tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-296603372024-03-12T18:30:47.985-07:00Oregon Senator Gordon SmithGeezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-42287344202966865712013-03-01T09:00:00.001-08:002013-03-01T10:12:15.273-08:00Brennan Hearings: What is the Legal Basis for Drone Targeted Killings?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7uHdvLQvIG0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<h2>
DoJ White Paper Released as a Matter of “Discretion”</h2>
<h2>
<a href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2013/02/doj_discretion.html">SECRECY NEWS</a>
</h2>
<small>February 11th, 2013 by Steven Aftergood </small>
<i>Updated below</i><br />
Late Friday afternoon, the Department of Justice released an official copy of its <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/doj-lethal.pdf">White Paper</a> on lethal targeting of Americans to Freedom of Information Act requesters, including <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2013/02/oip-020813.pdf">FAS</a> and <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/602341-oip-foia-response-to-leopold-targeted-kill-white.html">Truthout.org</a>, several days after it had been leaked to the press.<br />
The <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/doj-lethal.pdf">official version</a> appears to be identical to the <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf">document</a> posted by <a href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite">NBC News</a>,
except that it contains a notation on the first page stating “Draft
November 8, 2011.” (It also lacks the heavy-handed NBC watermark.)<br />
“The Department has determined that the document responsive to your
request is appropriate for release as a matter of agency discretion,” <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2013/02/oip-020813.pdf">wrote</a> Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice.<br />
This is a surprising statement, because as recently as two or three weeks earlier, the Department had said exactly the opposite.<br />
“The document is protected by the deliberative process privilege, and
is not appropriate for discretionary release at this time,” wrote Paul
Colborn of the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel in a January 23, 2013 <a href="http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/566817-white-paper-foia-denial.html">denial letter</a> to the New York Times.<br />
What changed in the interim? Obviously, the fact that the document
leaked — and had already been read by most people who cared to do so —
altered DoJ’s calculation. The decision to cease withholding the
document in light of its public availability displays some minimal
capacity for reality-testing. To continue to insist that the document
was protected and exempt from release would have been too absurd.<br />
But the Freedom of Information Act process is supposed to meet a
higher standard than “not absurd,” and in this case it failed to do so.<br />
According to a <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/ag031909.pdf">FOIA policy statement</a>
issued by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2009, “an agency should not
withhold information simply because it may do so legally. I strongly
encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information. An
agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as
a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA
exemption.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2013/02/doj_discretion.html">read more on SECRECY NEWS</a>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FPwML7NevnI" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivHhm8exjNFWpdZCIgwPVC20ljT10KjShXDcri8uIAKotEULNprM4aUrroJnvYzyyFoLra_qRnkPw8ecTOw2UREcHqOgRgThh-Sg6K7eP0HRsWLiCskCZ93JIeBO_QVFlxS5LZMw/s1600/drone-strike.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivHhm8exjNFWpdZCIgwPVC20ljT10KjShXDcri8uIAKotEULNprM4aUrroJnvYzyyFoLra_qRnkPw8ecTOw2UREcHqOgRgThh-Sg6K7eP0HRsWLiCskCZ93JIeBO_QVFlxS5LZMw/s640/drone-strike.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<h2>
020413 DOJ White Paper</h2>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>
<br />
<br />
<b>DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHITE PAPER</b><br />
<i>Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen
Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force</i><br />
This white paper sets forth a legal framework for considering the
circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a
foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S.
citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated
force<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup>
of al-Qa'ida—that is, an al-Qa'ida leader actively engaged in planning
operations to kill Americans. The paper does not attempt to determine
the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful;
nor does it assess what might be required to render a lethal operation
against a U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances, including an
operation against enemy forces on a traditional battlefield or an
operation against a U.S. citizen who is not a senior operational leader
of such forces. Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where
the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal
force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior
operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful:
(1) an informed; high level official of the U.S. government has
determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of
violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and
the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes
feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner
consistent with applicable law of war principles. This conclusion is
reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal
operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the
extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational
al-Qa'ida members and the loss of life that would result were their
operations successful.<br />
The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed
by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, arising from his constitutional
responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the United
States to national self defense under international law, Congress's
authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force
against this enemy, and the existence of an armed conflict with
al-Qa'ida under international law. Based on these authorities, the
President may use force against al-Qa'ida and its associated forces. As
detailed in this white paper, in defined circumstances, a targeted
killing of a U.S. citizen who has joined al-Qa'ida or its associated
forces would be lawful under U.S. and international law. Targeting a
member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack
to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national
self defense. Nor would it violate otherwise applicable federal laws
barring unlawful killings in <a class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111" rel="nofollow">Title 18</a> or the assassination ban in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333" title="Executive Order 12333">Executive Order No 12333</a>.
Moreover, a lethal operation in a foreign nation would be consistent
with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality if it
were conducted, for example, with the consent of the host nation's
government or after a determination that the host nation is unable or
unwilling to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.<br />
Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fourth Amendment</a>,
that individual's citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal
operation. Under the traditional due process balancing analysis of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathews_v._Eldridge" title="Mathews v. Eldridge"><i>Mathews v. Eldridge</i></a>,
we recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a
person's interest in his life. But that interest must be balanced
against the United States' interest in forestalling the threat of
violence and death to other Americans that arises from an individual who
is a senior operational leader of al-Q'aida or an associated force of
al-Q'aida and who is,engaged in plotting against the United States.<br />
The paper begins with a brief summary of the authority for the use of
force in the situation described here, including the authority to
target a U.S. citizen having the characteristics described above with
lethal force outside the area of active hostilities. It continues with
the constitutional questions, considering first whether a lethal
operation against such a U.S. citizen would be consistent with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_process" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fifth Amendment's</a>
Due Process Clause, U.S. Const, amend. V. As part of the due process
analysis, the paper explains the concepts of "imminence," feasibility of
capture, and compliance with applicable law of war principles. The
paper then discusses whether such an operation would be consistent with
the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Seizure" title="Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution">unreasonable seizures</a>,
U.S. Const, amend. IV; It concludes that where certain conditions are
met, a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen who is a senior
operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces—a terrorist
organization engaged in constant plotting against the United States, as
well as an enemy force with which the United States is in a
congressionally authorized armed conflict—and who himself poses an
imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, would not
violate the Constitution. The paper also includes an analysis concluding
that such an operation would not violate certain criminal provisions
prohibiting the killing of U.S. nationals outside the United States; nor
would it constitute either the commission of a war crime or an
assassination prohibited by Executive Order 12333.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="I.">I.</span></h2>
The United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and its
associated forces, and Congress has authorized the President to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those entities. <i>See</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists" title="Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists">Authorization for Use of Military Force</a>
("AUMF"), Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224, 224 (2001). In
addition to the authority arising from the AUMF, the President's use of
force against al-Qa'ida and associated forces is lawful under other
principles of U.S. and international law, including the President's
constitutional responsibility to protect the nation and the inherent
right to national self defense recognized in international law (<i>see, e.g.,</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#Article_51" title="Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter">U.N. Charter art. 51</a>).
It was on these bases that the United States responded to the attacks
of September 11, 2001, and "[t]hese domestic and international legal
authorities continue to this day." Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser,
U.S. Department of State, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American
Society of International Law: The Obama Administration and International
Law (Mar. 25,2010) ("<a class="external text" href="http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm" rel="nofollow">2010 Koh ASIL Speech</a>").<br />
Any operation of the sort discussed here would be conducted in a
foreign country against a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its
associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against
the United States. A use of force under such circumstances would be
justified as an act of national self-defense. In addition, such a person
would be within the core of individuals against whom Congress has
authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force. The fact that
such a person would also be a U.S. citizen would not alter this
conclusion. The Supreme Court has held that the military may
constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is a part of enemy
forces. <i>See</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld" title="Hamdi v. Rumsfeld"><i>Hamdi</i></a>, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion); <i>id</i>. at 587, 597 (Thomas, J., dissenting); <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Quirin" title="Ex Parte Quirin"><i>Ex Parte Quirin</i></a>,
317 U.S. at 37-38. Like the imposition of military detention, the use
of lethal force against such enemy forces is an "important incident of
war." <i>Hamdi</i>, 542 U.S. at 518 (plurality opinion) (quotation omitted). See, e.g., <a class="external text" href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp#art15" rel="nofollow">General Orders No. 100</a>: <i>Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field</i>
¶ 15 (Apr. 24, 1863) ("[military necessity admits of all direct
destruction of life or limb of armed enemies") (emphasis omitted); <a class="external text" href="http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/com/475-760019?OpenDocument" rel="nofollow">International Committee of the Red Cross, <i>Commentary
on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
12 Aug. 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of
Non-International Armed Conflicts</i> (Additional Protocol II) § 4789 (1987)</a> ("Those who belong to armed forces or armed groups may be attacked at any time."); Yoram Dinstein, <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=a88YJ7MuaMoC&pg=PA94&dq=%22When+a+person+takes+up+arms+or+merely+dons+a+uniform+as+a+member+of+the+armed+forces,+he+automatically+exposes+himself+to+enemy+attack%22#v=onepage&q=%22When%20a%20person%20takes%20up%20arms%20or%20merely%20dons%20a%20uniform%20as%20a%20member%20of%20the%20armed%20forces%2C%20he%20automatically%20exposes%20himself%20to%20enemy%20attack%22&f=false" rel="nofollow"><i>The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict</i></a>
94 (2004) ("When a person takes up arms or merely dons a uniform as a
member of the armed forces, he automatically exposes himself to enemy
attack."). Accordingly, the Department does not believe that U.S.
citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or
its associated forces from a use of force abroad authorized by the AUMF
or in national self-defense.<br />
In addition, the United States retains its authority to use force
against al-Qa'ida and associated forces outside the area of active
hostilities when it targets a senior operational leader of the enemy
forces who is actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.
The United States is currently in a non-international armed conflict
with al-Qa'ida and its associated forces. <i>See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i>,
548 U.S. 557, 628-31 (2006) (holding that a conflict between a nation
and a transnational non-state actor, occurring outside the nation's
territory, is an armed conflict "not of an international character"
(quoting <a class="external text" href="http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/466097d7a301f8c4c12563cd00424e2b%21OpenDocument" rel="nofollow">Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions</a>)
because it is not a "clash between nations"). Any U.S. operation would
be part of this non-international armed conflict, even if it were to
take place away from the zone of active hostilities. <i>See</i> John O.
Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism, Remarks at the Program on Law and Security, Harvard
Law School: <a class="external text" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/16/remarks-john-o-brennan-strengthening-our-security-adhering-our-values-an" rel="nofollow">Strengthening Our Security by Adhering to Our Values and Laws</a>
(Sept. 16, 2011) ("The United States does not view our authority to use
military force against al-Qa'ida as being restricted solely to 'hot'
battlefields like Afghanistan."). For example, the AUMF itself does not
set forth an express geographic limitation on the use of force it
authorizes. <i>See Hamdan</i>, 548 U.S. at 631 (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(what makes a non-international armed conflict distinct from an
international armed conflict is "the legal status of the entities
opposing each other"). None of the three branches of the U.S. Government
has identified a strict geographical limit on the permissible scope of
the AUMF's authorization. <i>See, e.g.,</i> <a class="external text" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/text-a-letter-president-speaker-house-and-president-pro-tempore-senate-regarding-na" rel="nofollow">Letter for the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate from the President</a>
(June 15, 2010) (reporting that the armed forces, with the assistance
of numerous international partners, continue to conduct operations
"against al-Qa'ida terrorists," and that the United States has "deployed
combat-equipped forces to a number of locations in the U.S. Central...
Command area[] of operation in support of those [overseas
counter-terrorist] operations"); <a class="external text" href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/post-911-era-materials/post-911-era-materials-court-cases/bensayah-v-obama-610-f-3d-718-d-c-cir-2010/" rel="nofollow"><i>Bensayah v. Obama</i></a>,
610 F.3d 718, 720, 724-25, 727 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (concluding that an
individual turned over to the United States in Bosnia could be detained
if the government demonstrates he was part of al-Qa'ida); <a class="external text" href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/post-911-era-materials/post-911-era-materials-court-cases/al-adahi-v-obama-613-f-3d-1102-d-c-cir-2010/" rel="nofollow"><i>al-Adahi v. Obama</i></a>,
613 F.3d 1102,1003,11U (D.C. Cir. 2010) (noting authority under AUMF to
detain individual apprehended by Pakistani authorities in Pakistan and
then transferred to U.S. custody)<br />
Claiming that for purposes of international law, an armed conflict
generally exists only when there is "protracted armed violence between
governmental authorities and organized armed groups," <a class="external text" href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47fdfb520.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Prosecutor v. Tadic</i>, Case No. IT-94-1AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction</a>,
70 (Int'l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia, App. Chamber Oct.
2,1995), some commenters have suggested that the conflict between the
United States and al-Qa'ida cannot lawfully extend to nations outside
Afghanistan in which the level of hostilities is less intense or
prolonged than in Afghanistan itself. See e.g., <a class="external text" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1332096" rel="nofollow">Mary Ellen O'Connell, Combatants and the Combat Zone, 43 U. Rich. L. Rev. 845,857-59 (2009)</a>.
There is little judicial or other authoritative precedent that speaks
directly to the question of the geographic scope of a non-international
armed conflict in which one of the parties is a transnational, non-state
actor and where the principal theater of operations is not within the
territory of the nation that is a party to the conflict. Thus, in
considering this potential issue, the Department looks to principles and
statements from analogous contexts.<br />
The Department has not found any authority for the proposition that
when one of the parties to an armed conflict plans and executes
operations from a base in a new nation, an operation to engage the enemy
in that location cannot be part of the original armed conflict, and
thus subject to the laws of war governing that conflict, unless the
hostilities become sufficiently intense and protracted in the new
location. That does not appear to be the rule of the historical
practice, for instance, even in a traditional international conflict.
See <a class="external text" href="http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2931916;num=765;seq=405;view=1up" rel="nofollow">John
R. Stevenson, Legal Adviser, Department of State, United States
Military Action in Cambodia: Questions of International Law, Address
before the Hammarskjold Forum of the Association of the Bar of the City
of New York (May 28,1970)</a>, in 3 The Vietnam War and International
Law: The Widening Context 23,28-30 (Richard A. Falk, ed. 1972) (arguing
that in an international armed conflict, if a neutral state has been
unable for any reason to prevent violations of its neutrality by the
troops of one belligerent Using its territory as a base of operations,
the other belligerent has historically been justified in attacking those
enemy forces in that state). Particularly in a non-international armed
conflict, where terrorist organizations may move their base of
operations from one country to another, the determination of whether a
particular operation would be part of an ongoing armed conflict would
require consideration of the particular facts and circumstances in each
case, including the fact that transnational non-state organizations such
as al-Qa'ida may have no single site serving as their base of
operations. See also, e.g., <a class="external text" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083849" rel="nofollow">Geoffrey
S. Corn & Eric Talbot Jensen, Untying the Gordian Knot: A Proposal
for Determining Applicability of the Laws of War to the War on Terror,
81 Temp. L. Rev. 787, 799 (2008)</a> ("If... the ultimate purpose of the
drafters of the Geneva Conventions was to prevent 'law avoidance' by
developing de facto law triggers—a purpose consistent with the
humanitarian foundation of the treaties—then the myopic focus on the
geographic nature of an armed conflict in the context of transnational
counterterrorist combat operations serves to frustrate that purpose.").<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup><br />
If an operation of the kind discussed in this paper were to occur in a
location where al-Qa'ida or an associated force has a significant and
organized presence and from which al-Qa'ida or an associated force,
including its senior operational leaders, plan attacks against U.S.
persons and interests, the operation would be part of the
non-international armed conflict between the United States and al-Qa'ida
that the Supreme Court recognized in Hamdan. Moreover, such an
operation would be consistent with international legal principles of
sovereignty and neutrality if it were conducted, for example, with the
consent of the host nation's government or after a determination that
the host nation is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed by
the individual targeted. In such circumstances, targeting a U.S. citizen
of the kind described in this paper would be authorized under the AUMF
and the inherent right to national self-defense. Given this authority,
the question becomes whether and what further restrictions may limit
its"exercise.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="II.">II.</span></h2>
The Department assumes that the rights afforded by Fifth Amendment's
Due Process Clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment, attach to a U.S.
citizen even while he is abroad. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert" title="Reid v. Covert">Reid v. Covert</a>, 354 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (plurality opinion); <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez" title="United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez">United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez</a>, 494 U.S. 259,269-70 (1990); see also <a class="external text" href="http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/nat-sec/2009s/InreTerroristBombingsNov242008.pdf" rel="nofollow">In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 170 n.7 (2d-Cir. 2008)</a>.
The U.S. citizenship of a leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces,
however, does not give that person constitutional immunity from attack.
This paper next considers whether and in what circumstances a lethal
operation would violate any possible constitutional protections of a
U.S. citizen.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="A.">A.</span></h3>
The Due Process Clause would not prohibit a lethal operation of the
sort contemplated here. In Hamdi, a plurality of the Supreme Court used
the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to analyze the Fifth Amendment
due process rights of a U.S. citizen who had been captured on the
battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the United States, and who
wished to challenge the government's assertion that he was part of enemy
forces. The Court explained that the "process due in any given instance
is determined by weighing 'the private interest that will be affected
by the official action' against the Government's asserted interest,
'including the function involved' and the burdens the Government would
face in providing greater process." Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 (plurality
opinion) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,335 (1976)). The due
process balancing analysis applied to determine the Fifth Amendment
rights of a U.S. citizen with respect to law-of-war detention supplies
the framework for assessing the process due a U.S. citizen who is a
senior operational leader of an enemy force planning violent attacks
against Americans before he is subjected to lethal targeting.<br />
In the circumstances considered here, the interests on both sides
would be weighty. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529 (plurality opinion) ("It is
beyond question that substantial interests lie on both sides of the
scale in this case."). An individual's interest in avoiding erroneous
deprivation of his life is "uniquely compelling." See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ake_v._Oklahoma" title="Ake v. Oklahoma">Ake v. Oklahoma</a>,
470 U.S. 68, 178 (1985) ("The private interest in the accuracy of a
criminal proceeding that places an individual's life or liberty at risk
is almost uniquely compelling."). No private interest is more
substantial. At the same time, the government's interest in waging war,
protecting its citizens, and removing the threat posed by members of
enemy forces is also compelling. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 531 (plurality
opinion) ("On the other side of the scale are the weighty and sensitive
governmental interests in ensuring that those who have in fact fought
with the enemy during a war do not return to battle against the United
States."). As the Hamdi plurality observed, in the "circumstances of
war," "the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's liberty in the
absence of sufficient process ... is very real," id. at 530 (plurality
opinion), and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a
citizen's life is even more significant. But, "the realities of combat"
render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including
force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed
conflict against the United State and whose activities pose an imminent
threat of violent attack against the United States - and "due process
analysis need not blink at those realities." Id. at 531 (plurality
opinion). These same realities must also be considered in assessing "the
burdens the Government would face in providing greater process" to a
member of enemy forces. Id. at 529, 531 (plurality opinion).<br />
In view of these interests and practical considerations, the United
States would be able to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen, who is
located outside the United States and is an operational leader
continually planning attacks against U.S. persons and interests, in at
least the following circumstances: (1) where an informed, high-level
official of the. U.S. government has determined that the targeted
individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United
States; (2) where a capture operation would be infeasible—and where
those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture
becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted
consistent with applicable law of war principles. In these
circumstances, the "realities" of the conflict and the weight of the
government's interest in protecting its citizens from an imminent attack
are such that the Constitution would not require the government to
provide further process to such a U.S. citizen before using lethal
force. Cf. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 535 (plurality opinion) (noting that the
Court "accord[s] the greatest respect and consideration to the judgments
of military authorities in matters relating to the actual prosecution
of war, and... the scope of that discretion necessarily is wide"); id.
at 534 (plurality opinion) ("The parties agree that initial captures on
the battlefield need not receive the process we have discussed here;
that process is due only when the determination is made to continue to
hold those who have been seized.") (emphasis omitted).<br />
Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional
explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an
"imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not
require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack
on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.
Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11,
in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would
require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for
an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient
time to defend itself. The defensive options available to the United
States may be reduced or eliminated if al-Qa'ida operatives disappear
and cannot be found when the time of their attack approaches.
Consequently, with respect to al-Qa'ida leaders who are continually
planning attacks, the United States is likely to have only a limited
window of opportunity within which to defend Americans in a manner that
has both a high likelihood of success and sufficiently reduces the
probabilities of civilian casualties. See <a class="external text" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/State-Sponsored_Assassination_in_International_and_Domestic_Law.pdf">Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law, 17. Yale J. Int'l L. 609, 648 (1992)</a>.
Furthermore, a "terrorist 'war' does not consist of a massive attack
across an international border, nor does it consist of one isolated
incident that occurs and is then past. It is a drawn out, patient,
sporadic pattern of attacks. It is very difficult to know when or where
the next incident will occur." <a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism,_International_Law,_and_the_Use_of_Military_Force&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Terrorism, International Law, and the Use of Military Force (page does not exist)">Gregory M. Travalio, Terrorism, International Law, and the Use of Military Force, 18 Wis. Int'l L.J. 145, 173 (2000)</a>; see also Testimony of Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, 660 Hansard. H.L. (April 21, 2004) 370 (U.K.), available at <a class="external free" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040421/text/40421-07.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040421/text/40421-07.htm</a>
(what constitutes an imminent threat "will develop to meet new
circumstances and new threats .... It must be right that states are able
to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of
further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no
specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the
precise nature of the attack."). Delaying action against individuals
continually planning to kill Americans until some theoretical end stage
of the planning for a particular plot would create an unacceptably high
risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would
result.<br />
By its nature, therefore, the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its
associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when
a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent
threat, making the use of force appropriate. In this context, imminence
must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity,
the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the
likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans. Thus, a
decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader
presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States
must take into account that certain members of al-Qa'ida (including any
potential target of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks
against the United States; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks
regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government
may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida plots as they are developing and thus
cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that, in light of
these predicates, the nation may have a limited window of opportunity
within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of
success and reduces the probability of American casualties.<br />
With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude, for
example, that an individual poses an"imminent threat of violent attack
against the United States where he is an operational leader of al-Qa'ida
or an associated force and is personally and continually involved in
planning terrorist attacks against the United States. Moreover, where
the al-Qa'ida member in question has recently been involved in
activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the
United States, and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced
or abandoned such activities, that member's involvement in al-Qa'ida's
continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would. support
the conclusion that the member poses an imminent threat.<br />
Second, regarding the feasibility of capture, capture would not be
feasible if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant
window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to
consent to a capture operation. Other factors such as undue risk to U.S.
personnel conducting a potential capture operation also could be
relevant. Feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and potentially
time-sensitive inquiry.<br />
Third, it is a premise here that any such lethal operation by the
United States would comply with the four fundamental law-of-war
principles governing the use of force: necessity, distinction,
proportionality, and humanity (the avoidance of unnecessary suffering).
See, e.g., United States Air Force, Targeting, <a class="external text" href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usaf/afdd/2-1-9/afdd2-1-9.pdf" rel="nofollow">Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.9</a>, at 88 (June 8, 2006); <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=a88YJ7MuaMoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Dinstein, Conduct of Hostilities</a>
at 16-20, 115-16, 119-23; see also 2010 Koh ASIL Speech. For example,
it would not be consistent with those principles to continue an
operation if anticipated civilian casualties would be excessive in
relation to the anticipated military advantage. <a class="external text" href="http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/unlimit/5810_01.pdf" rel="nofollow">Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 5810.01D, Implementation of the DoD Law of War Program</a>
^ 4.a, at 1 (Apr. 30,2010). An operation consistent with the laws of
war could not violate the prohibitions against treachery and perfidy,
which address a breach of confidence by the assailant. See, e.g., <a class="external text" href="http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/195" rel="nofollow">Hague Convention IV</a>,
Annex, art. 23(b), Oct. 18, 1907, 36 stat 2277,2301-02 ("[I]t is
especially forbidden ... [t]o kill or wound treacherously individuals
belonging to the hostile nation or army ...."). These prohibitions do
not, however, categorically forbid the use of stealth or surprise, nor
forbid attacks on identified individual soldiers or officers. See <a class="external text" href="http://www.afsc.army.mil/gc/files/fm27-10.pdf" rel="nofollow">U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, ¶ 31 (1956)</a>
(article 23(b) of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV does not
"preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy
whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or else-where").
And the Department is not aware of any other law-of-war grounds
precluding use of such tactics. See Dinstein, Conduct of Hostilities at
94-95, 199; <a class="external text" href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277079%7E1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Abraham D. Sofaer, Terrorism, the Law, and the National Defense, 126 Mil. L. Rev. 89, 120-21 (1989)</a>.
Relatedly, "there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of
technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict—such as
pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs—as long as they are employed
in conformity with applicable laws of war." 2010 Koh ASIL Speech.
Further, under this framework, the United States would also be required
to accept a surrender if it were feasible to do so.<br />
In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the constraints
described above would not result in a violation of any due process
rights.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="B.">B.</span></h3>
Similarly, assuming that a lethal operation targeting a U.S. citizen
abroad who is planning attacks against the United States would result in
a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, such an operation would not
violate that Amendment in the circumstances posited here. The Supreme
Court has made clear that the constitutionality of a seizure is
determined by "balanc[ing] the nature and quality of the intrusion on
the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of
the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner" title="Tennessee v. Garner">Tennessee v. Garner</a>, 471 US. 1, 8 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_v._Harris" title="Scott v. Harris">Scott v. Harris</a>,
550 U.S. 372, 383 (2007). Even in domestic law enforcement operations,
the Court has noted that "[w]here the officer has probable cause to
believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either
to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to
prevent escape by using deadly force." Garner, 471 U.S. at 11. Thus,
"if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable
cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction
or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be
used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some
warning has been given." Id. at 11-12.<br />
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" test is situation-dependent.
Cf. Scott, 550 U.S. at 382 ("Garner did not establish a magical on/off
switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officer's actions
constitute 'deadly force.'"). What would constitute a reasonable use of
lethal force for purposes of domestic law enforcement operations differs
substantially from what would be reasonable in the situation and
circumstances discussed in this white paper. But at least in
circumstances where the targeted person is an operational leader of an
enemy force and an informed, high-level government official has
determined that he poses an imminent threat of violent attack, against
the United States, and those conducting the operation would carry out
the operation only if capture were infeasible, the use of lethal force
would not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under such circumstances, the
intrusion on any Fourth Amendment interests would be outweighed by the
"importance of the governmental interests [that] justify the intrusion,"
Garner, 471 U.S. at 8—the interests in protecting the lives of
Americans.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="C.">C.</span></h3>
Finally, the Department notes that under the circumstances described
in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate
these constitutional consideration. It is well established that
"[matters intimately related to foreign policy and national security are
rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention," <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee" title="Haig v. Agee">Haig v. Agee</a>,
453 U.S. 280,292 (1981), because such matters "frequently turn on
standards that defy judicial application," or "involve the exercise of a
discretion demonstrably committed to the executive or legislature," <a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baker_v._Can&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Baker v. Can (page does not exist)">Baker v. Can</a>,
369 U.S. 186,211 (1962). Were a court to intervene here, it might be
required inappropriately to issue an ex ante command to the President
and officials responsible for operations with respect to their specific
tactical judgment to mount a potential lethal operation against a senior
operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces. And judicial
enforcement of such orders would require the Court to supervise
inherently predictive judgments by the President and his national
security advisors as to when and how to use force against a member of an
enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="III.">III.</span></h2>
<a class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1119" rel="nofollow">Section 1119(b) of title 18</a>
provides that a "person who, being a national of the United States or
attempts to kill a national of the United States while such national is
outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country
shall be punished as provided under sections 1111,1112, and 1113." 18
U.S.C. § 1119(b) (2006).<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-3">[3]</a></sup>
Because the person who would be the target of the kind of operation
discussed here would be a U.S. citizen, it might be suggested that
section 1119(b) would prohibit such an operation. Section 1119, however,
incorporates the federal murder and manslaughter statutes, and thus its
prohibition extends only to "unlawful killing[s]," 18 U.S.C. §§ <a class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111" rel="nofollow">1111(a)</a>, <a class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1112" rel="nofollow">1112(a)</a>
(2006). Section 1119 is best construed to incorporate the "public
authority" justification, which renders lethal action carried out by a
government official lawful in some circumstances. As this paper explains
below, a lethal operation of the kind discussed here would fall within
the public authority exception under the circumstances and conditions
posited because it would be conducted in a manner consistent with
applicable law of war principles governing the non-intemational conflict
between the United States and al-Qa'ida and its associated forces. It
therefore would not result in an unlawful killing.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-4">[4]</a></sup><br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="A._2">A.</span></h3>
Although section 1119(b) refers only to the "punishments]" provided
under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113, courts have held that section
1119(b) incorporates the substantive elements of those cross-referenced
provisions of title 18. See, e.g., <a class="external text" href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1213264.html" rel="nofollow">United States v. Wharton</a>, 320 F.3d 526, 533 (5th Cir. 2003); <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._White" title="United States v. White">United States v. White</a>,
51 F. Supp. 2d 1008,1013-14 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Section 1111 of title 18
sets forth criminal penalties for "murder," and provides that "[m]urder
is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." 18
U.S.C. § 1111(a). Section 1112 similarly provides criminal sanctions for
"[m]anslaughter," and states that "[mjanslaughter is the unlawful
killing of a human being without malice:" Id.§ 112(a). Section 1113
provides criminal penalties for "attempts to commit murder or
manslaughter." Id. § 1113. It is therefore clear that section 1119(b)
bars only "unlawful killing."<br />
Guidance as to the meaning of the phrase "unlawful killing" in
sections 1111 and 1112—and thus for purposes of section 1119(b)—can be
found in the historical understandings of murder and manslaughter. That
history shows that states have long recognized justifications and
excuses to statutes criminalizing "unlawful" killings.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-5">[5]</a></sup>
One state court, for example, in construing that state's murder
statute, explained that "the word 'unlawful' is a term of art" that
"connotes a homicide with the absence of factors of excuse or
justification." <a class="external text" href="http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/7/1148.html" rel="nofollow">People v. Frye, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217,221 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)</a>.
That court further explained that the factors of excuse or
justification in question include those that have traditionally been
recognized. Id. at 221 n.2. Other authorities support the same
conclusion. See, e.g., <a class="external text" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1049931246973296361&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr" rel="nofollow">Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 685 (1975)</a>
(requirement of "unlawful" killing in Maine murder statute meant that
killing was "neither justifiable nor excusable"); cf. also <a class="external text" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=GHdHAQAAIAAJ" rel="nofollow">Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 56 (3d ed. 1982)</a>
("Innocent homicide is of two kinds, (1) justifiable and (2)
excusable."). Accordingly, section 1119 does not proscribe killings
covered by a justification traditionally recognized under the common law
or state and federal murder statutes. "Congress did not intend [section
1119] to criminalize justifiable or excusable killings." White, 51 F.
Supp. 2d at 1013.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="B._2">B.</span></h3>
The public authority justification is well-accepted, and it may be
available even in cases where the particular criminal statute at issue
does not expressly refer to a public authority justification.
Prosecutions where such a "public authority" justification is invoked
are understandably rare, see American Law Institute Model Penal Code and
Commentaries § 3.03 Comment 1, at 23-24 (1985); cf. Visa Fraud
Investigation, 8 Op. O.L.C. 284, 285 n.2, 286 (1984), and thus there is
little case law in which courts have^ analyzed the scope of the
justification with respect to the conduct of government officials.
Nonetheless, discussions in the leading treatises and in the Model Penal
Code demonstrate its legitimacy. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive
Criminal Law § 10.2(b), at 135 (2d ed. 2003); Perkins & Boyce,
Criminal Law at 1093 ("Deeds which otherwise would be criminal, such as
taking or destroying property, taking hold of a person by force and
against his will, placing him in confinement, or even taking his life,
are not crimes if done with proper public authority."); see also Model
Penal Code § 3.03(l)(a), (d), (e), at 22-23 (proposing codification of
justification where conduct is "required or authorized by," inter alia,
"the law defining the duties or functions of a public officer," "the law
governing the armed services or the lawful conduct of war," or "any
other provision of law imposing a public duty"); National Commission on
Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, A Proposed New Federal Criminal Code §
602(1) (1971) ("Conduct engaged in by a public servant in the course of
his official duties is justified when it is required or authorized by
law."). And the Department's Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") has invoked
analogous rationales when it has analyzed whether Congress intended a
particular criminal statute to prohibit specific conduct that otherwise
falls within a government agency's authorities. See, e.g., Visa Fraud
Investigation, 8 Op. O.L.C. at 287-88 (concluding that a civil statute
prohibiting issuance of visa to an alien known to be ineligible did not
prohibit State Department from issuing such a visa where "necessary" to
facilitate an important Immigration and Naturalization Service
undercover operation carried out in a "reasonable" fashion).<br />
The public authority justification would not excuse all conduct of
public officials from all criminal prohibitions. The legislature may
design some criminal prohibitions to place bounds on the kinds of
governmental conduct that can be authorized by the Executive. Or the
legislature may enact a criminal prohibition in order to limit the scope
of the conduct that the legislature has otherwise authorized the
Executive to undertake pursuant to another statute. See, e.g., Nardone
v. United States, 302 U.S. 379, 384 (1937) (federal statute proscribed
government wiretapping). But the generally recognized public authority
justification reflects that it would not make sense to attribute to
Congress the intent to criminalize all covered activities undertaken by
public officials in the legitimate exercise of their otherwise lawful
authorities, even if Congress clearly intends to make those same actions
a crime when committed by persons not acting pursuant to public
authority. In some instances, therefore, the best interpretation of a
criminal prohibition is that Congress intended to distinguish persons
who are acting pursuant to public authority from those Who are not, even
if the statute does not make that distinction express. Cf. id. at 384
(federal criminal statutes should be construed to exclude authorized
conduct of public officers where such a reading "would work obvious
absurdity as, for example, the application of a speed law to a policeman
pursuing a criminal or the driver of a fire engine responding to an
alarm").<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup><br />
The touchstone for the analysis whether section 1119 incorporates not
only justifications generally, but also the public authority
justification in particular, is the legislative intent underlying this
statute. Here, the statute should be read to exclude from its
prohibitory scope killings that are encompassed by traditional
justifications, which include the public authority justification. The
statutory incorporation of two other criminal statutes expressly
referencing "unlawful" killings is one indication. See supra at 10-11.
Moreover, there are no indications that Congress had a contrary
intention. Nothing in the text or legislative history of sections
1111-1113 of title 18 suggests that Congress intended to exclude the
established public authority justification from those justifications
that Congress otherwise must be understood to have imported through the
use of the modifier "unlawful" in those statutes. Nor is there anything
in the text or legislative history of section 1119 itself to suggest
that Congress intended to abrogate or otherwise affect the availability
of this traditional justification for killings. On the contrary, the
relevant legislative materials indicate that, in enacting section 1119,
Congress was merely closing a gap in a field dealing with entirely
different kinds of conduct from that at issue here.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-7">[7]</a></sup><br />
The Department thus concludes that section 1119 incorporates the public authority justification.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-8">[8]</a></sup>
This paper turns next to the question whether a lethal operation could
be encompassed by that justification and, in particular, whether that
justification would apply when the target is a U.S. citizen. The
analysis here leads to the conclusion that it would.<br />
<h3>
<span class="mw-headline" id="C._2">C.</span></h3>
A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national
self-defense or during an armed conflict that is authorized by an
informed, high-level official and carried out in a manner that accords
with applicable law of war principles would fall within a well
established variant of the public authority justification and therefore
would not be murder. See, e.g., 2 Paul H. Robinson,[Criminal Law
Defenses § 148(a), at 208 (1984) (conduct that would violate a criminal
statute is justified and thus not unlawful "[where the exercise of
military authority relies upon the law governing the armed forces or
upon the conduct of war"); 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 10.2(c)
at 136 ("another aspect of the public duty defense is where the conduct
was required or authorized by 'the law governing the armed services or
the lawful conduct of war'"); Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law at 1093
(noting that a "typical instanceQ in which even the extreme act of
taking human life is done by public authority" involves "the killing of
an enemy as an act of war and within the rules of war").<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-9">[9]</a></sup><br />
The United States is currently in the midst of a congressionally
authorized armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and associated forces, and may
act in national self-defense to protect U.S. persons and interests who
are under continual threat of violent attack by certain al-Q'aida
operatives planning operations against them. The public authority
justification would apply to a lethal operation of the kind discussed in
this paper if it were conducted in accord with applicable law of war
principles. As one legal commentator has explained, "if a soldier
intentionally kills an enemy combatant in time of war and within the
rules of warfare, he is not guilty of murder," whereas, for example, if
that soldier intentionally kills a prisoner of war - a violation of the
laws of war—"then he commits murder." 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law
§ 10.2(c), at 136; see also State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341, 357 (1868)
("That it is legal to kill an alien enemy in the heat and exercise of
war, is undeniable; but to kill such an enemy after he has laid down his
arms, and especially when he is confined in prison, is murder.");
Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law at 1093 ("Even in time of war an alien
enemy may not be killed needlessly after he has been disarmed and
securely imprisoned...."). Moreover, without invoking the public
authority justification by its terms, this Department's OLC has relied
on the same notion in an opinion addressing the intended scope of a
federal criminal statute that concerned the use of potentially lethal
force. See United States Assistance to Countries that Shoot Down Civil
Aircraft Involved in Drug Trafficking, 18 Op. O.L.C. 148, 164 (1994)
(concluding that the Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 32(b)(2)
(2006), which prohibits the willful destruction of a civil aircraft and
otherwise applies to U.S. government conduct, should not be construed
to have "the surprising and almost certainly unintended effect of
criminalizing actions by military personnel that are lawful under
international law and the laws of armed conflict").<br />
The fact that an operation may target a U.S. citizen does not alter
this conclusion. As explained above, see supra at 3, the Supreme Court
has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S.
citizen who is part of enemy forces. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518
(plurality opinion); id. at 587, 597 (Thomas, J. dissenting); Ex parte
Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38 ("Citizens who associate themselves with the
military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and
direction enter [the United States] bent on hostile acts," may be
treated as "enemy belligerents" under the law of war.). Similarly, under
the Constitution and the inherent right to national self-defense
recognized in international law, the President may authorize the use of
force against a U.S. citizen who is a member of al-Qa'ida or its
associated forces and who poses an imminent threat of violent attack
against the United States.<br />
In light of these precedents, the Department believes that the use of
lethal force addressed in this white paper would constitute a lawful
killing under the public authority doctrine if conducted in a manner
consistent with the fundamental law of war principles governing the use
of force in a non-intemational armed conflict. Such an operation would
not violate the assassination ban in Executive Order No. 12333. Section
2.11 of Executive Order No. 12333 provides that "[n]o person employed by
or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or
conspire to engage in, assassination." 46 Fed. Reg. 59,941,59, 952
(Dec. 4,1981). A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination.
In the Department's view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S.
citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against
the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense
that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of
lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who
is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate
the assassination ban.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="IV.">IV.</span></h2>
The War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (2006) makes it a federal crime
for a member of the Armed Forces or a national of the United States to
"commit[] a war crime." Id. § 2441(a). The only potentially applicable
provision of section 2441 to operations of the type discussed herein
makes it a war crime to commit a "grave breach" of Common Article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions when that breach is committed "in the context of
and in association with an armed conflict not of an international
character."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-10"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_note-10">[10]</a></sup>
Id. § 2441(c)(3). As defined by the statute, a "grave breach" of Common
Article 3 includes "[m]urder," described in pertinent part as "[t]he
act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to
kill... one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities,
including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or
any other cause." Id. § 2441(d)(1)(D).<br />
Whatever might be the outer bounds of this category of covered
persons, Common Article 3 does not alter the fundamental law of war
principle concerning a belligerent party's right in an armed conflict to
target individuals who are part of an enemy's armed forces or eliminate
a nation's authority to take legitimate action in national
self-defense. The language of Common Article 3 "makes clear that members
of such armed forces [of both the state and non-state parties to the
conflict]... are considered as 'taking no active part in the
hostilities' only once they have disengaged from their fighting function
('have laid down their arms') or are placed hors de combat; mere
suspension of combat is insufficient." International Committee of the
Red Cross, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation
in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law 28 (2009). An
operation against a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its
associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against
the United States would target a person who is taking "an active part
in hostilities" and therefore would not constitute a "grave breach" of
Common Article 3<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="V.">V.</span></h2>
In conclusion, it would be lawful for the United States to conduct a
lethal operation outside the United States against a U.S. citizen who is
a senior, operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of
al-Qa'ida without violating the Constitution or the federal statutes
discussed in this white paper under the following conditions: (1) an
informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that
the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack
against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United
States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3)
the operation is conducted in a manner consistent with the four
fundamental principles of the laws of war governing the use of force. As
stated earlier, this paper does not attempt to determine the minimum
requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful, nor does it
assess what might be required to render a lethal operation against a
U.S. citizen lawful in other circumstances. It concludes only that the
stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation
in a foreign country directed against a U.S. citizen with the
characteristics described above.<br />
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="References">References</span></h2>
<ol class="references">
<li id="cite_note-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-1">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">1 An associated force of al-Qa'ida includes a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the laws of war. See <a class="external text" href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/post-911-era-materials/post-911-era-materials-court-cases/hamlily-v-obama-616-f-supp-2d-63-d-d-c-2009/" rel="nofollow"><i>Hamlily v. Obama</i>, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63, 74-75 (D.D.C. 2009)</a>
(authority to detain extends to "'associated forces,"' which "mean
'co-belligerents' as that term is understood under the laws of war").</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-2"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-2">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">2
See Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1AR72, Submission of the
Government of the United States of America Concerning Certain Arguments
Made by Counsel for the Accused, at 27-28 (Int'I Crim. Trib. For the
Former Yugoslavia, App. Chamber July 17, 1995) (in determining which
body of law applies in a particular conflict, "the conflict must be
considered as a whole, and "it is artificial and improper to attempt to
divide it into isolated segments, either geographically or
chronologically").</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-3"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-3">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">3
See also 18 U.S.C. § 1119(a) (2006) (providing that '"national of the
United States' has the meaning stated in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act," 8 U.S.C. § 1101(aX22) (2006)).</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-4">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">4
In light of the conclusion that section 1119 and the statutes it
cross-references incorporate this justification, and that the
justification would cover an operation of the sort discussed here, this
discussion does not address whether an operation of this sort could be
lawful on any other grounds.</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-5"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-5">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">5
The same is true with respect to other statutes, including federal
laws, that modify a prohibited act other than murder or manslaughter
with the term "unlawfully." See, e.g., <a class="new" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Territory_v._Gonzales&action=edit&redlink=1" title="Territory v. Gonzales (page does not exist)">Territory v. Gonzales</a>
89P 250,252 (N.M. 1907) (construing the term "unlawful" in statute
criminalizing assault with a deadly weapon as "clearly equivalent" to
"without excuse or justification"). For example, <a class="external text" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339C" rel="nofollow">18 U.S.C. § 2339C(a)(1) (2006)</a>
makes it unlawful, inter alia, to "unlawfully and willfully provide[]
or collect[] funds" with the intention that they may be used (or
knowledge they are to be used) to carry out an act that is an offense
within certain specified treaties, or to engage in certain other
terrorist acts. The legislative history of section 2339C makes clear
that "[t]he term 'unlawfully' is intended to embody common law
defenses." <a class="external text" href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt307/pdf/CRPT-107hrpt307.pdf" rel="nofollow">H.R. Rep. No. 107-307, at 12 (2001)</a>.</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-6"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-6">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">6
Each potentially applicable statute must be carefully and separately
examined to discern Congress's intent in this respect. See generally,
e.g., Nardone, 302 U.S. 379; United States Assistance to Countries that
Shoot Down Civil Aircraft Involved in Drug Trafficking, 18 Op. O.L.C.
148 (1994); Application of Neutrality Act to Official Government
Activities, 8 Op. O.L.C. 58 (1984).</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-7"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-7">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">7
Section 1119 was designed to close a jurisdictional loophole—exposed by
a murder that had been committed abroad by a private individual—to
ensure the possibility of prosecuting U.S. nationals who murdered other
U.S. nationals in certain foreign countries that lacked the ability to
lawfully secure the perpetrator's appearance at trial. See 137 Cong.
Rec. 8675-76 (1991) (statement of Sen. Thurmond). This loophole is
unrelated to the sort of authorized operation at issue here. Indeed,
prior to the enactment of section 1119, the only federal statute
expressly making it a crime to kill U.S. nationals abroad (outside the
United States' special and maritime jurisdiction) reflected what appears
to have been a particular concern with the protection of Americans from
terrorist attacks. See 18 U.S.C. § 2332(a), (d) (2006) (criminalizing
unlawful killings of U.S. nationals abroad where the Attorney General or
his subordinate certifies that the "offense was intended to coerce,
intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
population").</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-8"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-8">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">8
18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) (2006) makes it a crime to conspire within the
jurisdiction of the United States "to commifcat any place;outside the
United States an act that would constitute, the offense of murder,
kidnapping, or maiming if committed in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States" if any conspirator acts
within the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy. Like
section 1119(b), section 956(a) incorporates the public authority
justification. In addition, the legislative history of section 956(a)
indicates that the provision was "not intended to apply to duly
authorized actions undertaken on behalf of the United States
Government." 141 Cong. Rec. 4491, 4507 (1995) (section-by-section
analysis of bill submitted by Sen. Biden, who introduced the provision
at the behest of the President); see also id. at 11,960
(section-by-section analysis of bill submitted by Sen. Daschle, who
introduced the identical provision in a different version of the
anti-terrorism legislation a few months later). Thus, for the reasons
that section 1119(b) does not prohibit the United States from conducting
a lethal operation against a U.S. citizen, section 956(a) also does not
prohibit such an operation.</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-9"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-9">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">9
See also Frye, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 221 n.2 (identifying "homicide done
under a valid public authority, such as execution of a death sentence or
killing an enemy in a time of war," as examples of justifiable killing
that would not be "unlawful" under the California statute describing
murder as an "unlawful" killing); Model Penal Code § 3.03(2)(b), at 22
(proposing that criminal statutes expressly recognize a public authority
justification for a killing that "occurs in the lawful conduct of war"
notwithstanding the Code recommendation that the use of deadly force
generally should be justified only if expressly prescribed by law).</span></li>
<li id="cite_note-10"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/020413_DOJ_White_Paper#cite_ref-10">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">10
The statute also defines "war crime" to include any conduct that is
defined as a grave breach in any of the Geneva Conventions (or any
Geneva protocol to which the United States is a party); that is
prohibited by four specified articles of the Fourth Hague Convention of
1907; or that is a willful killing or infliction of serious injury in
violation of the 1996 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices. 18 U.S.C. § 2441(c).</span></li>
</ol>
Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-29055670422196080652010-07-27T13:46:00.000-07:002010-07-27T13:52:05.465-07:00Letters to President Obama showing support for Israel war crimes signed by 75% of our senators and representatives in Congress<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGJWkbs9i3r8wuY6-eZVjjOVJ9BY_zJGkxthUi-dbcX1YrEUyGGZUhvUYUgcS8rds7CfF3KIkGdSeRLNRV-4uIhAiE23KHtlBI7zdnpqMod1NDR4PzKrIdYd4zt1gPMMOXbmo6QA/s1600/aipacbanner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="94" hw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGJWkbs9i3r8wuY6-eZVjjOVJ9BY_zJGkxthUi-dbcX1YrEUyGGZUhvUYUgcS8rds7CfF3KIkGdSeRLNRV-4uIhAiE23KHtlBI7zdnpqMod1NDR4PzKrIdYd4zt1gPMMOXbmo6QA/s640/aipacbanner.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=20113295&postID=97593713027181530">United States of Israel, AIPAC & The Zionist Agenda</a><br />
<br />
CONGRESSIONAL LISTS<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaWBDxeAsL9qj4HV824i9Fg-qs3LuQSstT9FJni_19ile35Z3FA8TAndG83mfthl-WOunpJodt1XlVxSZrjQb8nDENki7FzBEphp-_PGJAunKsR00Py4pGJS96e2Y2YT7BR9FnXw/s1600/175px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse_svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" hw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaWBDxeAsL9qj4HV824i9Fg-qs3LuQSstT9FJni_19ile35Z3FA8TAndG83mfthl-WOunpJodt1XlVxSZrjQb8nDENki7FzBEphp-_PGJAunKsR00Py4pGJS96e2Y2YT7BR9FnXw/s320/175px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse_svg.png" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.opaobie.com/congress.php">Senators and Representatives of the 111th Congress</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Signatories to the Reid-McConnell Letter on the Gaza Flotilla Incident<br />
Total Number of Signatories: 87<br />
<br />
<br />
Senator<br />
State<br />
Party<br />
<br />
<br />
Alexander, Lamar<br />
TN<br />
R<br />
Barrasso, John<br />
WY<br />
R<br />
Baucus, Max<br />
MT<br />
D<br />
Bayh, Evan<br />
IN<br />
D<br />
Begich, Mark<br />
AK<br />
D<br />
Bennet, Michael<br />
CO<br />
D<br />
Bennett, Robert<br />
UT<br />
R<br />
Bond, Christopher<br />
MO<br />
R<br />
Boxer, Barbara<br />
CA<br />
D<br />
Brown, Scott<br />
MA<br />
R<br />
Brown, Sherrod<br />
OH<br />
D<br />
Brownback, Sam<br />
KS<br />
R<br />
Burr, Richard<br />
NC<br />
R<br />
Burris, Roland W.<br />
IL<br />
D<br />
Cantwell, Maria<br />
WA<br />
D<br />
Cardin, Ben<br />
MD<br />
D<br />
Carper, Tom<br />
DE<br />
D<br />
Casey Jr., Bob<br />
PA<br />
D<br />
Chambliss, Saxby<br />
GA<br />
R<br />
Coburn, Tom<br />
OK<br />
R<br />
Cochran, Thad<br />
MS<br />
R<br />
Collins, Susan<br />
ME<br />
R<br />
Conrad, Kent<br />
ND<br />
D<br />
Corker, Bob<br />
TN<br />
R<br />
Cornyn, John<br />
TX<br />
R<br />
Crapo, Mike<br />
ID<br />
R<br />
DeMint, Jim<br />
SC<br />
R<br />
Dorgan, Byron<br />
ND<br />
D<br />
Durbin, Richard<br />
IL<br />
D<br />
Ensign, John<br />
NV<br />
R<br />
Enzi, Mike<br />
WY<br />
R<br />
Feingold, Russ<br />
WI<br />
D<br />
Feinstein, Dianne<br />
CA<br />
D<br />
Franken, Al<br />
MN<br />
D<br />
Gillibrand, Kirsten<br />
NY<br />
D<br />
Graham, Lindsey<br />
SC<br />
R<br />
Grassley, Charles<br />
IA<br />
R<br />
Hagan, Kay<br />
NC<br />
D<br />
Hatch, Orrin<br />
UT<br />
R<br />
Hutchinson, Kay Bailey<br />
TX<br />
R<br />
Inhofe, Jim<br />
OK<br />
R<br />
Inouye, Daniel<br />
HI<br />
D<br />
Isakson, Johnny<br />
GA<br />
R<br />
Johanns, Mike<br />
NE<br />
R<br />
Johnson, Tim<br />
SD<br />
D<br />
Kaufman, Ted<br />
DE<br />
D<br />
Klobuchar, Amy<br />
MN<br />
D<br />
Kohl, Herbert<br />
WI<br />
D<br />
Kyl, Jon<br />
AZ<br />
R<br />
Landrieu, Mary<br />
LA<br />
D<br />
Lautenberg, Frank<br />
NJ<br />
D<br />
LeMieux, George<br />
FL<br />
R<br />
Levin, Carl<br />
MI<br />
D<br />
Lieberman, Joseph<br />
CT<br />
I<br />
Lincoln, Blanche<br />
AR<br />
D<br />
Lugar, Richard<br />
IN<br />
R<br />
McCain, John<br />
AZ<br />
R<br />
McCaskill, Claire<br />
MO<br />
D<br />
McConnell, Mitch<br />
KY<br />
R<br />
Menendez, Bob<br />
NJ<br />
D<br />
Mikulski, Barbara<br />
MD<br />
D<br />
Murkowski, Lisa<br />
AK<br />
R<br />
Murray, Patty<br />
WA<br />
D<br />
Nelson, Ben<br />
NE<br />
D<br />
Nelson, Bill<br />
FL<br />
D<br />
Pryor, Mark<br />
AR<br />
D<br />
Reed, Jack<br />
RI<br />
D<br />
Reid, Harry<br />
NV<br />
D<br />
Risch, Jim<br />
ID<br />
R<br />
Roberts, Pat<br />
KS<br />
R<br />
Rockefeller, Jay<br />
WV<br />
D<br />
Schumer, Charles<br />
NY<br />
D<br />
Sessions, Jeff<br />
AL<br />
R<br />
Shaheen, Jeanne<br />
NH<br />
D<br />
Shelby, Richard<br />
AL<br />
R<br />
Snowe, Olympia<br />
ME<br />
R<br />
Specter, Arlen<br />
PA<br />
D<br />
Stabenow, Debbie<br />
MI<br />
D<br />
Tester, John<br />
MT<br />
D<br />
Thune, John<br />
SD<br />
R<br />
Udall, Mark<br />
CO<br />
D<br />
Vitter, David<br />
LA<br />
R<br />
Voinovich, George<br />
OH<br />
R<br />
Warner, Mark<br />
VA<br />
D<br />
Whitehouse, Sheldon<br />
RI<br />
D<br />
Wicker, Roger<br />
MS<br />
R<br />
Wyden, Ron<br />
OR<br />
D<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm">Senators of the 111th Congress </a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9g12UoEDwnfndJwsRpjZryZTm7jFSAbjVpSoSvtB6AxN6_c_LPjcxDOxThPdHLn4VaPEq8cxNTyh5UD4vz0j8RuklWebioTUK1Gq97ztk0C2WTmAQVxlucahMmQ592iP_TSU8Cw/s1600/bendib-iran-and-israel-nukes-cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="282" hw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9g12UoEDwnfndJwsRpjZryZTm7jFSAbjVpSoSvtB6AxN6_c_LPjcxDOxThPdHLn4VaPEq8cxNTyh5UD4vz0j8RuklWebioTUK1Gq97ztk0C2WTmAQVxlucahMmQ592iP_TSU8Cw/s400/bendib-iran-and-israel-nukes-cartoon.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: x-large;">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</span></strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: #274e13; font-size: x-large;">House of Represntatives</span></strong></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzV8XWm3NM7jx3Ww4EGvPwkElJ6MVoegs0EB_sN5Acvjiab8K1jHobGFv1ybCbcEOkkEZwCEwBaQ2gSn3orDlbsoEcLHOd43eixKX9xy2iwIwOhtiiHaZXsHrLhV_GM4oKW8t24w/s1600/120px-Seal_of_the_House_of_Representatives_svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" hw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzV8XWm3NM7jx3Ww4EGvPwkElJ6MVoegs0EB_sN5Acvjiab8K1jHobGFv1ybCbcEOkkEZwCEwBaQ2gSn3orDlbsoEcLHOd43eixKX9xy2iwIwOhtiiHaZXsHrLhV_GM4oKW8t24w/s320/120px-Seal_of_the_House_of_Representatives_svg.png" /></a></div><br />
Members 435 plus 6 non-voting members <br />
<br />
Signatories to the Poe-Peters Letter on<br />
the Gaza Flotilla Incident<br />
Total Number of Signatories: 338<br />
<br />
House Member Party State<br />
<br />
Ackerman, Gary D NY<br />
Aderholt, Robert R AL<br />
Adler, John D NJ<br />
Akin, Todd R MO<br />
Alexander, Rodney R LA<br />
Altmire, Jason D PA<br />
Andrews, Rob D NJ<br />
Arcuri, Mike D NY<br />
Austria, Steve R OH<br />
Baca, Joe D CA<br />
Bachmann, Michele R MN<br />
Bachus, Spencer R AL<br />
Barrett, Gresham R SC<br />
Barrow, John D GA<br />
Bartlett, Roscoe R MD<br />
Barton, Joe R TX<br />
Bean, Melissa D IL<br />
Berkley, Shelley D NV<br />
Berman, Howard D CA<br />
Biggert, Judy R IL<br />
Bilbray, Brian R CA<br />
Bilirakis, Gus R FL<br />
Bishop, Rob R UT<br />
Bishop, Sanford D GA<br />
Bishop, Tim D NY<br />
Blackburn, Marsha R TN<br />
Blunt, Roy R MO<br />
Boccieri, John D OH<br />
Boehner, John R OH<br />
Bonner, Jo R AL<br />
Bono Mack, Mary R CA<br />
Boozman, John R AR<br />
Boren, Dan D OK<br />
Boswell, Leonard D IA<br />
Boyd, Allen D FL<br />
Brady, Kevin R TX<br />
Brady, Robert D PA<br />
Bright, Bobby D AL<br />
Broun, Paul R GA<br />
Brown, Corrine D FL<br />
Brown, Henry R SC<br />
Brown-Waite, Ginny R FL<br />
Buchanan, Vern R FL<br />
Burgess, Michael R TX<br />
Burton, Dan R IN<br />
Buyer, Steve R IN<br />
Calvert, Ken R CA<br />
Camp, Dave R MI<br />
Campbell, John R CA<br />
Cantor, Eric R VA<br />
Cao, Anh "Joseph" R LA<br />
Capito, Shelley Moore R WV<br />
Cardoza, Dennis D CA<br />
Carnahan, Russ D MO<br />
Carney, Chris D PA<br />
Carter, John R TX<br />
Cassidy, Bill R LA<br />
Castle, Michael R DE<br />
Castor, Kathy D FL<br />
Chaffetz, Jason R UT<br />
Chandler, Ben D KY<br />
Childers, Travis D MS<br />
Clarke, Yvette D NY<br />
Clyburn, James D SC<br />
Coble, Howard R NC<br />
Coffman, Mike R CO<br />
Cohen, Steve D TN<br />
Cole, Tom R OK<br />
Conaway, Michael R TX<br />
Cooper, Jim D TN<br />
Costa, Jim D CA<br />
Costello, Jerry D IL<br />
Courtney, Joe D CT<br />
Crenshaw, Ander R FL<br />
Critz, Mark D PA<br />
Crowley, Joseph D NY<br />
Cuellar, Henry D TX<br />
Culberson, John R TX<br />
Cummings, Elijah D MD<br />
Davis, Artur D AL<br />
Davis, Geoff R KY<br />
Davis, Lincoln D TN<br />
Davis, Susan D CA<br />
DeLauro, Rosa D CT<br />
Dent, Charlie R PA<br />
Deutch, Ted D FL<br />
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln R FL<br />
Diaz-Balart, Mario R FL<br />
Djou, Charles R HI<br />
Donnelly, Joe D IN<br />
Doyle, Mike D PA<br />
Dreier, David R CA<br />
Driehaus, Steve D OH<br />
Edwards, Chet D TX<br />
Ehlers, Vern R MI<br />
Ellsworth, Brad D IN<br />
Emerson, JoAnn R MO<br />
Engel, Eliot D NY<br />
Fallin, Mary R OK<br />
Flake, Jeff R AZ<br />
Fleming, John R LA<br />
Forbes, Randy R VA<br />
Fortenberry, Jeff R NE<br />
Foster, Bill D IL<br />
Foxx, Virginia R NC<br />
Frank, Barney D MA<br />
Franks, Trent R AZ<br />
Frelinghuysen, Rodney R NJ<br />
Fudge, Marcia D OH<br />
Gallegly, Elton R CA<br />
Garamendi, John D CA<br />
Garrett, Scott R NJ<br />
Gerlach, James R PA<br />
Giffords, Gabrielle D AZ<br />
Gingrey, Phil R GA<br />
Gohmert, Louie R TX<br />
Goodlatte, Robert R VA<br />
Gordon, Bart D TN<br />
Granger, Kay R TX<br />
Graves, Sam R MO<br />
Graves, Tom R GA<br />
Grayson, Alan D FL<br />
Green, Al D TX<br />
Green, Gene D TX<br />
Griffith, Parker R AL<br />
Guthrie, Brett R KY<br />
Gutierrez, Luis D IL<br />
Hall, John D NY<br />
Hall, Ralph R TX<br />
Halvorson, Debbie D IL<br />
Hare, Phil D IL<br />
Harman, Jane D CA<br />
Harper, Gregg R MS<br />
Hastings, Alcee D FL<br />
Hastings, Doc R WA<br />
Heinrich, Martin D NM<br />
Heller, Dean R NV<br />
Hensarling, Jeb R TX<br />
Herger, Wally R CA<br />
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie D SD<br />
Higgins, Brian D NY<br />
Hill, Baron D IN<br />
Himes, Jim D CT<br />
Hinojosa, Ruben D TX<br />
Hodes, Paul D NH<br />
Hoekstra, Peter R MI<br />
Holden, Tim D PA<br />
Holt, Rush D NJ<br />
Hoyer, Steny D MD<br />
Hunter, Duncan D. R CA<br />
Inglis, Bob R SC<br />
Israel, Steve D NY<br />
Jackson, Jesse, Jr. D IL<br />
Jenkins, Lynn R KS<br />
Johnson, Hank D GA<br />
Johnson, Sam R TX<br />
Johnson, Tim R IL<br />
Jordan, Jim R OH<br />
Kagen, Steve D WI<br />
Kennedy, Patrick D RI<br />
Kildee, Dale D MI<br />
Kilroy, Mary Jo D OH<br />
King, Peter R NY<br />
King, Steve R IA<br />
Kingston, Jack R GA<br />
Kirk, Mark R IL<br />
Kirkpatrick, Ann D AZ<br />
Kissell, Larry D NC<br />
Klein, Ron D FL<br />
Kline, John R MN<br />
Kosmas, Suzanne D FL<br />
Kratovil, Frank D MD<br />
Lamborn, Doug R CO<br />
Lance, Leonard R NJ<br />
Langevin, Jim D RI<br />
Larsen, Rick D WA<br />
Larson, John D CT<br />
Latham, Tom R IA<br />
LaTourette, Steven R OH<br />
Latta, Bob R OH<br />
Lee, Christopher R NY<br />
Levin, Sander D MI<br />
Lewis, Jerry R CA<br />
Linder, John R GA<br />
Lipinski, Daniel D IL<br />
LoBiondo, Frank R NJ<br />
Lowey, Nita D NY<br />
Lucas, Frank R OK<br />
Luetkemeyer, Blaine R MO<br />
Lummis, Cynthia R WY<br />
Lungren, Dan R CA<br />
Mack, Connie R FL<br />
Maffei, Dan D NY<br />
Maloney, Carolyn D NY<br />
Manzullo, Donald R IL<br />
Marchant, Kenny R TX<br />
Markey, Betsey D CO<br />
Markey, Edward D MA<br />
Marshall, Jim D GA<br />
Matheson, Jim D UT<br />
Matsui, Doris D CA<br />
McCarthy, Carolyn D NY<br />
McCarthy, Kevin R CA<br />
McCaul, Michael R TX<br />
McClintock, Tom R CA<br />
McCotter, Thaddeus R MI<br />
McHenry, Patrick R NC<br />
McIntyre, Mike D NC<br />
McKeon, Howard "Buck" R CA<br />
McMahon, Michael D NY<br />
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy R WA<br />
McNerney, Jerry D CA<br />
Meek, Kendrick D FL<br />
Meeks, Gregory D NY<br />
Mica, John R FL<br />
Michaud, Mike D ME<br />
Miller, Brad D NC<br />
Miller, Candice R MI<br />
Miller, Gary R CA<br />
Miller, Jeff R FL<br />
Minnick, Walt D ID<br />
Mitchell, Harry D AZ<br />
Moore, Dennis D KS<br />
Moran, Jerry R KS<br />
Murphy, Chris D CT<br />
Murphy, Patrick D PA<br />
Murphy, Scott D NY<br />
Murphy, Tim R PA<br />
Myrick, Sue R NC<br />
Nadler, Jerrold D NY<br />
Napolitano, Grace D CA<br />
Neal, Richard D MA<br />
Neugebauer, Randy R TX<br />
Nunes, Devin R CA<br />
Nye, Glenn D VA<br />
Olson, Pete R TX<br />
Ortiz, Solomon D TX<br />
Owens, Bill D NY<br />
Pallone, Frank D NJ<br />
Pascrell Jr., William D NJ<br />
Paulsen, Erik R MN<br />
Pence, Mike R IN<br />
Perlmutter, Ed D CO<br />
Peters, Gary D MI<br />
Pitts, Joseph R PA<br />
Platts, Todd R PA<br />
Poe, Ted R TX<br />
Polis, Jared D CO<br />
Posey, Bill R FL<br />
Price, Tom R GA<br />
Putnam, Adam R FL<br />
Quigley, Mike D IL<br />
Radanovich, George R CA<br />
Rangel, Charles D NY<br />
Rehberg, Dennis R MT<br />
Reichert, Dave R WA<br />
Reyes, Silvestre D TX<br />
Richardson, Laura D CA<br />
Rodriguez, Ciro D TX<br />
Roe, Phil R TN<br />
Rogers, Harold R KY<br />
Rogers, Mike R MI<br />
Rogers, Mike R AL<br />
Rohrabacher, Dana R CA<br />
Rooney, Tom R FL<br />
Roskam, Peter R IL<br />
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana R FL<br />
Ross, Mike D AR<br />
Rothman, Steve D NJ<br />
Roybal-Allard, Lucille D CA<br />
Royce, Ed R CA<br />
Ruppersberger, C.A. Dutch D MD<br />
Rush, Bobby D IL<br />
Ryan, Paul R WI<br />
Ryan, Tim D OH<br />
Salazar, John D CO<br />
Sanchez, Linda D CA<br />
Sarbanes, John D MD<br />
Scalise, Steve R LA<br />
Schakowsky, Jan D IL<br />
Schauer, Mark D MI<br />
Schiff, Adam D CA<br />
Schmidt, Jean R OH<br />
Schock, Aaron R IL<br />
Schrader, Kurt D OR<br />
Schwartz, Allyson D PA<br />
Scott, Bobby D VA<br />
Scott, David D GA<br />
Sensenbrenner, James R WI<br />
Sessions, Pete R TX<br />
Sestak, Joe D PA<br />
Shadegg, John R AZ<br />
Sherman, Brad D CA<br />
Shimkus, John R IL<br />
Shuler, Heath D NC<br />
Shuster, William R PA<br />
Simpson, Mike R ID<br />
Sires, Albio D NJ<br />
Skelton, Ike D MO<br />
Slaughter, Louise D NY<br />
Smith, Adrian R NE<br />
Smith, Christopher R NJ<br />
Smith, Lamar R TX<br />
Space, Zack D OH<br />
Spratt, John D SC<br />
Stearns, Cliff R FL<br />
Sullivan, John R OK<br />
Sutton, Betty D OH<br />
Teague, Harry D NM<br />
Terry, Lee R NE<br />
Terry, Lee R TX<br />
Thompson, Bennie D MS<br />
Thompson, Glenn R PA<br />
Thompson, Mike D CA<br />
Thornberry, William R TX<br />
Tiahrt, Todd R KS<br />
Tiberi, Pat R OH<br />
Titus, Dina D NV<br />
Tonko, Paul D NY<br />
Towns, Edolphus D NY<br />
Turner, Mike R OH<br />
Upton, Fred R MI<br />
Van Hollen, Chris D MD<br />
Visclosky, Peter D IN<br />
Walden, Greg R OR<br />
Walz, Tim D MN<br />
Wamp, Zach R TN<br />
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie D FL<br />
Waxman, Henry D CA<br />
Weiner, Anthony D NY<br />
Westmoreland, Lynn R GA<br />
Wilson, Charlie D OH<br />
Wilson, Joe R SC<br />
Wittman, Rob R VA<br />
Wolf, Frank R VA<br />
Yarmuth, John D KY<br />
Young, C.W. Bill R FL<br />
Young, Don R AK<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpCDVF4oz-6lL3XzckyIHwR8_VUOd53dD9oYR_aXFdbqgnm4Cp6pNo81oHGXHDR0Q94jyOy2LdzFsldc2dcRvN7VG1MOEl4ACARGLggJCRm8fS8-b0a8Sn04viNZyszmTPryVMsQ/s1600/091123_cartoon_600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="518" hw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpCDVF4oz-6lL3XzckyIHwR8_VUOd53dD9oYR_aXFdbqgnm4Cp6pNo81oHGXHDR0Q94jyOy2LdzFsldc2dcRvN7VG1MOEl4ACARGLggJCRm8fS8-b0a8Sn04viNZyszmTPryVMsQ/s640/091123_cartoon_600.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-15354602643957803922010-04-10T19:44:00.001-07:002010-04-10T19:46:56.950-07:00Bucky Balls<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrN8EvFVKi5imOjzGyvQLEEO91glkJHoHomVJ-uyo2dBA5gEjLumJUEWhEKaAIhhoXEA6RPvi7BS6_NwdGlfh-W0VLSKg13NP9dE0pruoaHy92eJ8FlTS0rzXmHMYLcHR44pfWfw/s1600/220px-C60_Buckyball.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrN8EvFVKi5imOjzGyvQLEEO91glkJHoHomVJ-uyo2dBA5gEjLumJUEWhEKaAIhhoXEA6RPvi7BS6_NwdGlfh-W0VLSKg13NP9dE0pruoaHy92eJ8FlTS0rzXmHMYLcHR44pfWfw/s320/220px-C60_Buckyball.gif" wt="true" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1j2nXAbmPq7BPmpUG9kdr_0KI-EskgKr0VfkM7IKsawrgWbQbq7V4-r_gVtJg_OqNsivfDaL0B2k1nrdPN1SfNXYdzihyphenhyphenjlrz6FszqT5ndXC5K-yJA8dyCzJI6VB7lICGCUybRg/s1600/160px-Fussball.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1j2nXAbmPq7BPmpUG9kdr_0KI-EskgKr0VfkM7IKsawrgWbQbq7V4-r_gVtJg_OqNsivfDaL0B2k1nrdPN1SfNXYdzihyphenhyphenjlrz6FszqT5ndXC5K-yJA8dyCzJI6VB7lICGCUybRg/s320/160px-Fussball.jpg" wt="true" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene">Buckminsterfullerene</a><br />
<br />
A fullerene is any molecule composed entirely of carbon, in the form of a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, or tube. Spherical fullerenes are also called buckyballs, and cylindrical ones are called carbon nanotubes or buckytubes. Fullerenes are similar in structure to graphite, which is composed of stacked graphene sheets of linked hexagonal rings; but they may also contain pentagonal (or sometimes heptagonal) rings.<br />
<br />
The first fullerene to be discovered, and the family's namesake, was buckminsterfullerene C60, made in 1985 by Robert Curl, Harold Kroto and Richard Smalley. The name was an homage to Richard Buckminster Fuller, whose geodesic domes it resembles. Fullerenes have since been found to occur (if rarely) in nature.Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-91669341647989565572009-03-08T15:46:00.000-07:002009-03-08T15:47:02.411-07:00Fiat Empire: Documentary on the Federal Reserve SystemFiat Empire - the FED Is UnConstitutional 1of6<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n_Jnt61b4nk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n_Jnt61b4nk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />http://www.FiatEmpire.com This Telly Award-winning documentary on the Federal Reserve System was inspired by the well-known book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, and feature... <br /><br />Fiat Empire - the FED Is UnConstitutional 2of6<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xbzg6DVmnxM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xbzg6DVmnxM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Fiat Empire - Federal Reserve (3 of 6)<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cb1c5qnHr-M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cb1c5qnHr-M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Fiat Empire - the FED Is UnConstitutional 4of6<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NDwojE4PgD8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NDwojE4PgD8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Fiat Empire - the FED Is UnConstitutional 5of6<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d521m43Tojc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d521m43Tojc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Fiat Empire - The FED Is UnConstitutional 6of6<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ITmE4lcb5-g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ITmE4lcb5-g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-6478861863409580422008-12-09T11:28:00.000-08:002008-12-09T11:52:01.897-08:00My Friend Bu$h & Healthy Forests<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fnHdM51fIPc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fnHdM51fIPc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />George Duhbya Bu$h helped us get the <a href='http://mosnas2.blogspot.com/2006/01/ranger-gordon-dont-know-jack.html'>kindling out of our forests</a> and he'll help us get the rest of it.Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-15770804336031664082008-10-29T21:10:00.000-07:002008-10-29T22:03:42.310-07:00Oregon's Jeff Merkley: Let's Send A True Blue Democrat To The Senate!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjUt6DKzFnR61FN8ERWWDuUxKCu4QiLnrDrfB0ZZb6893_innqdNQKbEo26dzyU2oqJWMOP1dbih5588dBrhd-DIapFx04syo_rpCG4p-qSXhneQi-C7fd6jzRGvtOmFHN1pYmiQ/s1600-h/tax.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjUt6DKzFnR61FN8ERWWDuUxKCu4QiLnrDrfB0ZZb6893_innqdNQKbEo26dzyU2oqJWMOP1dbih5588dBrhd-DIapFx04syo_rpCG4p-qSXhneQi-C7fd6jzRGvtOmFHN1pYmiQ/s400/tax.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262799587064573522" border="0" /></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">This showed up in my mailbox today, from the Republican party. There is no mention of Senator Gordon Smith's approval of the message, but I'm sure he is aware of it. The message, or should I just call it a psy-op, is pretty clear and the motivation is fear. Problem is that like a lot of things done by the current corporation that calls itself a government, it is directed at the opponent when it is the perpetrator who is to be feared.<br /><br />Senator Smith was a Ranger, indicating a donation of $200,000 dollars to the George Duhhbya Bu$h campaign. He was also involved in the <a href="http://mosnas2.blogspot.com/2006/01/ranger-gordon-dont-know-jack.html">Abramof scandle</a> and the "Healthy Forests Iniative", among other things. Ranger Smith collected a cool million $ when Bu$h came to Oregon to show us how to clear the kindling out of our forests. </span></span></span></span><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k-UkAR81gmk&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k-UkAR81gmk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /> <i>by Turkana</i> <p>Most of the Senate seats we flipped two years ago, and most we can flip this year, were and are of the red to purple variety. Electing true blue Democrats just isn't easy. But we can do it, in Oregon. The most recent polls show <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/senate/or/oregon_senate-566.html">Jeff Merkley pulling ahead</a>. </p> <p>Are you ready for another true blue U.S. Senator? Please <a href="https://www.mediamezcla.com/campaign_engine/2.0.4/process_cc.php?code=www&id=www.jeffmerkley.com">donate</a> to and/or <a href="https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Join/signupId:23564">volunteer</a> for Jeff Merkley!</p> <p>How great is Jeff Merkley?</p> <p>Jeff Merkley opposed the boondoggle <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2008/10/merkley_stateme_7.php">Wall Street Bailout</a>.</p> <p>As did Barack Obama, Jeff Merkley <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2007/11/ending_the_iraq.php">opposed the Iraq War before it started</a>. He was also the first U.S. Senate candidate to sign on to "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq”.</p> <p>Jeff Merkley supports <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2007/11/energy_and_the.php">an 80% reduction in greenhouse gasses and massive investments in r & d of renewable energy and other green technologies</a>.</p> <p>Jeff Merkley believes we must provide <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2007/11/health_care.php">universal health care</a>.</p> <p>Jeff Merkley wants to <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2008/01/strengthening_o_1.php">fully fund Head Start and public schools, and overhaul No Child Left Behind</a>.</p> <p>Jeff Merkley supports a comprehensive plan to <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2007/11/honoring_americ.php">honor and serve our veterans</a>.</p> <p>Jeff Merkley believes in free trade, but also believes we must <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2007/11/reforming_trade.php">reform trade agreements to add labor and environmental standards, stop offshore tax shelters, and prevent fast track</a>.</p> <p>Jeff Merkley <a href="http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2008/01/equality_for_al.php">supports marriage equality, led the fight in Oregon's legislature to legalize domestic partnerships, and will oppose effort to pass federal legislation that bans marriage equality</a>.</p><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yomh0Yw0VIU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yomh0Yw0VIU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-82956548909751273052008-09-29T18:19:00.000-07:002008-09-29T18:32:35.696-07:00Chris Mathhews outs McCain on Bailout Fiasco<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuPGCjQWkmqBvjdJPa9AVzlaVzRQqKmyCVCY8N124UQuYiXuoPoRW7-q_fG1eMlFjZYUK9oKUieRwp2lVZcI6RDBHYSpfpFO9U4vlJOBupx_TYMu-0-hyzvttW4SAzTWr_xmXLbA/s1600-h/colleroster.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuPGCjQWkmqBvjdJPa9AVzlaVzRQqKmyCVCY8N124UQuYiXuoPoRW7-q_fG1eMlFjZYUK9oKUieRwp2lVZcI6RDBHYSpfpFO9U4vlJOBupx_TYMu-0-hyzvttW4SAzTWr_xmXLbA/s400/colleroster.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251620066602264834" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQQzDCOT6exg3AQ_303diqiq3TA0FYqskhY8TCoqKt4dL_R4TVbWvQdNG-OR1Mta8L4q7AXMEoSXZhanx1R7UgyCXRuZKa0fgZIS_YrH1IsMvKAz1sItg4jv000roSmB1XpWe0Vg/s1600-h/donmccain.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQQzDCOT6exg3AQ_303diqiq3TA0FYqskhY8TCoqKt4dL_R4TVbWvQdNG-OR1Mta8L4q7AXMEoSXZhanx1R7UgyCXRuZKa0fgZIS_YrH1IsMvKAz1sItg4jv000roSmB1XpWe0Vg/s200/donmccain.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251619611139294162" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Chris Matthews points to John McCain's failure to provide the leadership that he promised -- and took credit for:<br /><br />McCain said he was going to lead the Republican charge, he was going to make sure that this was a bipartisan success...he called charge, and the Republicans retreated. That's what happened here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/matthews-on-mccains-faile_n_130309.html">Video here</a>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-65738448978627207572008-09-26T10:33:00.000-07:002008-09-26T10:47:10.776-07:00Just say NO to Bail Out$ for Failures<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidd0DS_ZDjJp494HZIN-R7oYX_Oj1btNUdlOxNF0mzezhhjzSwt8lQCz6wUO1Ra8L3meqLFI40d-UuBMGEERngtLuXUnDPLnWmKWV3GRfr7tke2JalCJWO13HREuY8Lgf8w3fCtA/s1600-h/American_union_bank.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidd0DS_ZDjJp494HZIN-R7oYX_Oj1btNUdlOxNF0mzezhhjzSwt8lQCz6wUO1Ra8L3meqLFI40d-UuBMGEERngtLuXUnDPLnWmKWV3GRfr7tke2JalCJWO13HREuY8Lgf8w3fCtA/s400/American_union_bank.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5250386606770245842" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Comedy Central's John Stewart</span></span></span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=186052">VIDEO</a></div>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-82571177949971804372008-09-23T07:42:00.001-07:002008-09-23T09:09:06.076-07:00Had Enough? Energy Action Northwest's Ed Finklea wants LNG for his new Honda<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOlVsnjSSZVXv_Hju0WUP7-hdZS82bv3zsd4kzqq6YWuiBE3WrsJ84I71RZ7fG9bz7XBswK4Km48mSNvFUWDs2lEkHDGtyOslJSYC67aeRA0q1zwl5I7DxBKKL2HWKDQwmZPjMpw/s1600-h/tanker-lng-image101.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOlVsnjSSZVXv_Hju0WUP7-hdZS82bv3zsd4kzqq6YWuiBE3WrsJ84I71RZ7fG9bz7XBswK4Km48mSNvFUWDs2lEkHDGtyOslJSYC67aeRA0q1zwl5I7DxBKKL2HWKDQwmZPjMpw/s400/tanker-lng-image101.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249227578228075762" border="0" /></a><br />New group rallies around natural gas as prices soar<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/07/28/story5.html">Portland Business Journal</a><br /><br />by Erik Siemers Business Journal staff writer Friday, July 25, 2008<br /><br />Seeing spiking natural gas prices as a threat to the regional economy, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep18/0,4670,LNGTerminal,00.html">a newly formed coalition of business and labor leaders is on a mission to build support</a> for increasing the region's gas supplies.<br /><br />So far, Energy Action Northwest sees the controversial liquefied natural gas terminal proposals as having the strongest advantages.<br /><br />Led by Edward Finklea, a Portland attorney and former counsel to the Northwest Industrial Gas Users, <a href='http://tinyurl.com/4tt7oc'>Energy Action North West</a> announced its formation last week. It seeks to marshal business and labor resources around reducing the cost of natural gas, principally through increasing the amount of gas supplies that reach the region.<br /><br />The group's unveiling came in conjunction with news that three Oregon natural gas companies -- Northwest Natural Gas Co., Avista Utilities, and Cascade Natural Gas -- would be taking rate hike requests to the state Public Utility Commission next month.<br /><br />Portland-based NW Natural, the state's largest gas utility with 657,000 customers in Oregon and southwest Washington, expects the biggest increase, with prices potentially jumping 40 percent.<br /><br />The utilities pass the cost of natural gas onto customers, and those prices are spiking -- partly from demand, but also because they say supplies are tight.<br /><br />Kim Heiting, director of corporate communications for NW Natural, said two-thirds of the utility's gas comes from Canada, where exports are expected to decline by as much as 40 percent by 2015. The rest of the gas comes from supplies in the Rocky Mountains, where there is competition from pipelines shipping the fuel to eastern markets.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep18/0,4670,LNGTerminal,00.html">Finklea said his group isn't advocating for LNG only</a>. It just doesn't want to see options stifled by highly charged environmental groups or the state.<br /><br />"We're never going to be out there saying, 'look the other way'" on environmental concerns, Finklea said. "But we also don't need the state of Oregon or some group of hyperactive self-appointed activist groups to decide it's their goal to see that we tie this up so long to see if we can't kill it."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/07/28/story5.html">Read the whole article here...G:</a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdT06tkhN5ToxWJi5SphivQZjc9_C4fo0F7dGMeUXBudlp4uz1IWxW72AAnCIJldU_nTfNoc4hRnxMG2Vvj2sJgI81-0l4WVUhJ3s1iDE-vvLf8A6Q5tKPio9TT5wp-p29X4FKsQ/s1600-h/124275-0-0-2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdT06tkhN5ToxWJi5SphivQZjc9_C4fo0F7dGMeUXBudlp4uz1IWxW72AAnCIJldU_nTfNoc4hRnxMG2Vvj2sJgI81-0l4WVUhJ3s1iDE-vvLf8A6Q5tKPio9TT5wp-p29X4FKsQ/s400/124275-0-0-2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249228834253243026" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Energy Action Executive Director Edward Finklea, here holding a picture of his natural gas-powered Honda, predicts rapid growth for his organization. He is installing a $10,000<br />home fueling station for it. Yep, Ed is a real lucky guy. Because he is the Exec. of a non profit organization he gets a little help from (SELP), <br /><a href="http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/incentive.shtml">Small Scale Energy Loan Program</a>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-7533148353880356472008-09-19T19:13:00.000-07:002008-09-19T19:43:58.284-07:00Videos show more than fire in WTC collapse<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">A picture is worth a thousand words</span></span></span><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k-jYSy1SxsI&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k-jYSy1SxsI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Slow motion & cropped BBC footage showing rapid debris ejection moving down the west side of the building.<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dgb-MU1BsC0&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dgb-MU1BsC0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Slow motion video taken from south. Just where do the top 30 stories go? We see them tipping, then all of the sudden just pulverized concrete dust and steel ejected. Clip from BBC Horizon "Fall of the World Trade Centre"<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8OQWz7xlINA&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8OQWz7xlINA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Raw footage. WTC collapse. The first building collapse and the second hit.<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vux2aMeK1u8&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vux2aMeK1u8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Cameraplanet video taken from south near Trinity Church.<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GZ7p0tQKKJ0&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GZ7p0tQKKJ0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />a common sense look at the pancake collapse of the South Tower. How was a pancake collapse possible by the laws of physics?</div>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-59524389218937697312008-08-26T10:02:00.001-07:002008-08-26T10:12:35.123-07:00<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bO5R4vgkLX8&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bO5R4vgkLX8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080823.a.mp3'>Oil Leak</a><br /><br /><p> <br /><br /><p>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-78267812553579851502008-08-25T17:57:00.000-07:002008-08-25T18:03:42.621-07:00Pelosi: 911 Investigation is a no no<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiImY_wyoKFetMd7t-EmOXVy6gl89dBfBJf0s0x5OnTi3dh8P8qJY0cTv261Url2sWhtesL0duhZflKe5JiQvBgi7CLq1AlFeNnDL5tVfuPEyArmYNV7y0zWnkvoaIinFq3PLib0A/s1600-h/pelosi_psychotic_witch.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiImY_wyoKFetMd7t-EmOXVy6gl89dBfBJf0s0x5OnTi3dh8P8qJY0cTv261Url2sWhtesL0duhZflKe5JiQvBgi7CLq1AlFeNnDL5tVfuPEyArmYNV7y0zWnkvoaIinFq3PLib0A/s400/pelosi_psychotic_witch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5238624284727791730" border="0" /></a><br />9/11 Investigation Also Off the Table For Speaker Who Refuses to Impeach Bush<br /><br />Newport, Rhode Island - Reporters affiliated with WeAreChange.org and Infowars.com confronted Speaker Nancy Pelosi about a new 9/11 investigation just after the passage of the 9/11 Bill, which only increases already strict security measures, particularly in airports.<br /><br />Pelosi rattled off a quick, "No, no, no" to the idea of a new 9/11 investigation before changing the subject to claim that she "worked closely with the victims' families" and that they supposedly wanted the recent legislation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/%20http://tinyurl.com/5j6385">TEXT & VIDEO</a>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-55998479733865882692008-07-29T21:36:00.001-07:002008-07-29T23:22:27.019-07:00Evolution of the blogosphere and Majestic 12<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX9J7k71ii7yczfSaYzJWNcacx-RCyI-Bj4Ft_WYucBG05mUR4YeO-_RB4bjLcgzTlg-8IPePsyrM4NNY6jxjVJs7joIGxTn9IcCK5HCvo4BgiSDOqQ6uX1pJb8wobHaGVb0JVlQ/s1600-h/Evolution-of-man-Dm.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX9J7k71ii7yczfSaYzJWNcacx-RCyI-Bj4Ft_WYucBG05mUR4YeO-_RB4bjLcgzTlg-8IPePsyrM4NNY6jxjVJs7joIGxTn9IcCK5HCvo4BgiSDOqQ6uX1pJb8wobHaGVb0JVlQ/s400/Evolution-of-man-Dm.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228661439279031554" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsBRNVQuoJ3il083ilyH8iCYottb57MXq8-LhpaspCUBqYhFoR8hwCAsGj45UeAsVrYomljFP7aRTmvVbg7MPymi66nxyr3uI1pcxdL7ZtmX4Y7OOXjRApfxvX06TCUjFGkU97bQ/s1600-h/UnderConstructionBangHead.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsBRNVQuoJ3il083ilyH8iCYottb57MXq8-LhpaspCUBqYhFoR8hwCAsGj45UeAsVrYomljFP7aRTmvVbg7MPymi66nxyr3uI1pcxdL7ZtmX4Y7OOXjRApfxvX06TCUjFGkU97bQ/s400/UnderConstructionBangHead.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228661614729524626" border="0" /></a>Man, I don't have the froggiest what to write about today. I'm completely boggled frazzled overamped...like my hard drive is full of Bu$hite and needs a dump. I think I'm going to de-fragment while I cruise the innertubes for the usual nonsense. Oh, I know what I'll do, just post a video, maybe a billbobjoe. Hmm Joe didn't do a new one yet so it looks like a good day for a bike ride. Life gets tedious don't it...G:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0dV3CCE67FUkjGKt2_qs1qPyCLqeSPHbXGQI0DUM0YSV1xNS5DYi94CvHwxkqxLCSWfE0LnusKuV1uJZQugY1YU0zk1wtPu-ydE3sDsZyfM-shOMf3M1Dw3Ka5hb5ZpwYdBsdLQ/s1600-h/saucernatch.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0dV3CCE67FUkjGKt2_qs1qPyCLqeSPHbXGQI0DUM0YSV1xNS5DYi94CvHwxkqxLCSWfE0LnusKuV1uJZQugY1YU0zk1wtPu-ydE3sDsZyfM-shOMf3M1Dw3Ka5hb5ZpwYdBsdLQ/s400/saucernatch.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228679726652212898" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Ah, the <a href="http://rangergordonsmith.blogspot.com/2008/07/majestic-12.html">Majestic 12</a> documents, I remember reading about them in the 1950's but never really seen any evidence. These sure look authentic, but like every other thing on the innertubes there are folks who call themselves debunkers just like the ones that were denying the existence of UFO's in the old days. Project Bluebook if I remember it correctly. It filed most of the reports where they couldn't be seen or explained them away as weather balloons, ball lightning, or just plain old hallucinations. All I can say is that there are two sightings that they can't explain to me, because I seen them. So it boils down to separate realities and folks seem to understand it a little more after sighting one...G:Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-2122266136491998622008-07-28T12:14:00.000-07:002008-07-29T22:55:45.438-07:00Majestic 12<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisZAKUN7-L0vN6hvCsaUHwPKEDPCZE9MVXLEP0M2iyx0PrHQB2tFvQmsJd1sL5YD9shIj7YMB-7zBojdPxK-Le7p7It_vlkITng6lJPLPS-jqqc1d82C4UB39u8uVTqqtD-OsYFQ/s1600-h/naturezzz.PNG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisZAKUN7-L0vN6hvCsaUHwPKEDPCZE9MVXLEP0M2iyx0PrHQB2tFvQmsJd1sL5YD9shIj7YMB-7zBojdPxK-Le7p7It_vlkITng6lJPLPS-jqqc1d82C4UB39u8uVTqqtD-OsYFQ/s400/naturezzz.PNG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228681487688346050" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ufocasebook.com/">UFO Casebook</a><br /></div><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></span></span></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Majestic 12</span></span></span></span><br /><br />click to enlarge page<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgggYKJPb9D6M9eUj0FMNa70B_bG0MjLFSOXEvECgSAUYp5MIUPmQ0Oa02v377Q0nc9lGZXcwAwBQnn-SMW46M6begyB4kRNscKjCo9P6OzcMT5xqaMDFkjWmSUSWK6EVtiFZuTnQ/s1600-h/mj1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgggYKJPb9D6M9eUj0FMNa70B_bG0MjLFSOXEvECgSAUYp5MIUPmQ0Oa02v377Q0nc9lGZXcwAwBQnn-SMW46M6begyB4kRNscKjCo9P6OzcMT5xqaMDFkjWmSUSWK6EVtiFZuTnQ/s400/mj1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228146043812542178" border="0" /></a><br /> notes<br /><br />Attatchment E...? regarding lettering seen on parts<br /><br /><br />Attatchment G...? regarding contingency plan in case public needs to be notified<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj59vi7wLSg7PyFTIZRognfnrXlb4PAyhhZInbVokjJ__hL2vhnMoG6w0CljCgURE7finY0zmym94aUDWOnLZNlPbhJ6ePvuOo0RwqKMNaWX8GufbAL9cP6d5sJ-D5sBT-QOOR8FQ/s1600-h/mj2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj59vi7wLSg7PyFTIZRognfnrXlb4PAyhhZInbVokjJ__hL2vhnMoG6w0CljCgURE7finY0zmym94aUDWOnLZNlPbhJ6ePvuOo0RwqKMNaWX8GufbAL9cP6d5sJ-D5sBT-QOOR8FQ/s400/mj2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228145953596203586" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0HVP2NKi_-TQ3jqD0LAyCM6VacC0zSafs1-6Y1zeKEJLfKZ3vMxmcTjaPJMrN0CqQbcn6zdarBqW9RwiCF5jA84y0myBPfCU64AZ5QOPYgNd793hoPA6oyOi4wgd3Cio_S_NVlQ/s1600-h/mj3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0HVP2NKi_-TQ3jqD0LAyCM6VacC0zSafs1-6Y1zeKEJLfKZ3vMxmcTjaPJMrN0CqQbcn6zdarBqW9RwiCF5jA84y0myBPfCU64AZ5QOPYgNd793hoPA6oyOi4wgd3Cio_S_NVlQ/s400/mj3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228145884720313138" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1KgUXv97_PL4LPg_pm90gAJMhmbRUo2x9TZmdzJOVboRIyhM8tBi0f81xkuK556DBRT_R6xTTdS3wXo6XxfeU1fOYe9OqAZ5BMTxDuE3fep5nbjQNz3qCVnp0wwhUID0mKFT8yg/s1600-h/mj4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1KgUXv97_PL4LPg_pm90gAJMhmbRUo2x9TZmdzJOVboRIyhM8tBi0f81xkuK556DBRT_R6xTTdS3wXo6XxfeU1fOYe9OqAZ5BMTxDuE3fep5nbjQNz3qCVnp0wwhUID0mKFT8yg/s400/mj4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228145802415524034" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRJJpfoSLzChn8WNkHRg4n26Z3etE_F-awdLOdJ0UX24lOIiknz109koB42bZ-IPtu3exBzKXYr1KFow5ABNNhSisGlhLh_WtXkDpkcVB4gMTcy_Wxdhv0z7c7Q4Qie4HKCXjHWQ/s1600-h/mj5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRJJpfoSLzChn8WNkHRg4n26Z3etE_F-awdLOdJ0UX24lOIiknz109koB42bZ-IPtu3exBzKXYr1KFow5ABNNhSisGlhLh_WtXkDpkcVB4gMTcy_Wxdhv0z7c7Q4Qie4HKCXjHWQ/s400/mj5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228145698130711826" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOEKai4bjv2Jif_u2OKpx0jk9SnLSSNSDKCSSQEbUPqMUSZsvjbrLavgTd74tI34AgNkwgPK0VknSKxS7ZdsJR5uNshJF9QT2neamvJYn3Tvt4tIUIVnUNeU8eaZA-L0PtsazL-A/s1600-h/mj6.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOEKai4bjv2Jif_u2OKpx0jk9SnLSSNSDKCSSQEbUPqMUSZsvjbrLavgTd74tI34AgNkwgPK0VknSKxS7ZdsJR5uNshJF9QT2neamvJYn3Tvt4tIUIVnUNeU8eaZA-L0PtsazL-A/s400/mj6.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5228145565378851026" border="0" /></a>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-84477147141870966482008-06-11T15:38:00.000-07:002008-06-11T15:53:39.461-07:00There's Plenty of Bread & Butter at AIPAC<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDPVR3JNVufp7TJrzbhondHg55BPiAjv1bMG0OmRByE1qeTzRV82VOOSCAEqeoFFXGTSRFVdsJMO5BBaq7DdIuFgw0mAGN6DrRprp5OXRBOE4r9lGr-oC2rqh-f4reR6rijuJITg/s1600-h/gall.candidates.gi.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDPVR3JNVufp7TJrzbhondHg55BPiAjv1bMG0OmRByE1qeTzRV82VOOSCAEqeoFFXGTSRFVdsJMO5BBaq7DdIuFgw0mAGN6DrRprp5OXRBOE4r9lGr-oC2rqh-f4reR6rijuJITg/s400/gall.candidates.gi.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5210758310250376914" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2008/06/americas_leadin.php">John Stewart @ Comedy Central</a><br /><br />The day after Barack Obama declared victory in St. Paul, he was at a podium addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which describes itself as "America's pro-Israel lobby."<br /><br />And it wasn't just Obama. McCain did it. Hillary Clinton did it too. AIPAC is a notoriously influential lobby, with organizing skills that are the stuff of legend. Following the Obama address, The Daily Show satirized AIPAC's role in politics.<br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Well, nothing surprises me any more after seeing some of the history of AIPAC and some of the lobbying that has been going on for many years, especially in regards Bill Clinton and the role of lobbying and big money in his winning of the Presidency. This deep pocketed dude, Harry Katz, tape recorded a phone call to president of AIPAC, David Steiner, that revealed much damning evidence of what went on with lobbying and politics in DC. Not only that, but he gave the tape to The Washington Times, which made so many waves in the media that Steiner promptly resigned from, what was and still is, the most powerful lobby in Washington DC.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html">HEAD OF AIPAC BOASTED ABOUT<br />HIS CONTROL OF POLITICIANS IN 1992</a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aJMDRXXmyHfpC7BOlP9YWN8qXPGDB94ljTK9lGOc9JC2DUKK2x1nLFTqXfwR4i3ZHzpPEdS-FPLSmkX3pfzPDAWxIBHlOgnkYLCpFNy5yBIm_MIRTaBePLcLu0aXsvFkWHzL/s1600-h/steinerresigns.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3aJMDRXXmyHfpC7BOlP9YWN8qXPGDB94ljTK9lGOc9JC2DUKK2x1nLFTqXfwR4i3ZHzpPEdS-FPLSmkX3pfzPDAWxIBHlOgnkYLCpFNy5yBIm_MIRTaBePLcLu0aXsvFkWHzL/s400/steinerresigns.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5210742857460730098" border="0" /></a><br />G: hmm ...I'll always wonder how Bill Clinton and Poppy Bush became buddies?Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-54809834863240743732008-03-09T15:02:00.001-07:002008-03-09T15:02:46.147-07:00<object id="A2892878022829007360" quality="high" data="http://llnw.jibjab.com/content/player.swf?content_url=http://www.jibjab.com/sendables/api/remote/n6KtTJKLMxhhNN6WhUKDcr9j.xml" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="369" width="435"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="movie" value="http://llnw.jibjab.com/content/player.swf"></param><param name="scaleMode" value="showAll"></param><param name="quality" value="high"></param><param name="allowNetworking" value="internal"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="content_url=http://www.jibjab.com/sendables/api/remote/n6KtTJKLMxhhNN6WhUKDcr9j.xml"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="never"></param></object><div style="text-align:center; width:435px; margin-top:6px;">Don't send a lame <a href="http://www.jibjab.com/sendables/category/52/starring_you">eCard</a>. Try <a href="http://www.jibjab.com/sendables">JibJab Sendables</a>!</div>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-77501331666713385922008-02-24T19:49:00.000-08:002008-02-24T19:52:14.479-08:00Commander in Chief<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiupTRl1GBIjSWuo-CVm7E6sJslsaQy_DYr_zWVya2Z-PvzaEJ1bbfT1SDeuF_OvBbeEir77wZTr5Jn8YacojunhHP3yPx9rC8ueQvR5wY4sr5EYwzF-rniGMiJ6eF_ioeFefDd-w/s1600-h/1monte.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiupTRl1GBIjSWuo-CVm7E6sJslsaQy_DYr_zWVya2Z-PvzaEJ1bbfT1SDeuF_OvBbeEir77wZTr5Jn8YacojunhHP3yPx9rC8ueQvR5wY4sr5EYwzF-rniGMiJ6eF_ioeFefDd-w/s400/1monte.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170760550906183346" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.jibjab.com/sendables/preview/m0HK8w71KWFZ5uUqbQkkqdmd">~VIDEO~</a></div>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-10619947177004440352008-02-01T20:26:00.000-08:002008-02-01T20:47:05.889-08:00Meltdown of US Banks is due to Bu$hco<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTkXhEPgpPV5CYRCiJSqyCB_h5YCLrJxU-Qihh62ckjzlPLPTesxuq0QCHoB_cLTp0yd8riK36UMxQGIz8KKWf0lB3V44ut-sz-uJCJ1ccCtti4ACWoWiSak5wCJuQiLNGiMHxvQ/s1600-h/dreamon.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTkXhEPgpPV5CYRCiJSqyCB_h5YCLrJxU-Qihh62ckjzlPLPTesxuq0QCHoB_cLTp0yd8riK36UMxQGIz8KKWf0lB3V44ut-sz-uJCJ1ccCtti4ACWoWiSak5wCJuQiLNGiMHxvQ/s400/dreamon.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5162234780240767410" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.consumer-guides.info/housing/Home_Ownership/">American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003</a><br /><br />Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All Americans<br /><br />On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.<br /><br />The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Census Bureau released data showing that new home construction in November reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. Overall housing starts rose 4.5 percent from October and rose 17.6 percent from November of 2002. Single-family housing starts totaled 1,695,000 (SAAR) in November, up 3.3 percent from October and up 20.8 percent from November 2002 – a record for single-family starts.<br /><br />The strong housing market is beneficial for communities across the Nation. America’s families have been refinancing due to the lowest mortgage rates in 45 years, saving hundreds of dollars a month on their home payments. The U.S. homeownership rate was 68.4% in the third quarter—its highest level ever.<br /><br /><br /><a href='http://www.consumer-guides.info/housing/Home_Ownership/'>Source: Whitehouse.gov </a>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-7676517472950237492008-01-29T07:32:00.001-08:002008-01-29T08:55:18.719-08:00Justice Dept. Accused of Blocking Gonzales Probe<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkjshrpXJhNuku4B7pz6pkEXwBJKCCxE1e9QT3APCBZS4XJvFDDgoruqMKXv6yN1T5Wv3TsPqBFO87PAyNRk7xnF2gkBOjpT7z-IY1Q8s6FRkd8KcK6TC9QLqefsLg2unna8zBMA/s1600-h/gonzales_passive.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkjshrpXJhNuku4B7pz6pkEXwBJKCCxE1e9QT3APCBZS4XJvFDDgoruqMKXv6yN1T5Wv3TsPqBFO87PAyNRk7xnF2gkBOjpT7z-IY1Q8s6FRkd8KcK6TC9QLqefsLg2unna8zBMA/s400/gonzales_passive.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5160922027781712114" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrOPGGp3V0MW8in6qfXenOFSyDYWXvTLYueL3HO1E-HlvNEyaPn1g24GYX_F_Z63JHgwOcaubnOLeniyqK2tOotjd2nsJ24rMHl0nwGBcW5Ax3cfsxtI8p7bKjDNWpq_bKds9Ebw/s1600-h/GONZO.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrOPGGp3V0MW8in6qfXenOFSyDYWXvTLYueL3HO1E-HlvNEyaPn1g24GYX_F_Z63JHgwOcaubnOLeniyqK2tOotjd2nsJ24rMHl0nwGBcW5Ax3cfsxtI8p7bKjDNWpq_bKds9Ebw/s400/GONZO.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5160934736589940994" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gone but not forgotten, Gonzo (the ex AG of George Duhhhbya Bu$h)is himself protected by Bu$hco's present AG who wants to postpone the whole thing until Bu$h can escape. You know...kind of like the time he tried to escape from the Chinese press but found the doors locked...G:<br /><br /></span></span><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30908">CREW</a><br /><br />Office of Special Counsel chief says his investigation into alleged politicization of the attorney general's agency has been repeatedly 'impeded.'<br /><br />29 Jan 2008<br /><br />The government agency that enforces one of the principal laws aimed at keeping politics out of the civil service has accused the Justice Department of blocking its investigation into alleged politicizing of the department under former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.<br /><br />Scott J. Bloch, head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, wrote Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey last week that the department had repeatedly "impeded" his investigation by refusing to share documents and provide answers to written questions, according to a copy of Bloch's letter obtained by the Los Angeles Times.<br /><br />The Justice Department wants Bloch to wait until its own internal investigation is completed. A department official signaled recently that the investigation is examining the possibility of criminal charges.<br /><br />But that, the regulator wrote, could take until the last months of the Bush administration, "when there is little hope of any corrective measures or discipline possible" being taken by his office.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30908">MORE</a><br /><p></p>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-66563074146704538272008-01-26T14:55:00.001-08:002008-01-26T15:02:03.770-08:00Lest we forget to remember 2004~Whatever It Takes<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho87pqtk7rFLe8WLSu01_HwPKSoMtS9kt8dDO-GmT3eIVCBySxI8FsKseUGo2vVqonouG0oEkDdou-wDNs1qwktcqQ6YVEclTzWRaD0zRAuINBzV6YXUp_PChLhBtmnCbR-YD4NQ/s1600-h/whatever-it-takes-bush.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho87pqtk7rFLe8WLSu01_HwPKSoMtS9kt8dDO-GmT3eIVCBySxI8FsKseUGo2vVqonouG0oEkDdou-wDNs1qwktcqQ6YVEclTzWRaD0zRAuINBzV6YXUp_PChLhBtmnCbR-YD4NQ/s400/whatever-it-takes-bush.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5159923048453433442" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush%20Lies">democrats.com</a><br /><br />Bush Ads Faked Crowd of Soldiers - How LOW Can He Go? Don't Ask!<br />28-Oct-04<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2iPnvACXXV0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2iPnvACXXV0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-5899664893524916472008-01-17T07:52:00.001-08:002008-01-17T08:10:31.471-08:00$$$$$$$$$$$Maxed Out$$$$$$$$$$$<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYJzq8kmhoZUAQAfEKL-npxe2SvwbHkQ3rpsAPXNqWrl5nQkb2na4vA5Ct7qAbEvKSNY3pWruJHS6G1dlRp7oZQq8cYPuOuV7MxTvRTwBXkbyRcyZRYJutFVksqK44v3EZgCdCmQ/s1600-h/maxedout.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYJzq8kmhoZUAQAfEKL-npxe2SvwbHkQ3rpsAPXNqWrl5nQkb2na4vA5Ct7qAbEvKSNY3pWruJHS6G1dlRp7oZQq8cYPuOuV7MxTvRTwBXkbyRcyZRYJutFVksqK44v3EZgCdCmQ/s400/maxedout.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156474133981206674" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Big Wishes, Easy Credit, Tough Times</span></span></span><br /></div><br />By STEPHEN HOLDEN<br />NY Times March 9, 2007<br /><br />“Them that’s got shall get/Them that’s not shall lose.” That observation from Billie Holiday’s “God Bless the Child” sums up the cynical view of “Maxed Out,” James D. Scurlock’s documentary investigation of debt in America. This scattershot exposé of usurious banking practices examines why the most vulnerable segment of society is victimized by the lending industry and finds a simple answer: It’s obscenely profitable.<br /><br /><a href="http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09maxe.html">~More~</a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 51);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Trailor</span></span></span><br /></div><br /><br /><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UJJQiEn329Y&rel=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UJJQiEn329Y&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Or you can see the full video</span></span></span><br /></div><br />Maxed Out: 1 hr 26 min 58 sec - Aug 15, 2007<br /><br /><a href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-4840432044369494646&hl=en">Full Video</a><br /><br />Maxed Out: 1 hr 26 min 58 sec - Aug 15, 2007Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-23770858843841480672008-01-12T09:42:00.001-08:002008-01-12T12:26:58.994-08:00Ron Paul on National ID: No reason to sacrifice Liberty<object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zLqCfLQlIk&rel=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5zLqCfLQlIk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."<br />-- Benjamin Franklin<br /><br /><br /></span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Q9nnA54jh3S72h3bAWFZfHIOD_tTaapjiXVoz6UqEWJh2ZExj2buJlkAxYHatm904euHT3U1eeYc6NSoOFzOgfRF0PNmRKQx0hyCFICG5evjKD-ezgJIiTnKV0TK0_KH3vMKuA/s1600-h/bush_mu3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3Q9nnA54jh3S72h3bAWFZfHIOD_tTaapjiXVoz6UqEWJh2ZExj2buJlkAxYHatm904euHT3U1eeYc6NSoOFzOgfRF0PNmRKQx0hyCFICG5evjKD-ezgJIiTnKV0TK0_KH3vMKuA/s400/bush_mu3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5154679692349970306" border="0" /></a><br />NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD BILL PASSES SENATE WITHOUT DEBATE<br />By A. Kronstadt<br /><br />[July 2007]<br /><br />One of the basic freedom issues that has united both left and right in the struggle against expanding governmental authority has been that of the National ID Card. Many European nations, particularly those with authoritarian histories such as Germany and the ex-communist bloc countries, have long required each citizen to carry some standardized national identification document that must be presented to the police on demand. We are all familiar with the motion picture stereotype of the Nazi or Soviet officer walking up to people and saying "your papers, please," but in the United States, people have traditionally regarded this as something we can all do without. We Americans definitely do not like the idea of needing something like a driver's license just to walk on the street, nor do we want cops asking us for a passport when we are traveling around our own country. Indeed, we are told that the Republicans and conservatives are the ones most vehemently opposed to this ultimate symbol of Big Government.<br /><br /><a href="http://shadowpress.org/national_id_card.52.html">More on National ID</a><br />.<br />.Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-76001901482446400082007-12-30T12:28:00.002-08:002007-12-30T13:30:10.616-08:00Happy New Year from Bu$h<a href="http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush">WIKIPEDIA</a><br /><br />George W. Bush<br /><br />George W. Bush (aka GW aka worthless moron) is the worlds most doofy Tyrant. Inaugurated as President in 2001, he's every American's worst nightmare. He wasn't born mean and unscrupulous, he worked hard at it. And succeeded. As for stupidity, well, some things are inborn.<br /><br />His top priorities are pleasing Satan and looking good in front of the rich and the insane (not necessarily in that order). Of absolutely no concern to him is the personal well-being of his citizens or the rest of the world! Bush is politically challenged but he stays current on all the latest political trends, even though he rarely understands them.<br /><br />Crazy statement include saying the French don't have a word for entrepreneur, and that war is dangerous.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0Veinlz92OWTEN7gwh8fKby8R8q_IijCqr93cYEQf0Qge9HaxHq8cYnoaALNdodzge6tRNZR7iSiO7N-Rf66ytholCw2KIKKv5kDVNBANp3BSapi3JWA9_eWFxYYjPBesZwe6HA/s1600-h/bush_chimp.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0Veinlz92OWTEN7gwh8fKby8R8q_IijCqr93cYEQf0Qge9HaxHq8cYnoaALNdodzge6tRNZR7iSiO7N-Rf66ytholCw2KIKKv5kDVNBANp3BSapi3JWA9_eWFxYYjPBesZwe6HA/s400/bush_chimp.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5149869737000342930" border="0" /></a><br />these pictures offer further truth of evolutionGeezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-8662820211099581642007-10-24T22:46:00.000-07:002007-10-24T22:51:27.746-07:00Happy Halloween<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrbZSM1FpA7UW_pyAArCZrYFs1020HWJgHDjCx0XoPHMgWJehaZB8yFqAbB3vczpCEMmzh3JLY6-E-dQb6WyGUP-JHobQwildZvZb_hS7phn7UPLrwmYzW-tqpg3G9tndjyZQEGg/s1600-h/ItsHalloween4.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrbZSM1FpA7UW_pyAArCZrYFs1020HWJgHDjCx0XoPHMgWJehaZB8yFqAbB3vczpCEMmzh3JLY6-E-dQb6WyGUP-JHobQwildZvZb_hS7phn7UPLrwmYzW-tqpg3G9tndjyZQEGg/s400/ItsHalloween4.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5125147370502947618" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><object width="425" height="366"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mOgheqTVzIk&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mOgheqTVzIk&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="366"></embed></object>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29660337.post-28088202650590831292007-10-24T15:34:00.001-07:002007-10-24T15:46:51.231-07:00Exciting New RFID Tooth Implant (:<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwfP63IINQKZnGHNZh8Z1zEHwYkkUsw1IVsRAE4RxFh9OFzJkvF5Svg37mVx2HtC8JMDWr6E6o_gh1EzKNZpNB0FzCdKfVLCynm9GoVFCYTHD5KOrSCbH_TURegplSVtHNp5cPUw/s1600-h/tooth_implant.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwfP63IINQKZnGHNZh8Z1zEHwYkkUsw1IVsRAE4RxFh9OFzJkvF5Svg37mVx2HtC8JMDWr6E6o_gh1EzKNZpNB0FzCdKfVLCynm9GoVFCYTHD5KOrSCbH_TURegplSVtHNp5cPUw/s400/tooth_implant.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5125035778662662834" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2ksa49%22%3Ehttp://tinyurl.com">Belgians implant RFID chip in tooth</a><br /><br />Jan Libbenga / The Register | March 20 2006<br /><br />Belgian scientists at the Catholic University of Leuven have embedded an RFID chip into a tooth to show how detailed personal information can be stored.<br /><br />Patrick Thevissen and his team adapted a tag which vets already implant into animals. If you lose your chipped dog, vets can retrieve the pet's home address from the device.<br /><br />In the case of humans, however, the intention of the ID tag is to allow forensic teams to retrieve a person's name, nationality, date of birth and gender allowing identification after, say, a natural disaster.<br /><br />Experiments show that the tags withstand temperature changes of up to 450 °C - so they're pretty well vindaloo-proof - but repeated expansion and contraction of the tooth is still a problem, requiring the use of an insulating layer.<br /><br />However, Dr Thevissen believes teeth are - as the strongest and longest-lived parts of the body - the best place to store information.<br /><br />http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294899.shtml<br /><br /><a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/294899.shtml">44,000 PRISON INMATES TO BE RFID-CHIPPED</a>Geezer Powerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13904946096365037819noreply@blogger.com3