officials identified 43 people detained at an Iraqi checkpoint after the shooting as including 21 Sri Lankans, nine Nepalis and one Indian.

There were 12 guards -- 10 Iraqis and two Fijians -- with the convoy of four vehicles, they said.


A September shooting involving Blackwater, a private U.S. firm, in which 17 Iraqis were killed, prompted the Iraqi government to approve a draft law to end a 2004 decree by former U.S. administrators giving security firms immunity from prosecution.

That draft law must still be passed by parliament.

The U.S. military said ALMCO was contracted by the U.S. Department of Defense and provided its own security.

Many Iraqis regard foreign security firms as little more than private armies which act with impunity.

Blackwater says it acted lawfully in the September shooting but the incident sparked a flurry of investigations and strained relations between Washington and Iraq.

Also on Tuesday, Iran said it had agreed to hold talks with the United States on Iraq's security in the "near future".

Another meeting between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad would be the fourth time since May that the long-time foes have sat down to discuss Iraq.

The two countries have traded blame for Iraq's violence and Tehran has denied Washington's charges that it has armed, funded and supported Shi'ite militias.

With tensions appearing to ebb slightly, Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said Iran had accepted a U.S. request, routed through the Swiss embassy in Tehran, for a new round of talks. Iraq's government said no date had been set. (Additional reporting by Alaa Shahine, Tehran bureau; Writing by Paul Tait and Missy Ryan, Editing by Dean Yates)

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:56 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 20 November 2007 1:26 PM PST
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Black Fucking Water
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: OUT OF CONTROL "Blackwater USA" update


Blackwater Killings Unjustified

Report Says That FBI Finds 14 of the 17 Blackwater Shootings in Iraq Were Unjustified


The Associated Press



Blackwater Worldwide supports "stringent accountability" for any wrongdoing, a spokeswoman says following a report saying federal investigators found that the shooting deaths of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by its guards violated rules of deadly force.

The New York Times cited unidentified civilian and military officials in reporting for Wednesday's editions that the killings of at least 14 of the 17 Iraqi civilians shot by Blackwater personnel guarding a U.S. Embassy convoy were found to have been unjustified and violated standards in place governing the use of deadly force.

Responding to the Times report, Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said the company "supports the stringent accountability of the industry. If it is determined that one person was complicit in the wrongdoing, we would support accountability in that. The key people in this have not spoken with investigators."

She added that the company will withhold further comment "until the findings are made available."

A government official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Tuesday night that no final conclusions have been reached about any of the fatalities. A State Department official said he was not aware that the department had been informed of any findings. Both requested anonymity because the investigation is still under way.

The Times said the Justice Department is already reviewing the findings even though the FBI is still investigating the Sept. 16 shootings.

No evidence supports assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians, but the FBI has concluded that three of the deaths may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force in response to an imminent threat, the paper reported.

"Without a doubt, the teams were faced with deadly force that day," the Blackwater spokeswoman said.

Investigators have concluded that as many as five of the company's guards opened fire during the shootings, the newspaper reported. One guard has become the focus of the investigation, the Times reported, because that guard was responsible for several deaths.

The shootings took place in Baghdad's Nisoor Square. Blackwater contends that its convoy was attacked before it opened fire, but the Iraqi government's investigation concluded that the shootings were unprovoked.

State Department officials have said it has offered limited immunity to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq. They disagreed with law enforcement officials that such actions could jeopardize prosecutions in the Sept. 16 incident.

Rep. David E. Price, D-N.,C., has sponsored legislation to apply U.S. criminal law to contractors serving overseas and called for the Justice Department to hold someone accountable for the shootings.

"We've always supported any productive moves toward accountability, including Congressman Price's bill," said Tyrrell, the Blackwater spokeswoman.

Paul Cox, a spokesman for Price, said late Tuesday that "we don't have any independent verification of this. I don't have any access to the report." But he said if the FBI concludes there was criminal wrongdoing, "just because there are deficiencies in the law, and Congressman Price is trying to rectify that, that's no excuse not to prosecute."

"For him, it just underscores that the administration should work with Congress in trying to pass this bill," added Cox.


Associated Press writers Tom Foreman Jr. in Raleigh, N.C., and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.



Posted by Joe Anybody at 3:05 PM PST
Friday, 9 November 2007
Dear Dennis Kucinich I support Impeachment letter
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: I support Res.H.799, so I wrote Congressman Kucinich

Hello Dennis (Sir)I live in Portland OregonI just signed up for your newsletter ;-) 

…… PS ….. (“You got my vote”) 

I heard your Interview on Thom Hartmann (Air America Radio) yesterday (I recorded it and put it on my website)I watched CNN of your Resolution in Congress which I also copied onto my website to share -- > http://www.joe-anybody.com/id100.html I admire good judgment and insight and I want you to know I do support you, and am very proud of your ethics and tenacity for honest government. 

I have been “video taping” as an “independent journalist” for 16 weeks the, weekly protests outside Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s office, in Portland Oregon.There is about 2 dozen of us (a few times as many as 50 people) who are willing to stand outside there and rally for Honest Government every Thursday at high noonWe have had zero luck with Earl, in fact its like pulling teeth to get him to even discuss it.  

Here is my website link to my Impeachment Video’s that mostly are hosted on Google & YouTube from this weekly vigil since July 07http://www.joe-anybody.com/id96.html 

Every Thursday at noon, I skip my lunch and go film these concerned citizens as we stand as Individuals who are restlessly petitioning our congressman for justice and honest leadership. 

One video I made (link is below) was when a small group protested when Earl & Nancy had a Global Warming (corporate press only) discussion at the Convention Center in Portland That link is here. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7869474360244231172

The man who stands up (from the sit in, wearing a red/orange shirt) and addresses the security is going by the nickname “The Lone Vet” he is an aspiring, brave, loving man. Who’s real name is Joe Walsh. It is inspiring to see citizens fight for justice and Integrity in these overwhelming times at hand, when so many engage in apathy or are so  preoccupied, when in reality they are doing nothing, to help make positive honest changes, that are rightly deserving and guaranteed in our constitution.

I wanted you to know what we are doing out here (in the west)We are the “grassroots movement you spoke of” We are doing our part …. We call on our Congress to do theirs

And you are doing just that…… Thank you for your respect of the constitution and the ethics of doing what is right rather than ignoring this or allowing it to go unaddressed 

We all talk very highly of you

Thank You for working for Peace and Justice 

Please let my name go on the record to the Judiciary Committee that I want and demand impeachment hearings I support H.Res.799 I film under the name Joe Anybody (Because I am just an average Joe Anybody)

But my real name is Ben Waiting, I am a single dad with two older kids and one still at home (He is 14 and knows about neo-cons, Ralph Nader, the Constitution, and Impeachment)I am concerned for my children and their kids future, your stance on this issue (and many others) gives me hope for them and what I want for our country and the world

For that is why for the past 5 months we stand at Earls Office, (a few times we went inside) (ok more than a few times) and urge him to endorse impeachment J

 If you get a chance to see any of my videos drop me a quick hello if you can …… I would like you to give a few of the videos of our rally’s a glance over (I understand if you are unable to)

Fele free to use any of them or embed them into any web format of yours, if you need to show what America is screaming about, right-along-side of you! 

In Solidarity www.Joe-Anybody.com

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:00 AM PST
Updated: Friday, 9 November 2007 1:08 AM PST
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
CIA RENDITITION - a smoking gun - Nov 6 2007
Mood:  surprised
Now Playing: Smoking Gun - The USA - TORTURE

Hello Z3 Readers, from the link below I read this information on the USA  use of TORTURE



ABC News: The Blotter

CIA Rendition: The Smoking Gun Cable

November 06, 2007 2:33 PM

By Stephen Grey

Ciarenditiont_mn Sometimes the music was American rap, sometimes Arab folk songs. In the CIA prison in Afghanistan, it came blaring through the speakers 24 hours a day. Prisoners held alone inside barbed-wire cages could only speak to each other and exchange their news when the music stopped: if the tape was changed or the generators broke down.

In one such six-foot-by-10-foot cell in February 2004, equipped with a low mattress and a bucket as a toilet, sat a man in shackles named Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, the former al Qaeda camp commander described by former CIA director George Tenet in his autobiography last year as "the highest ranking al-Qa'ida member in U.S. custody" just after 9/11.

In this secret facility known to prisoners as "The Hangar" and believed to be at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, al Libi told fellow "ghost prisoners," one recalled to me for a PBS "Frontline" to be broadcast tonight, an incredible story of his treatment over the previous two years: of how questioned at first by Americans, by the FBI and then CIA, of how he was threatened with torture. And then how he was rendered to a jail cell in Egypt where the threats became a reality.

In his book, officially cleared for publication, Tenet confirms how the CIA outsourced al Libi's interrogation. He said he was sent to a third country (inadvertently named in another part of the book as Egypt) for "further debriefing."

The Bush administration has said that terrorists are trained to invent tales of torture.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Yet, on this occasion, the CIA believed al Libi's tales of torture -- an account that has proved to be one of the most serious indictments of the agency's practice of extraordinary rendition: sending suspected Islamic terrorists into the hands of foreign jailers without legal process.

In a CIA sub-station close to al Libi's jail cell, the CIA's "debriefers," who had been talking to al Libi for days after his return from Cairo, were typing out a series of operational cables to be sent Feb. 4 and Feb. 5 to the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. In the view of some insiders, these cables provide the "smoking gun" on the whole rendition program -- a convincing account of how the rendition program was, they say, illegally sending prisoners into the hands of torturers.

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. ("I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.")

But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a "foreign government service" (Egypt) that: "the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq...This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story."

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then "placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches]."  He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to "tell the truth." When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that "he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back." Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then "was punched for 15 minutes." (Sourced to CIA cable, Feb. 5, 2004).

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

Although there have been claims about torture inflicted on those rendered by the CIA to countries like Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Uzbekistan, this is the first clear example of such torture detailed in an official government document.

The information came almost one year before the president and other administration members first began to confirm the existence of the CIA rendition program, assuring the nation that "torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture." (New York Times, Jan. 28, 2005)

Last September, these red-hot CIA cables were declassified and published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but in, a welter of other news, one of the most important documents in the history of rendition had passed almost without notice by the media. As far as I can tell, not a single newspaper reported details of the cable. (Senate Intelligence Committee, page 81, paragraph 2)

A spokesman of the intelligence committee told me last month: "We were not able to establish definitively who was told about the cable or its contents or who read it." Other members of Congress may soon be taking up this story to find out just who at the White House was told about the cable.

Meanwhile, al Libi, who told fellow prisoners in Bagram he was returned to U.S. custody from Egypt on Nov. 22, 2003, has disappeared. He was not among the "high-value prisoners" transferred to Guantanamo last year.

*Stephen Grey is the reporter for a documentary "Extraordinary Rendition" broadcast on PBS on Tuesday Nov. 6. He is the author of "Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA's Rendition and Torture Program" (St Martin's Press). He is an award-winning investigative reporter who has contributed to the New York Times, BBC, PBS and ABC News among others.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:02 PM PST
Monday, 5 November 2007
Farm Bill is really helping the rich - Contact Congress Today
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: FARM BILL - TAKE ACTION my fellow Z3 READERS

The 2007 Farm Bill provides a powerful opportunity to reduce poverty at home and abroad. The Farm Bill passed by the House of Representatives, however well intentioned, maintains an unfair system of harmful commodity subsidies.

Zebra 3 Readers.... 


Don't let the Senate play trick or treat with the Farm Bill

The Senate is playing trick or treat with the Farm Bill.

The Senate's trick: claiming the Farm Bill is good for everyone when in truth it hurts poor farmers here and abroad. And who gets a treat from the Senate? Millionaire farmers who receive unfair subsidies.

This is our last chance to enact real reform, but the Senate won’t listen unless thousands of people take action. Poor farmers are counting on you!

The Senate bill being considered, like the House version that passed, favors a relatively small number of producers at the expense of most farmers and rural communities, and it falls short of meeting its obligations to families that depend on food stamps and to conservation programs that protect rivers and streams. To make things worse, the Farm Bill would actually hurt poor farmers in developing countries—if we don't take action to fix it.

Please contact your senators and ask them to insist that the Farm Bill that comes to a vote in the Senate reduces trade-distorting subsidies and uses the savings to support programs that provide public benefits such as nutrition, conservation, and rural development. The Farm Bill only comes up once every five years, so it is critical that you take action today.



These subsidies undercut farmers and rural economies at home and abroad. Only one-quarter of American farmers receive commodity subsidies. Of these, the largest 10 percent of producers receive 75 percent of all payments. Contrary to the notion that subsidies help promote economic growth in rural America, the counties that receive the most commodity subsidies have seen job gains below the national average. Moreover, the commodity subsidies that our taxpayer dollars support lead to excess production, reducing world market prices, undermining the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world.

Your leadership can bring about change. As a voting constituent, I urge you to:

1. Vote yes on the Lugar-Lautenberg Farm Ranch Equity Stewardship and Health (FRESH) Amendment. The FRESH Amendment will provide a more effective safety net for all farmers regardless of what they grow or where they farm. The amendment reinvests $16 billion in savings over five years into several programs: $1.5 billion will go to new support for specialty crop farmers; $2.0 billion will go to improve diet and health; $6.2 billion will go to invest in popular conservation programs; $4.3 billion will go to help more hungry Americans; $3.0 billion will go to reduce the federal deficit; and $1.6 billion will go to support investments in renewable energy. The amendment will also bring our farm policy into compliance with international trade rules-removing the threat of real threat of retaliation.

2. Vote yes on the Grassley-Dorgan Payment Limits Amendment. The Grassley-Dorgan Payment Limits Amendment will place a real limit on the amount of money any one entity can receive, and it will close loopholes that allow some producers to evade limits altogether. This amendment will level the playing field for family farms and rural communities by producing budget savings that can be reinvested into programs?such as nutrition, conservation, and rural development-that deliver enhanced social benefits.

3. Provide mandatory funding for all programs, including $15 million for the 2501 Outreach and Education Program to match H.R. 2419. Mandatory funding will allow this program to help address inequities faced by farmers of color here at home.

4. Vote yes on amendments that would reduce cotton subsidies that hurt poor farmers around the world. Cotton subsidies maintained by the Agriculture Committee are especially troubling, with just 12,000 farms receiving up to three billion dollars in subsidies annually. These subsidies have a devastating effect on poor cotton farmers around the world. Failure to reform these trade-distorting subsidies will mean that those who don't need subsidies in the US continue to benefit at the taxpayers' expense while those who need the most help -the 10 million people in West Africa for whom cotton is their only source of income - suffer more. Cotton is often the only source of cash income for these families, most of them living on less than $1 a day.  Reforming U.S. cotton subsidies would increase world cotton prices, resulting in added income that could feed an additional million children for a year who live in extremely poor West African cotton growing households.

Commodity subsidies hurt family farmers and cheat taxpayers. The Senate can succeed where the House of Representatives failed by making the Farm Bill fair.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:48 PM PST
Sunday, 4 November 2007
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: High School Kids make ststement - need support from alies
Scores of H.S. Students Face Expulsion Following Antiwar Sit-In
Over 30 anti-war protesters at Morton West High School in Berwyn face expulsion for a demonstration at the school on Thursday.
Scores of Students Face Expulsion Due to Sit-in
Berwyn, IL

Over 70 students participated in a sit-in against the Iraq War on All Saint's Day, Thursday, November 1st. It began third hour when dozens of student gathered quietly in the lunchroom at Morton West High School and refused to leave. Administrators and police became involved immediately and locked down the school for a half hour after class ended. Students report that they were promised that there would be no consequences besides cutting classes if they took their protest outside so as not to disturb the school day. The students agreed and were led to a corner outside the cafeteria where they sang songs and held signs while classes resumed. "At first they tried to make us like leave the school, " said Jerry Petrack, who was with the protest from the beginning. Petracek refers to the massive walk-out for immigrant rights in 2006 as a guide for their actions. (chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/71540/index.php) "They were like march the streets or whatever and we were like no we don't wanna leave the school because last time there was a protest outside the school and kids got arrested and we remembered that."

Despite the caution tape and a police line set up between the protestors and the student body, many other students joined the demonstration. Organizers say they chose November first because it is the Christian All Saints holy day and a national day of peace. They wrote a letter and delivered it to Superintendent, Dr. Ben Nowakowski who was present at the time, stating the reason for their protest.

John Acevedo, a junior says he has been thinking about the world since he was a freshman. " I've noticed that there are many students that do not really notice anything that is going on in the world. They focus on themselves or their music and I really wanted to show and lead them on to these ideas that what really is happening in the world."

Adam Swarek says that a lot of people thought they just wanted to cut classes. "It was a lot more spiritual than that." "Bascially, you know the school has people in military uniforms that you know stand out there and they give away prizes for doing pull-ups and doing this and that and what they're basically representing and trying to put out there is murder and killing. That's all that basically represents when it comes down to war, you know. Like, what else is there?
So we were just trying to do something opposite, like peaceful and they took it as insubordinant."

Deans, counselors and even the Superintendent tried to change the minds of a few, mainly those students with higher GPA scores to abandon the protest. The school called the homes of many of the protestors. Those whose parents arrived before the end of school and took their students home, or left before the protest ended at the final bell, received 3-5 days suspension. All others, an estimated 37 received 10 days suspension and expulsion papers. Parents report that Nowakowski stated those who are seventeen will also face police charges.

Parents who are frantically trying to spare their child's expulsion flooded the school yesterday to file appeals on the matter. So far, Superintendent Nowakowski has held firm on the punishments. They are expected to find out the results of the appeals on Tuesday. Parents and students report and the school's videotape shown to some of the parents confirms that the students were non-violent in their action and there was no damage to property.

The protest came on the heels of a recent incident on October 15th, when a student reported hearing that another student had a gun on campus. The story of the eyewitness was deemed unreliable and the school was not locked down. Later that week (October 19), the Berwyn police, acting on a tip arrested one of the youths originally questioned for gun possession and he allegedly confessed to carrying an unloaded semi-automatic handgun that day. All these issues, plus the expected announcement of whether uniforms will be established in the school should make the next Board of Education meeting on Wednesday at 7:00pm at the Morton East campus very well-attended.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 6:33 PM PDT
Friday, 2 November 2007
TSA cheats and fixes their own screening - Security my ass!
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: CAN YOU SAY "scammed - lied to - cheating - phoney TSA"


 TSA cought cheating

on their own screening checks 

= "SCAM on us Americans"

Official sends e-mail detailing tests;

agency's inspector general investigates

WASHINGTON - The Transportation Security Administration touts its programs to ensure security by using undercover operatives to test its airport screeners. In one instance, however, the agency thwarted such a test by alerting screeners across the country that it was under way, even providing descriptions of the undercover agents.

The government routinely runs covert tests at airports to ensure that security measures in place are sufficient to stop a terrorist from bringing something dangerous onto an airplane. Alerting screeners when the undercover officer is coming through and what the person looks like would defeat the purpose.

But that’s exactly what happened on April 28, 2006, according to an e-mail from a top TSA official who oversees security operations.

In an e-mail to more than a dozen recipients, including airport security staff, the TSA official warned that “several airport authorities and airport police departments have recently received informal notice” of security testing being carried out by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The e-mail from Mike Restovich, assistant administrator of TSA’s Office of Security Operations, relayed an alert that described a couple who were testing security. The woman is white but has “an oriental woman’s picture” on her identification card, it stated. “They will print a boarding pass from a flight, change the date, get through security (if not noticed) and try to board a flight and place a bag in the overhead.”

Because the pair had altered the date on a boarding pass, the e-mail advised: “Alert your security line vendors to be aware of subtle alterations to date info.”

The TSA inspector general is investigating the incident, and the agency would not discuss details of the case because it’s part of an ongoing investigation.

TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said, “We are confident in the overall integrity of the program. Tip-offs are not a systemic problem because we do so much testing.”

Lawmakers are asking for more details on the incident as well.

“Any effort to undermine the integrity of covert testing of TSA’s screening checkpoints is unacceptable,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote in a letter Thursday to TSA Administrator Kip Hawley. Thompson chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 4:48 PM PDT

Newer | Latest | Older

« November 2007 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Ben Waiting for it ? Well Look Here!
Robert Lindsay Blog
Old Blogs Go to Joe's Home Web Site
Media Underground
Joe's 911 Truth Report

Alex Ansary