posted March 08, 2006 06:46 PM            

"Pictures of the dead of Falluja have been published by reporter Dahr Jamal of the Electronic Iraq project, and several commentators have suggested that their injuries are consistent with the use of White Phosphorus by US forces in Falluja."

Who in the hell are the commentators?

Do you realize that WP has been used as a smoke screen for years and years - yet this is the first time we are hearing of this type of "burn". I wonder why? Because it is crap? Oh yeah.. that could be why...

posted March 08, 2006 06:48 PM              

quote:

---

yet this is the first time we are hearing of this type of "burn". I wonder why?

---

posted March 08, 2006 06:53 PM            

H20 is a chemical compound made up of Hydrogen and oxygen. It can change states depending on environmental conditions. In two states it can be used as a deadly weapon if used on someone or by subjecting someone to such a chemical.

For example - in it's solid state H20 killed hundreds of people when it cleverly disguised itself as a freaking Iceberg.

In it's liquid state, after the application of intense heat, it can be used as a chemical weapon that will peel the skin off of humans as well as caused intense pain, burning and scalding of the flesh.

In toxicology we learn that ALL chemical compounds can be used as weapons and can be quite toxic depending on the dose.

There is something incredibly different from White Phosphorus, which takes a large amount to cause the toxic implication of which you speak, compared to Sarin, which takes only a tiny amount.

posted March 08, 2006 07:09 PM              

The controversy has raged for 12 months. Ever since last November, when US forces battled to clear Fallujah of insurgents, there have been repeated claims that troops used "unusual" weapons in the assault that all but flattened the Iraqi city.

Specifically, controversy has focussed on white phosphorus shells (WP) - an incendiary weapon usually used to obscure troop movements but which can equally be deployed as an offensive weapon against an enemy. The use of such incendiary weapons against civilian targets is banned by international treaty.

The debate was reignited last week when an Italian documentary claimed Iraqi civilians - including women and children - had been killed by terrible burns caused by WP. The documentary, Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, by the state broadcaster RAI, cited one Fallujah human-rights campaigner who reported how residents told how "a rain of fire fell on the city". Yesterday, demonstrators organised by the Italian communist newspaper, Liberazione, protested outside the US Embassy in Rome. Today, another protest is planned for the US Consulate in Milan. "The 'war on terrorism' is terrorism," one of the newspaper's commentators declared."

"No doubt mindful of this pressure, BBC News led with the WP revelations on its flagship 10 O'Clock News bulletin on November 15, 2005. BBC correspondent Paul Wood, who had been embedded with US forces in Fallujah, asserted that: "this deadly substance [WP] was fired directly at trenches full of insurgents". This may be correct, but it is also incomplete. As we reported in previous media alerts, there is ample evidence of devastating weaponry, including WP, being deployed in built-up areas (not just "trenches") where civilians (not just "insurgents") were sheltering."

posted March 08, 2006 09:28 PM            

"“Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.”
“There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.”"

The president admitted no such thing, did not "admit" he had broken the law, did not "admit" he had committed an impeachable offense.

The president acknowledged there is an NSA program whereby terrorists and suspected terrorists are monitored through the use of their phones for national security reasons to, find out who they are, where they are and what they are planning in the way of attacks against the United States or other nations.

This is not a domestic spying program since one end of those call is of international origin and further, that end is the one who has the phone number which the NSA is aware of and is tracking when it's used. It is a national security issue when one of those calls comes in to a person within the United States. Only idiots would suggest the government has no legitimate business attempting to find out just who the hell that person in the United States is, what their relationship to the terrorists happens to be and if they are part of a terrorist cell within the United States. Only idiots would suggest that.

You go on to cite a Supreme Court decision on wiretapping but unfortunately for you, you fail to notice this case involved the crime of gambling, not national security. You go further and post the note from a Justice, Douglas, the most liberal left justice on that court or perhaps any Supreme Court in the history of the United States. You failed to read footnote 23, which is the opinion of the Majority of the Court and states:

23 "Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case."

You further fail to post the opinion of Justice White in that case who commented on national security aspects of warrantless searches:

In joining the Court's opinion, I note the Court's acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which it is reasonable to search without a warrant. In this connection, in footnote 23 the Court points out that today's decision does not reach national security cases. Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present Administration would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. See Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 112 -118 (1967) (WHITE, J., [389 U.S. 347, 364] dissenting). We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.

I have shown you more recent cases, cited the case name, posted the opinions of the FICA Court itself which states the presidents authority to order wiretaps without a warrant is an inherent authority. Meaning the authority is vested in the president and office of the President by the United States Constitution itself...the law of the land and the highest law in the United States.

You can go here and see the Court cases involving warrantless searches in pursuit of national security. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html

There are many, many and in each case, the Court upheld the president's authority to do so.

This is one such case from those discussed and it's also the one I've previously cited for you.

The Decision in Truong.
The first significant judicial decision issued after FISA, United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), actually applied pre-FISA standards to review warrantless electronic surveillance conducted before the statute's enactment. See id. at 914 n.4, 915. The court in Truong upheld the use of warrantless electronic surveillance, concluding that "the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence * * * that a uniform warrant requirement would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities." Id. at 913. The court identified three reasons for that conclusion: "the need of the executive branch for flexibility, its practical experience, and its constitutional competence" as the "pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." id. at 914.The court in Truong held that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." 629 F.2d at 915. By "foreign intelligence reasons," the court meant reasons other than conducting a criminal investigation or prosecution. Thus, the court upheld the electronic surveillance in question because its purpose "was to determine Truong's source or sources for government documents" so that the U.S. government could stanch the flow of classified information to the government of Vietnam. Id. at 916. The court held, however, that warrantless surveillance was not permitted "once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation," or "when the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution." Id. at 915.1

I also posted the exact wording from the Congressional Authorization for War against Iraq authorizing the President to take the NECESSARY ACTIONS against international terrorists and terrorists organizations.

So, if the president's authority to authorize warrantless searches is inherent in the president's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief as well as the authority to conduct foreign affairs. And if the Congress has authorized the president to take the "necessary actions" against terrorists, then, if all that is true, and it is true; then the president has all the authority he needed to order warrantless searches, if it's in pursuit of national security.

The proofs I have given you are fatal to your allegations that Bush can be impeached for ordering/authorizing warrantless searches if those searches are for national security purposes. There is not an argument which could be put forth to question those warrantless searches were for national security.

You argument is sunk, finished. However a further point is just as fatal to your allegations. The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have ruled that warrantless searches for national security purposes are NOT unreasonable.

A further point is also fatal to your allegation and that revolves around the purpose of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. In those cases, not involving national security, the government is intent on collecting evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution and in those cases, a warrant is required. The exception is for national security and it's clearly the case that Bush authorized warrantless searches, not in pursuit of a criminal prosecution but rather to gain intelligence on terrorist plans, to find them, capture them, kill them or thwart their plans for attacking the United States, US citizens or other nations and their populations.

Cardinalgal, you and your friends, the authors of the articles you post and many others may think it's not right to use warrantless searches...for any reason. But that's your personal beliefs and those beliefs do not rise to the level of the law.

Nor could the president be impeached and convicted when the history of the court decisions, including the FISA Court decisions clearly indicate the president has the inherent authority to order warrantless searches for national security purposes. For the president to be impeached, it would first have to be established he broke the law, that he was aware he was breaking the law and that he went forward in full knowledge he was breaking the law. That's not possible given the presidential history of warrantless searches for national security purposes. So, it's not going to happen.

Now Cardinalgal, I wouldn't stand in my front yard at 12:00 noon and argue with a neighbor who alleges that big ball of fire in the sky is the moon and it's really midnight. All the proof he needs that it's the sun is readily available. Cars are driving down the street and their headlights are NOT on, other neighbors are mowing their lawns, kids are playing in their yards and here comes the mailman.

posted March 08, 2006 10:18 PM              

quote:

---

Those pictures are BullSh1T and the burns are NOT caused by White Phosphorus being released or used as a Chemical weapon. It BURNS TOO QUICKLY INTO A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL..thus making it inert (harmless) in too short of an amount of time.

---

First let me ask what do you mean "these pictures are bullsh1t"? These people were killed by some bloody American Weapon(s)! And how the heck would you know the actual effects of WP if used as a chemical weapon in war? Have you experimented with it yourself or been an eye witness to its use as a chemical weapon? Have the same quality, doses and concentrations of WP (INCONJUNCTION WITH A VARIETY OF OTHER WEAPONS) been used in any incidents you’ve come across? How about its effects on innocent women and children, and men???

quote:

---

I will bet dollars to donuts that this crap is propaganda and was caused by a completely different type of weapon

---

posted March 09, 2006 11:13 AM              

quote:

---

In like manner, and for the same reason, I'm finished discussing this with you.

---

Ok jwhop but I’m going to post my responses anyway – you can choose to respond or not that’s entirely your prerogative of course

There are of course the other issues that I brought up in my previous post, outlining Bush’s sanctioning of torture etc but you’d obviously rather not discuss that so nevermind

quote:

---

Well Cardinalgal, I see you've dredged up yet another article by yet another liar…

---

Well having not seen the evidence that supports your claim that the author of that article is ‘a liar’, I’ll reserve judgement on that for now.

quote:

---

Only idiots would suggest the government has no legitimate business attempting to find out just who the hell that person in the United States is, what their relationship to the terrorists happens to be and if they are part of a terrorist cell within the United States. Only idiots would suggest that.

---

No one is suggesting they don’t have the right to find out jwhop, just that they should obtain the court order to legitimise their searches, as even Bush said they would still do in his conversation about wiretapping in 2004.

“Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." Straight from the horses mouth; “we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so… constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

quote:

---

You go on to cite a Supreme Court decision on wiretapping but unfortunately for you, you fail to notice this case involved the crime of gambling, not national security.

---

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies."

So as you can see, Bush himself stated that it was still a necessity to obtain a court order even for tapping suspected terrorists. Because you see, that’s the operative word; ‘Suspected’ – until you have the evidence to prove that they are guilty, they’re presumed innocent. Accordingly, you must still gather the evidence within legal channels that follow the law of your land – i.e. the Constitution in your case. And if the President has full authority to search without a warrant in cases of national security, why then was he so careful in the conversation I’ve quoted, to keep stating that 'court orders' would be obtained and Constitutional rights would be upheld? If it’s not a question of Constitutional rights being usurped, it seems odd that he would try so hard to draw attention to them. Why not simply say at the time, “I’m the President, I have full authority to do this and I don’t even need a warrant. Here’s the law that backs that up.” Which brings us back to the fact that “ “The program that Bush described could easily be accomplished under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act using a provision that lets the government wiretap for 72 hours before going to the special court for a warrant. So I just wonder why that’s insufficient for the purpose we’re describing?

quote:

---

You go further and post the note from a Justice, Douglas, the most liberal left justice on that court or perhaps any Supreme Court in the history of the United States.

---

I could be wrong, but as far as I’m aware I posted quotes from Justice White and Justice Powell – not Justice Douglas.

quote:

---

"the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

---

Well if that’s the case, there must be an awful lot of USA citizens that the Bush administration suspects of having links to terrorism! “The operation is so large that it has generated thousands of tips each month, which are passed on to the FBI.
But virtually all of [the tips], current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans,” “FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. … Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.” [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006]”

And under the premise of obtaining intelligence for national security purposes, how is this use of wiretapping legitimate?

"Tuesday, December 16th, 2003
British Intelligence Leaker Facing Prison Time For Exposing U.S.-UN Surveillance Scandal

Former British intelligence employee Katharine Gun is facing up to two years in prison for violating the Official Secrets Act when she disclosed a top-secret NSA memo in March outlining a U.S. surveillance operation directed at UN Security Council members ahead of the vote on Iraq.

In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the British newspaper The Observer exposed a highly secret and aggressive surveillance operation directed at United Nations Security Council members by the U.S. ahead of the vote on Iraq.

The Observer obtained a top-secret NSA memorandum that outlined a surveillance operation involves intercepting home and office telephone calls and emails of UN delegates focusing “the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises."

The target of the surveillance were the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations, including Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan, who could swing a Security Council vote on Iraq.

In a story that has received almost no media coverage in the U.S., the former British intelligence employee who leaked the memo, Katharine Gun, is now facing up to two years in prison for violating the Official Secrets Act."

posted March 09, 2006 12:13 PM            

I have presented and you have seen the proof Bush did not break the law by ordering warrantless searches for national security purposes. That proof included opinions from the FISA Court itself and from many Federal Court Cases including Supreme Court cases that the President has the inherent authority to order warrantless searches for national security purposes.

Facts don't sway you Cardinalgal, even facts speaking directly to and on point to the issues under discussion.

You are one of those persons so blinded by hate for Bush that any lying allegation against Bush is automatically to be believed and spread; and no proof, certainly not the truth or facts to the contrary are welcomed.

For that reason Cardinalgal, I am not going to spend any more time finding the points and authorities to refute the lying allegations of leftist twits who have equal access to the same information but will not take the time to find the facts before writing or printing a lying allegation against the President for you and other leftists to use in their jihad.

I already know and knew the allegations were lies and I knew why because I already looked. I only went back and did it all over again to lay it out plainly for you.

posted March 09, 2006 01:39 PM            

I find myself in the same position as you. No matter the facts, no matter the what truth is told again and again to refute the lies - it always falls on deaf ears. There is always some twisted argument that sprouts in order to side-step the truth and start on a new path, that once again attacks Bush or our Military. Instead it always turns back into a "well.... American's KILLED people....and Ummmmm... don't you think that is horrible for women and children to die?"... Yes, it is horrible, but to them take that message and use as a weapon against the Military, the war and our President is absurd.

WHAT about the women and children murdered under Saddam's Regime? (Oh wait... here we go again.. The loonies will just state in their whiney tone "But yooooooooooooooou put him there years ago). What about the loss of innocent life at the Pentagon, the Towers and with the passengers on the planes? (Oh nooooo.... that is America's fault for being successful, working with foreign countries and espousing blasphemous philosophies such as women's rights, equality and CAPITALISM!!!)

So it doesn't matter what fact you post or the truth against the lies... the other side will either call you a murderer, an evil-doer, ugly, stupid or question your religious convictions LMAO....

Again... I keep thinking of that parable:

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

And for those who are too obtuse to understand it....

Generally, to “cast pearls before swine” is to share something of value with those who will not appreciate it.

Kisses jwhop!!!

posted March 09, 2006 03:02 PM            

So, I'm not going to all the trouble looking up points and authorities I usually go to when I respond to the illogical, irrational articles I run into here which cannot be backed up.

The simple truth is the political left don't want to know and don't give a damn whether what they say or repeat is true or not. It's only necessary that what they say and repeat serves their political aims.

posted March 09, 2006 04:05 PM              

quote:

---

Facts don't sway you Cardinalgal, even facts speaking directly to and on point to the issues under discussion.

You are one of those persons so blinded by hate for Bush that any lying allegation against Bush is automatically to be believed and spread; and no proof, certainly not the truth or facts to the contrary are welcomed.

For that reason Cardinalgal, I am not going to spend any more time finding the points and authorities to refute the lying allegations of leftist twits who have equal access to the same information but will not take the time to find the facts before writing or printing a lying allegation against the President for you and other leftists to use in their jihad.

---

Oh more jwhop? And I thought you weren't going to discuss it any longer

Seriously though, I don't 'hate' anyone; I merely question their actions, especially if they are in a position of accountability. You yourself have chosen to ignore evidence that others have presented, writing it off as "leftist braindead lies" or "kiddispeak" or "BS" because you choose to believe a different set of facts, and I suspect it would almost kill you to find out that what you believe isn't strictly true. I, on the other hand, would honestly love to find out that there is not truth in all the negative reports of the Bush and Blair governments; I would adore to find out that it's all above board and that our actions are completely legitimate and legal. It would ease my very soul to know that corruption and lies have never been involved, and that I could be truly proud of my country's conduct in all things. However, unfortunatley I have seen too many facts to the contrary. Too many things have emerged for me to stick my head in the sand and blindly believe all is well.

Now you will no doubt call those things that have been brought to light, "Leftist plots" or "BS" or "Dimocrat Lies" - but in doing so I have to say I think you're missing that shade of grey once again. No of course not everything you read is true one way or the other - not every Leftist story has all the facts straight but then not every Conservative story does either.

A government will obviously never knowingly give out damaging information about themselves or own up to mistakes and misdemeanors - it would be political suicide. Therefore, in order to get the best and broadest idea of the truth, you need to look at the evidence presented by those who are in opposition to that government who will of course in some cases, be trying to discredit it, but who will at the same time, give you the facts that the government would rather you weren't aware of. It's one of the only ways available to us, 'the ordinary electorate' to try to get a balanced view.

The 'facts' are many and various jwhop. You are as guilty of only looking at the facts that fit your personal agenda as you accuse me of being.

Your information and evidence regarding the legality of wiretapping is taken from court cases and is therefore a matter of law and I accept that. I'll repeat that because you're no doubt reeling with shock at the moment and need to hear it again... I accept that courts in your country have found that Bush's warrantless wiretapping is legitimate. Whether I agree with it is another matter. I was posting information from other sources to show you that many US legal minds (and more than a few Republicans too) believe it to be an illegitimate course of action and see it as a departure from Constitutional rights, and an impeachable offence - they are drawing very persuasive paralells with Nixon even down to the fact that Nixon claimed it was on the grounds of national security also. So hopefully, you can begin to see the other side of the coin.

Yes I did call it a reason to impeach him because that's the argument of many of those US legal brains and even some Republicans, who I happen to agree with on this issue. They feel he's overreaching his authority, because even though the President has authority, he must never be above the law himself.

I still don't see why obtaining a court order for these wiretaps as Bush said he would in 2004 would be so out of the question. Again, I never questioned the need to find out whether someone is part of a terrorist group/plot, simply the legal processes in which to do so. It is a huge issue whether it's Clinton, Nixon or Bush that does it because it's encroaching on people's freedom. You have to ensure you're doing that legally and not abusing their right to privacy unlawfully, and in America's case, unconstitutionally. Your courts have obviously decided that Bush's wiretaps are being carried out legitimately - I have to wonder though, (given the FBI's comments about the sheer volume of surveillance evidence they have to trawl through, of which most leads nowhere or to "innocent Americans" in their words,) if the methods of information gathering are just a little too sweeping at present. It would suggest that they are taking vast cross sections of US society and listening in 'just in case' rather than targeting specific people who they already have a lead on. That's why I (and many US legal experts/certain Republicans)feel the court order should be necessary. It monitors and regulates the process.

In fact, no doubt due to those concerns regarding the unchecked scope and breadth of the operation, they have had to make certain compromises in order to get the bill passed.

"Months of wrangling had forced a number of compromises with the government agreeing to some curbs on information gathering.

Sixteen provisions of the act were due to expire on Friday.

The bill to renew the law would make 14 of them permanent and extend two others by four years.

One of these allows federal agents to obtain "tangible items" such as business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

One of the compromises limits the government's power to demand that libraries hand over information about what books people have borrowed unless it receives a judge's consent.

Despite the vote, the act still has its opponents on both sides of the House."

You have chosen not to discuss the matter of sanctioning torture any further or the article about the British Intelligence agent who leaked the information regarding US surveillance of UN delegates
- several people have presented you with facts regarding many areas on this forum, and not only are you breathtakingly rude to them, but you also still refuse to give these any consideration due to your own views. Therefore, "facts don't sway you" either jwhop. In fact, you are one of those people so blinded by governmental spin that you are fodder for any 'official party line' presented before you. You are the spin doctor's dream come true

quote:

---

You are not interested in the truth, facts or evidence but are rather like that neighbor who, standing in the hot sun at high noon with kids playing all around, cars moving down the street with their headlights off, neighbors mowing their lawns and the mailman in plain view insist it's midnight and that's the moon in the sky.

---

And you jwhop, are like the ostrich who stands with it's head firmly in the sand. Consequently, that shade of grey I keep banging on about will continue to ellude you until you're brave enough to peep at the possibility that not everything "Leftist" is loony and evil and not everything George Bush does is right. I've dipped a toe in the water by accepting your facts re the courts; can you do the same?

posted March 09, 2006 06:08 PM              

No one’s denying what happened under the evil dictator Saddam! Or who put him in power and supported him once upon a time!

But what’s happened since Saddam's been ousted? Since the US invasion of Iraq up till Sept 2004 for instance, there have been an:

quote:

---

estimated 100,000 excess deaths (8,000 to 194,000 at 95% confidence interval), with roughly three times as many injured (by September 2004 (from a study in The Lancet).

---

The American government and Military at the very least deserve to be attacked for this!!! People should always be questioning and criticizing, especially in times of war. To remain silent allows for injustices to happen, no matter who is in power or in war.

quote:

---

What about the loss of innocent life at the Pentagon, the Towers and with the passengers on the planes?

---

Are you suggesting that the US invasion of Iraq was in revenge for the also horrific 9/11 attacks?

quote:

---

(Oh nooooo.... that is America's fault for being successful, working with foreign countries and espousing blasphemous philosophies such as women's rights, equality and CAPITALISM!!!)

---

Gee how did I know you were going to use that line?

Who’s against women’s rights, equality and Captialism. Well Capitalism can be a good system, but like any system there’s room for abuse...something we've been seing too often lately.

quote:

---

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

---

posted March 09, 2006 06:15 PM              

quote:

---

People should always be questioning and criticizing, especially in times of war. To remain silent allows for injustices to happen, no matter who is in power or in war.

---

posted March 09, 2006 06:31 PM            

Although, I do think it is quite funny, in a completely idiotic kind of way, that you would take my throwing out a parable as me saying that I am either God or that America is God.

It meant that no matter how many facts we post in the end it is a waste of time on those that do not care to listen because their own minds are made up with useless rubbish.

posted March 09, 2006 06:36 PM              

I can interpret that reference from the Bible any way I please. And that's how I read it. And I thought it fit quite well in this context.

posted March 09, 2006 07:09 PM              

I think that's all for tonight, myself.