BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Loose Change Final Cut – UK Preview

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Saturday, 3rd November, 2007, saw the British preview screening of the much anticipated 9/11 truth blockbuster, ‘Loose Change Final Cut’.

Before the screening began, Tim Sparke, executive producer of Loose Change 3, gave us a brief thank you and intro, he welcomed us by saying: “By the end of this, you’re going to be knackered!”.

And he wasn’t wrong. Mr Sparke also stayed around afterwards to answer questions.

He clearly stated that all sources in the film were taken from mainstream media, which makes it all the more unbelievable that the propitiators are able to get away with such a crime. When asked how much the film cost to produce, he said “close to $1 million dollars”, but added “we could have made it more cinematic”.

Mr Sparke also said: “Obviously we would like to cover our costs but we plan to donate some of the profit to those suffering with health problems as a result of working at Ground Zero”. A noble gesture indeed.

David Ray Griffin had his part to play in the latest and possibly last offering from the Loose Change team. Professor Griffin ‘fact checked’ the film. It also appears that David Ray Griffin is being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

However, Charlie Sheen, as reported earlier this year, did not provide narration.

A pleasant surprise was the amount of new footage contained in the film; they have created an entirely new production from the ground up and resisted the temptation to regurgitate clips from Loose Change 1 and 2.

Staying solely in reality and using only credible information, ‘Loose Change Final Cut’ does not speculate or make wild accusations. It’s a very balanced and fair look at the horrific events of September 11th 2001. It does not attempt to answer all the questions and does not provide some of the more obvious testimonies which would have been expected, but it leaves plenty of room for people to do their own research and uncover many facts not presented in the film. It is not a guide to 9/11 truth and does not claim to be.

What it does provide is a highly engaging 2 hours that works for both 9/11 truth novices and the more experienced who have studied the evidence for years.

Lasting around 2 hours and 20 minutes, ‘Loose Change Final Cut’ opens with scenes of 9/11 truth protesters in New York City and features many mainstream news clips of Jeremy Paxman and the like.

Next we are informed of the truth about Bin Laden, his family connections to the Bush family, how he has never claimed responsibility for the attacks, how he was in fact reported dead before 9/11 and the propaganda war waged against him.

Then the hijackers are called into question, how their passports and IDs survived the wreckage when little else did.

The ISI, Able Danger, Cynthia McKinney, the intelligence failures, war games, drills etc all feature in the first half of this marathon truth production.

The information in this film is comprehensive. It would be impossible for me to go through point by point each part of the film without creating pages and pages worth of text.

Obviously the Pentagon attack is called into question, the lack of video evidence and eyewitness statements are touched upon. How Flight 77 was unusually only 30% full and most of the passengers were government employees. We also see some of the flight recorder data which proves without a doubt, there has been a cover up.

Next we look at the Twin Towers, the structure which was designed to withstand multiple plane crashes, the eyewitness who saw and heard explosions, steal projectiles embedded into surrounding buildings – only made possible with a great amount of force. We see the fires of WTC 7 and the “will full ignorance” of NIST.

We see the aftermath of 9/11, the health affected by those working on Ground Zero and how the White House censored and changed EPA warnings, resulting in more needless deaths.

Then Shanksville is the focus, the lack of debris and the possibility of a shoot down.

Next we go back to WTC 7 and the BBC’s claim that it fell 20 minutes before it did. Then the film begins to round things up with a look at the 9/11 Commission, who was involved in compiling the report, their wider roles and their interest in and profiteering from an attack on America such as 9/11.

Lastly the national debt is covered and how it has dramatically increased for no apparent reason.

A rapturous applause filled the room as the closing credits rolled. I took the time to speak to some of the audience afterwards, Joseph Skelton, one of the UK’s most active campaigners and webmaster of cremationofcare.com has this to say:

“It was good that the film does not cover ‘old ground’ such as the Larry Silverstein ‘Pull it’ comments and the testimony of William Rodriguez. Anyone new to the subject will inevitably find these important pieces of the 9/11 literature in other great films that are out there. The Final Edition film sticks mainly to the factors such as Able Danger, the backgrounds to the 9/11 Commission Report, the wide debris field left at the crash site of Flight 93 and so on.

“It was also good to see the coverage of the EPA’s lies to the rescue workers when they told them that the air was safe to breathe after the three WTC collapses. This is an issue often sidelined in other films. Loose Change Final Edition includes an interview with John Feal of the Feal Good Foundation (fealgoodfoundation.com) and many other citizens, victims of 9/11 who were betrayed by their government.”

In all, would I recommend you to see this film? Without a doubt.

Does it answer all our questions? Absolutely not, but it’s not designed to.

A lot of 9/11 truth films either speak to those who are questioning the official version for the first time, or to those who have long been studying the evidence. ‘Loose Change Final Cut’ strikes a rare balance between the two and provides a highly informative film no matter what your experience level is.

‘Loose Change Final Cut’ is 2 hours of your time well spent.

Have Your Say: Loose Change Final Cut – UK Preview
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

So, what actually is Waterboarding?

Monday, November 5th, 2007

By J A Blacker MSc IMI, Science Correspondent
RINF Alternative News

As any good terrorist state knows all too well, the art of torture is to extract information without actually killing the victim until they spill their guts.

Indeed, waterboarding has been deemed legal interrogation method by the BUSH CIA and US justice department, however the US military have such practices outlawed.

So, what actually is Waterboarding?

A brief history of waterboarding (controlled drowning & suffocation):

Waterboarding is a torture method - used by the Bush administration - which drowns victims in a controlled way.

The news media calls it “simulated” drowning, but it is in fact drowning that is, hopefully, interrupted before the victim dies. This is not always the case and some victims have died.

* It appears to have been invented during the Spanish Inquisition.

* The Khmer Rouge who killed 1.5 million people “improved” the method by covering the victims’ faces with towels of cellophane.

* After WWII, the US prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US soldiers and actually court-martial a US soldier for waterboarding a Vietnamese prisoner during the Vietnam war.

And used against *suspected* terrorists by order of war criminal and unelected military governor of the USA - George W Bush.

Torture: The Bush Legacy

What does waterboarding look like?

Sorry. Video removed
by order of Fox News and YouTube.

This is one of the “interrogation” methods favored by the Bush administration for use on *suspected* terrorists.Note the word “suspected.”

It’s possible for a person who is entirely innocent and has no information whatsoever to be subjected to this form of torture.

People can and do die in the course of waterboarding. The practice is essentially to bring the victim to the edge of drowning, over and over again.

Bush and his henchmen pointedly continue to refuse to ban this practice explicitly.

Theoretically, thanks to George Bush “the Decider”, anyone, anywhere, any time, who is suspected of having information related to “terrorism” can be snatched off the street and tortured in this way.

This perhaps more than his lying the US into an illegal, immoral and pointless war and ruining the US economy (a work in progress) may be his ultimate legacy.

Indeed, as you can see from the above link, we were going to show you a video of a volunteer journalist who gave permission to be waterboarded, however, the powers that be have pulled the video due to its rather unpleasant and graphic nature of the torture process.

And yes, in the Good old USA its all perfectly legal to Waterboard any suspected person, either a US citizen or foreign suspect, without charge, caution or legal representation - so long as you ship them to a far off place outside the jurisdiction of other US law, and law enforcement (KIDNAP).

So, why if Waterboarding is not torture, as BUSH and his CIA henchmen claim, does the CIA ship people off US soil prior to them operating what is a BUSH legal interrogation method?

The answer is simple folks: BUSH and his henchmen are international war criminals, who are operating outside of US & International law.

This evidence alone proves the case for justifiable Impeachment of BUSH and his entire corrupt administration, or should we more appropriately describe - Unelected Fascist type Regime!

Have Your Say: So, what actually is Waterboarding?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Gordon Brown ‘will back air strikes on Iran’

Monday, November 5th, 2007

In nuclear strategy, a first strike is an unprovoked surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country’s ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent’s launch facilities and storage depots first. The strategy is called counterforce.

Britain ‘on board’ for US strikes on Iran

By Tim Shipman 08/10/2007

British defence officials have held talks with their Pentagon counterparts about how they could help out if America chose to bomb Iran.

Washington sources say that America has shelved plans for an all-out assault, drawn up to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and take out the Islamist regime. The Sunday Telegraph has learned that President Bush’s White House national security council is discussing instead a plan to launch pinpoint attacks on bases operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force, blamed for training Iraqi militants.

Pentagon officials have revealed that President Bush won an understanding with Gordon Brown in July that Britain would support air strikes if they could be justified as a counter-terrorist operation. Since then discussions about what Britain might contribute militarily, to combat Iranian retaliation that would follow US air strikes, have been held between ministers and officials in the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence.

Vincent Cannistraro — who served as intelligence chief on Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council and then as head of operations for the CIA’s counter-terrorist centre — said: “What’s on the table right now is tactical strikes.” Last night, Downing Street declined to comment on the suggestion. But Mr Cannistraro has talked about the preparations to senior Pentagon officials and with military and intelligence contacts in the UK. He said: “The British Government is in accord with plans to launch limited strikes on facilities inside Iran, on the basis of counter-terrorism.” While the US Air Force and naval jets could carry out raids without help from the RAF, the Pentagon is keen to have the Royal Navy’s cooperation in the event of an attack, to prevent Iran from sowing mines in the Gulf to block oil exports in retaliation. Mr Cannistraro said: “The British have to be a major auxiliary to this plan. It’s not just for political reasons: the US doesn’t have a lot of mine clearing capability in the Gulf. The Dutch and the British do. “There will be renewed discussions with British defence officials about what role Britain would perform in the naval sphere. If there was a retaliatory response by the Iranians, they might close the Straits of Hormuz and that would affect the entire West.”

The White House and Downing Street would justify such an attack as a defensive move to protect allied troops in Iraq. But moderates in the US government are concerned that the counter-terrorist argument may be used by hawks as a figleaf for military action that could escalate into all out war with Iran. A US intelligence source said that Revolutionary Guard bases, supply depots and command and control facilities “have been programmed” into military computers but stressed that President Bush has not given any “execute order” for military action. Further details of the US plans for Iran were divulged to Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter with the New Yorker magazine who has unveiled Pentagon secrets for more than three decades.

American officials told the New Yorker: “During a secure video conference earlier this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British ‘were on board’.” The magazine added: “The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the new government of Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown.”

A recently retired American four-star general, told the magazine last week that the bombing campaign would only attract support from the Prime Minister “if it’s in response to an Iranian attack” like the kidnapping of British sailors in March. The general said the US officials want to strike “if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq” of a significant kind, for example the one that produced “10 dead American soldiers and four burned trucks”.

Britain and America have complained for months about Iranian support for Iraqi militants but Pentagon officials claim that Iran has been told that a line has now been drawn in the sand — a move that has actually helped to stabilise the situation. Details of the US plans were passed to Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iranian diplomats by Mr Crocker and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, during bilateral talks this summer. Since then, US officials say there appears to have been a reduction in some of the arms shipments and support to militia elements in Iraq.

Some British military and intelligence figures fear that any endorsement of US plans, however hypothetical, will only embolden the White House faction, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which wants major bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to former President Carter, said last week the Bush plan was to depict any air strike on Iran as “responding to what is an intolerable situation. This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim.”

Gordon Brown ‘will back air strikes on Iran’
By Tim Shipman

Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if the Islamic republic orchestrates large-scale attacks by militants against British or American forces in Iraq, according to senior Pentagon officials. Washington sources say the Prime Minister has been informed of US plans to launch limited air and special forces raids against Revolutionary Guard bases.

After talks with President George W Bush in July, Mr Brown left US officials with the belief that Britain was “on board” for a military response — but only if Iran was proved to be behind a big militant attack or another stunt similar to the kidnapping in March of British sailors. The US wants Britain’s Special Air Service Regiment to take part in special forces raids inside Iran and has requested help from the Royal Navy to combat Iranian retaliation in the Gulf. But no decisions have been made.

Mr Brown made clear to Mr Bush that he would not support a campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme and bring about regime change in Teheran. But Pentagon officials say he did indicate he would be prepared to back strikes in certain circumstances.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former White House intelligence chief in close contact with senior Pentagon officials, said: “The British understand there’s a possible need to strike — not strategic bombing of nuclear sites but facilities in Iran in support of Iraqi elements. This understanding was reached shortly after Brown took office.” The threat of action has been passed to the Iranian government and is credited with slowing the flood of Iranian weapons into Iraq.

The suggestion that Mr Brown has discussed air strikes will anger critics who believe Tony Blair was too quick to approve military action against Iraq. A Downing Street spokesman said: “While we won’t comment on the specifics of conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, this is not a version of events we recognise.” A source close to Mr Brown said the two had talked about Iran but “we have not had this conversation”.

Have Your Say: Gordon Brown ‘will back air strikes on Iran’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Brian Haw: “9/11 was an inside job”

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

British anti war campaigner, Brian Haw, talks about 9/11, this is a very short clip but a much longer one (about an hour) will be uploaded soon. Brian has been living in a peace camp in Parliament Square since 2001.

Have Your Say: Brian Haw: “9/11 was an inside job”
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Surprise Ingredients In Fast Food

Monday, November 5th, 2007

John Andrews

The movie Supersize Me has probably had more of an effect than the producers anticipated. Since then, in the fast food industry, there has been a market trend promoting menu items that appear to be healthy. But most of these menu items have ingredients that health conscious consumers would prefer to avoid.

Most health conscious consumers consider healthy foods to be things like raw fruits and vegetables, whole grains, raw nuts and seeds, and clean meats like wild Alaskan salmon, or free-range chicken or turkey.

Some ingredients that health conscious consumers consider unacceptable are MSG (or free glutamate, or free glutamic acid, including anything hydrolyzed or autolyzed), trans fats (hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils [3]), artificial colors, artificial flavors, and most preservatives.

Many so-called healthy fast food menu items, upon closer inspection, do not live up to the health hype. Most of the meat from any of the major chains has anything but a simple ingredients list. They add emulsifiers, preservatives, MSG, artificial colors, trans fats, and hidden ingredients under generic labels such as spices, or natural and artificial flavors.

Some of these food additives are not foods at all, but are chemicals that are generally recognized as safe. Most of these additives cannot be found at your local grocery store, probably because they aren’t food. But some can be found at your local hardware store, though in inedible products like low tox antifreeze, silicone caulk, soap, sunscreen, and play sand.

The ingredient information in this article came straight from the various fast food restaurants’ web sites.

McDonald’s

The egg’s reputation is recovering, but scrambled eggs as a part of McDonald’s breakfast include much more than egg. Their pasteurized whole eggs have sodium acid pyrophosphate, citric acid, and monosodium phosphate (all added to preserve color), and nisin, a preservative. To top it off, the eggs are prepared with liquid margarine: liquid soybean oil, water, partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oils (trans fats), salt, hydrogenated cottonseed oil (trans fat), soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate (preservatives), artificial flavor, citric acid, vitamin A palmitate, and beta carotene (color). Though not all bad, these added chemicals may be the reason why homemade scrambled eggs taste so much better than McDonald’s.

For coffee drinkers, it would seem fairly safe to just grab a quick cup of coffee at McDonalds on the way to work. But many health conscious people would object to it also including this list of ingredients: sodium phosphate, sodium polyphosphate, Di-Acetyl Tartrate Ester of Monoglyceride, sodium stearoyl lactylate, tetra sodium pyrophosphate, sodium hexametaphosphate, sodium citrate, and carrageenan. Do health nuts still drink coffee?

Salads can usually be counted on to be a “what you see is what you get” item. But McDonald’s adds some interesting ingredients. The salads with grilled chicken also have liquid margarine.

Several salads have either cilantro lime glaze, or orange glaze added. Along with many of McDonald’s sauces, both the cilantro lime glaze and the orange glaze contain propylene glycol alginate. While propylene glycol is considered “GRAS” for human consumption, it is not legal for use in cat food because the safety hasn’t been proven yet [10]. Proplene glycol is also used “As the killing and preserving agent in pitfall traps, usually used to capture ground beetles” [10].

The chili lime tortilla strips that are included in the southwest salads have several ingredients used to hide MSG. They also contain two ingredients that advertise the presence of MSG: disodium inosinate, and disodium guanylate.

The chicken has sodium phosphates (of an unspecified variety). It could be trisodium phosphate (a cleanser), monosodium phosphate (a laxative), or disodium hydrogen phosphate [11]. Why would McDonald’s add sodium phosphates (a foaming agent), and dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent in their crispy chicken breast filets? It isn’t dishwasher detergent.

Burger King

It’s interesting to note that the BK Veggie Burger has six ingredients commonly used to hide free glutamate (MSG): calcium caseinate, hydrolyzed corn, yeast extract, soy protein isolate, spices, and natural flavors. At the end of the ingredients list, it states This is NOT a vegan product. The patty is cooked in the microwave. Was that a warning statement?

Burger King has three salads to choose from. The TENDERCRISP Garden Salad, the TENDERGRILL Garden Salad, and the Side Garden Salad.

A salad may be a little boring without a dressing like Ken’s Fat Free Ranch Dressing which includes titanium dioxide (an artificial color, or sunscreen, depending on use), preservatives, and the ingredient seemingly mandatory in all ranch dressings: monosodium glutamate.

Once again, as is typical with the fast food industry, they took a simple thing like chicken, and added a long list of ingredients.

TENDERGRILL® CHICKEN BREAST FILET
Chicken Breast with Rib Meat, Water, Seasoning (Maltodextrin, Salt, Sugar, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Garlic Powder, Spices, Natural Flavors, Onion Powder, Modified Corn Starch, Chicken Fat, Chicken Powder, Chicken Broth, Disodium Guanylate and Disodium Inosinate, Citric Acid, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Dehydrated Garlic, and Artificial Flavors.), Modified Corn Starch, Soybean Oil, Salt, Sodium Phosphates. Glazed with: Water, Seasoning [Maltodextrin, Salt, Sugar, Methylcellulose, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Partially Hydrogenated Sunflower Oil, Modified Potato Starch, Fructose, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dehydrated Garlic, Spices, Modified Corn Starch, Xanthan Gum, Natural Flavors, Disodium Guanylate and Disodium Inosinate, Chicken Fat, Carmel Color, Grill Flavor (from Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and Cottonseed Oil), Chicken Powder, Chicken Broth, Turmeric, Smoke Flavor, Annatto Extract, and Artificial Flavors], Soybean Oil. [12]

Taco Bell

Taco Bell’s website didn’t have much emphasis on health. Under the nutrition guide, at the bottom was a link to Keep it Balanced, a token nod to health. It had no serious information on how to really eat healthy. They recommend foods like pizza and tacos (no surprise) because they may include ingredients from several food groups at once. Including several food groups does not necessarily mean it’s a healthy food.

The seasoned beef, carne asada steak, spicy shredded chicken, and even the rice all include autolyzed yeast extract (hidden MSG). Disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate are flavor enhancers used in synergy with MSG [7,8]. Therefore, menu items with disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate also contain MSG. This includes the avocado ranch dressing, southwest chicken, citrus salsa, creamy jalapeno sauce, creamy lime sauce, lime seasoned red strips, pepper jack sauce, and seasoned rice.

According to Wikipedia, dimethylpolysiloxane is optically clear, and is generally considered to be inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable. It is used in silicone caulk, adhesives, and as an anti-foaming agent [6]. Appetizingly enough, it’s also included in Taco Bell’s rice.

Wendy’s

At Wendy’s, there are several tempting salads. The mandarin chicken salad seems healthy at first glance. It has diced chicken, mandarin oranges, almonds, crispy noodles, your choice of dressings, and five different varieties of lettuce. Then reality takes a bite when you check the ingredients list. The almonds are roasted and salted. The crispy noodles are not whole grain. The mandarin orange segments are not freshly peeled oranges; most likely canned. The diced chicken has added autolyzed yeast extract (MSG), disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, sodium phosphates (soap?), salt, more salt, sugar, modified corn startch (sic)[1], and the universal umbrella ingredient list: spices, natural flavors, and artificial flavors.

In the ingredients lists for the salad dressings, one surprise was titanium dioxide in the Low Fat Honey Mustard Dressing and the Reduced Fat Creamy Ranch Dressing. It’s a very versatile chemical. It can be used to manufacture paint, sunscreen, semiconductors, and food coloring [2].

Wendy’s Southwest Taco Salad is a salad with Wendy’s chili. Once again, the chili has hidden MSG: autolyzed yeast extract, spices, artificial flavors, natural flavorings, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate (MSG give-aways). It’s puzzling to try to understand why their chili would need to include an anti-caking agent such as silicon dioxide (also known as sand, or glass powder).

See if you can spot the sunscreen, MSG, and soap in this Wendy’s ingredient:

Seasoned Tortilla Strips
Whole Corn, Vegetable Oil (contains one or more of the following: corn, soybean or sunflower oil), Salt, Buttermilk Solids, Spices, Tomato, Sweet Cream, Dextrose, Onion, Sugar, Cheddar Cheese (cultured milk, salt, enzymes), Corn Starch, Modified Corn Starch, Maltodextrin, Nonfat Dry Milk, Garlic, Torula Yeast, Citric Acid, Autolyzed Yeast, Natural and Artifical Flavor, Artificial Colors (including extractives of paprika, turmeric and annatto, titanium dioxide, red 40, yellow 5, blue 1), Disodium Phosphate, Lactic Acid, Soy Lecithin. CONTAINS: MILK.

Apparently, taste really is all that matters at Wendy’s.

Subway

If a sandwich is advertised as healthy, one would expect that the bread would be whole grain. Not so with Subway’s wheat bread. While it does have some whole wheat flour, it’s the third ingredient, listed just before high fructose corn syrup [4]. None of Subway’s breads are whole grain. Ammonium sulfate (a fertilizer) is also added. Unfinished sandwiches may be composted. The bread also contains azodicarbonamide. From Wikipedia,

Use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive is banned in Australia. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive has identified azodicarbonamide as a respiratory sensitiser (a possible cause of asthma) and determined that products should be labeled with May cause sensitisation by inhalation [5].

Most of the meats at Subway contain MSG and/or sodium nitrite.

KFC

The chicken, the gravy, and even the rice all have monosodium glutamate added. Not surprisingly, the chicken in the salads also has MSG. For a healthy menu item, the House Side Salad without dressing has nothing more than iceberg lettuce, romaine lettuce, and tomatoes.

KFC claims 0g trans fat per serving for all their fried chicken. But The Extra Crispy Chicken, Colonel’s Crispy Strips, HBBQ Wings, Boneless HBBQ Wings, Fiery Buffalo Wings, and more have partially hydrogenated soybean oil listed in the ingredients. So if the trans fat content is below 0.5g per serving, they can round down to zero and claim zero grams per serving.

In Closing

The salad a la carte may be the only healthy thing to eat at a fast food place. The side salads offered at the fast food places are hardly a meal, and hardly what one would consider a real salad.

Regarding MSG, it is helpful to remember this statement from Wikipedia when reading food labels.
Under current FDA regulations, when MSG is added to a food, it must be identified as monosodium glutamate in the label’s ingredient list. If however MSG is part of a spice mix that is purchased by another company, the manufacturer does not have to list the ingredients of that spice mix and may use the words flavorings or spices. Even food that uses the no msg label may therefore have MSG that is added from a spice mix from another company under current FDA regulations.[9]

As with most meat products in fast food restaurants, consider any meat, including on salads, to include MSG, chemical preservatives, and trans fats. Even seemingly simple items like rice can have ingredients like anti-foaming agents.
References

[1] http://www.wendys.com/food/Nutrition.jsp

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fats

[4] http://subway.com/subwayroot/MenuNutrition/Nutrition/frmUSIngredients.aspx

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azodicarbonamide

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylpolysiloxane

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disodium_inosinate

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disodium_guanylate

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_phosphates

[12] http://www.bk.com/#menu=3,-1,-1

About the author

John Andrews is an electrical engineer currently living in Utah. He earned his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering in 2001 at the University of Utah. John has adopted a whole foods lifestyle rich in raw fruits and vegetables. This lifestyle change has produced a noticeable improvement in physical health, appearance, and mental clarity. He savors knowledge and is eager to teach others how to be healthy.

Have Your Say: Surprise Ingredients In Fast Food
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Momentum built for Cheney impeachment

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Congressman Dennis Kucinich says he will offer a resolution to the House of Representatives to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Democratic lawmaker who will introduce his privileged resolution next week said on Friday that the momentum is built for Cheney’s impeachment.

“Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress to stand up against the Vice President’s abuse of power,” Kucinich said.

“The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran,” added the US presidential hopeful.

While the American media has decided to keep Kucinich’s announcement on a low profile 54 percent of the Americans are in favor of impeaching Cheney according to an American Research Group survey conducted last July.

Analysts believe the number of pro-impeachment Americans is on the rise due to Cheney’s hawkish policies towards the Islamic republic.

MD/NA/RE

Have Your Say: Momentum built for Cheney impeachment
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Fake story may have started the Iraq war

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Big News Network

It is possible a fabricated story of biological weapons drove the U.S argument for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

U.S television network CBS says it has identified an Iraqi defector named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who gave intelligence information to German and U.S investigators.

Mr Alwan arrived at a German refugee centre in 1999, where he allegedly lied about being a chemical engineer in charge of a facility making mobile biological weapons.

He was eventually interviewed by German intelligence and was able to provide credible descriptions of the Djerf al-Nadaf plant because he had actually worked there, albeit not as head of a biological weapons program.

Summaries of his debriefings were sent to the CIA and then became the main platform for the U.S decision to invade Iraq.

The information was passed to then secretary of state Colin Powell to use at the United Nations in a major speech justifying military action against Iraq.

CBS says Mr Alwan is now believed to be living freely in Germany, probably under an assumed name.

Have Your Say: Fake story may have started the Iraq war
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Named, the defector who misled US over Iraq

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman

The Iraqi defector whose fabricated account of Baghdad’s biological weapons programme was crucial to the US case for war will be identified today on American TV as an accused thief and failed chemical engineering student.

Known as Curveball by Western intelligence agencies, the man is named for the first time on CBS’s 60 Minutes show as Rafid Ahmed Alwan.

After escaping Iraq and reaching Germany in 1999, he claimed to be an engineer who had run a biological weapon plant for Saddam.

But according to the programme, he earned low marks in chemical engineering at university and was accused of theft at an Iraqi TV station where he worked.

Alwan, who is understood to be living in Germany under an assumed name, was briefly employed at the biological weapon site, allowing him to embellish his story.

The revelations come as a new book on the case shows how MI6 warned the CIA in April 2002 that Curveball had probably been fabricating his accounts - five months before the same claims appeared in Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossier”.

The book also shows that it was a British intelligence analyst who exposed Curveball’s lies by using satellite imagery to show that he could not have watched bio-war trucks leaving a facility because a high wall was in the way.

Have Your Say: Named, the defector who misled US over Iraq
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Thought Crime Prevention Bill

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Big Brother: House passes the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line with the growing patriot community.

The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions.

`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Section 899C calls for a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence. The commission will consist of ten members appointed by various individuals that hold different positions in government. Essentially, this is a commission that will examine and report on how they are going to deal with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. So basically, the commission is being formed specifically on how to deal with thought criminals in the United States. The bill requires that the commission submit their final report 18 months following the commission’s first meeting as well as submit interim reports every 6 months leading up to the final report. Below is the bill’s defined purpose of the commission. Amazingly they even define one of the purposes of the commission to determine the causes of lone wolf violent radicalization.

(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:

`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of–

`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;

`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and

`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. Essentially, this will be a Department of Homeland Security affiliated institution that will study and determine how to defeat thought criminals.

Section 899E of the bill discusses how the government is going to defeat violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperation. As stated in the findings section earlier in the legislation, they will unquestionably seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime.

Possibly the most ridiculous section of the bill is Section 899F which states how they plan on protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. Here is what the section says.

`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security’s commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

It states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism.

This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

Have Your Say: Thought Crime Prevention Bill
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

UK Muslim Leader Speaks out on False Flags

Monday, November 5th, 2007

UK Muslim Leader Speaks out on 9/11, 7/7, Trilateral Commission and “Common Purpose”

Andrew Johnson

UK - Birmingham Central Mosque, 30^th Oct 2007 - Elias Davidsson, Icelandic Scholar and Human Rights Activist had been giving a short series of talks in the UK regarding the lack of evidence for the official story of events on 9/11 being true. Following Mr Davidsson’s talk, Dr Mohammed Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, addressed the audience regarding the context of 9/11 from both a Muslim and a wider perspective, saying that the official story of 9/11 and 7/7 was an “insult” to his intelligence.

In 2002, Mr Davidsson started research into the events of September 11, 2001 and founded the Icelandic chapter of the 9/11 truth movement. In October 2007, Mr Davidsson came to the UK and gave several talks regarding the basic lack of evidence which is available to support the official story of the 9/11 tragedy.

Mr Davidsson cited a number of examples, such as the lack of verified passenger lists for any of the planes, the lack of any CCTV footage of any of the accused hijackers in the airport terminal or boarding the flights. He additionally pointed out the lack of testimony from any airport personnel that they saw either passengers or hijackers boarding the planes. He also discussed how no boarding passes from the hijackers have been presented as evidence. Mr Davidsson discussed the issue of World Trade Centre Building 7, fell to the ground in 6.6 seconds even though there was no prior impact on the building. This was ignored by the 9/11 Commission and omitted from its 500-page report. Another issue he raised was the lack of any parts of planes being brought forward as evidence, apart from those shown in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006 (However, Moussaoui was in prison on 9/11)

Following Mr Davidsson’s lecture, Dr Mohammed Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, was invited to comment on the subject of the 9/11 Story. He responded, “The whole saga and story of 7^th July and 9/11 is totally astonishing – it doesn’t make any sense. I do not question it because I am against America or England; I question it because it was an insult to my intelligence. I could not digest the information I was given – it did not make any sense.”

Dr Naseem then referred to a think tank report that had stated “Researchers found radical or hate-filled books and pamphlets at a quarter of the 100 Islamic religious institutions they visited.” Dr Naseem then posed the question “Who is the author of this literature?” and he pointed out that Mosques are public places, where anyone can walk in and leave material. He referred to a previous incident at his own Mosque where a woman had left some CDs on the table and that these were found to contain inflammatory material. When the material was viewed, it was found that an organisation was mentioned and so this information was promptly passed to the Police, but no action was taken.

He went on to express his concern that the media was allowing these sorts of stories to be promulgated and that there were “4 organisations running the world” – the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, McKenzie and Co Public Relations, and Common Purpose.

He stated that the Bilderberg group was a secret organisation, which holds secret “invitation only” meetings. He stated that the job of Trilateral Commission was to identify those people in power in a given country who would be willing to accept the Bilderberg’s agenda for their own country. He stated that the job of the McKenzie organisation was to facilitate the policies of a leader such as Tony Blair.

Dr Naseem stated the fourth organisation – Common Purpose was “seeping through society like branches of cancer” and that to attend one of their seminars would cost £3000. He also stated that taxpayers’ money was going “into the wrong pockets”. He added that one of the activities which took place in the Common Purpose seminars is “brain-washing,” and that Common Purpose was seeking to identify “the leaders of the future” so that they would eventually “sing from the same hymn book” - which was prepared by Bilderberg, The Trilateral Commission, McKenzie and Co. and Common Purpose”. Dr Naseem said to the audience that he was mentioning these matters to “awaken” them rather than frighten them, so that “the network” of these organisations “can be broken”. He said, “We have to challenge at every step of the way. We have to be vocal. We have to be articulate.” He appealed to people to pass this message on to non-Muslim friends.

He also stated how he felt that Muslims, though they were affected, weren’t the real target of curtailments of Civil Liberties – as they number only about 1.5 million in the UK. He pointed out some examples of non-Muslim people who had been arrested under anti-terrorism laws, such as labour party member Walter Wolfgang who was 82 years old.

In a 2^nd shorter address to audience, following a question, he called again for an independent Public Enquiry into the 7^th of July (2005) London Bombings, stating that if the authorities were confident of their facts, then having such an enquiry could “restore harmony to the community”.

For a short video of segments from the event, use this link (note, the caption in the video has an incorrect date):

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8159647372881714960

For a shorter segment of Dr Naseem’s initial response to Mr Davidsson’s talk, use this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1fflAo_8dg

Dr Naseem was openly critical of the official story of 7/7 days after it happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4126688.stm

For more information about Elias Davidsson

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=89

Have Your Say: UK Muslim Leader Speaks out on False Flags
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

VIDEO: How the markets really work

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Yes, it really is this bad

Another example of humor that is deadly accurate.

I worked on Wall Street for a few years, elbow to elbow with “top” investment bankers.

It was one big casino with the saps in pensions funds and savings and loans (and us) being used to finance the game and cover the losses.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html

Have Your Say: VIDEO: How the markets really work
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Guantanamo Torture Sanctioned by Bush & Rumsfeld

Monday, November 5th, 2007

LISA THOMPSON

When military investigators questioned Erie County Judge Michael E. Dunlavey about reported prisoner abuse during his tenure at the Guantanamo Bay camp for suspected terrorists, Dunlavey told them he got his “marching orders” from President Bush, according to a new book about U.S. policies regarding torture.

The book, “Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond,” relies on government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to trace the development of what the authors claim was prisoner abuse and torture that emerged in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The book uses Dunlavey’s words to place him, a retired two-star general in the U.S. Army Reserve, at the advent of the development of what have become disputed interrogation policies.

In a statement Dunlavey provided to a U.S. Air Force lieutenant general investigating FBI reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Dunlavey explains that as leader of interrogations at Guantanamo, he reported directly to President Bush and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

He acknowledged the use of loud music and dogs and shackling prisoners in the fetal position during interrogations, but stressed repeatedly that the standard was to treat detainees humanely. The military investigation into the claims of abuse at Guantanamo Bay found no reason to reprimand Dunlavey.

Source document: http://www.goerie.com/graphics/dunlavey

In the statement to U.S. Air Force Lt. General Randall Schmidt, as summarized and sworn to by Schmidt, Dunlavey said:

*** Rumsfeld summoned him to a meeting on Feb. 21 or 22, 2002, attended by Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others. The date was two weeks after Bush had issued a directive denying al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners protections under the Geneva Conventions.

*** Dunlavey said at the meeting, Rumsfeld told him that the Department of Defense had “accumulated a number of bad guys.”

Rumsfeld wanted these prisoners interrogated to identify senior Taliban leaders and other operatives and obtain information about future plans, Dunlavey said.

“Our mission was to stop Americans from being killed,” Dunlavey said, according to the report.

*** Dunlavey, an intelligence specialist, said he had interrogation experience dating back to the Vietnam War and had conducted more than 3,000 interrogations. Rumsfeld needed a “common sense way to do business,” Dunlavey said.

“The SECDEF (Secretary of Defense) said he wanted a product and he wanted intelligence now. He told me what he wanted; not how to do it.”

*** Dunlavey said he was first directed to report to military officials, but then ordered to work more closely with President Bush. “The directions changed and I got my marching orders from the President of the United States,” Dunlavey said. “I was told by the SECDEF that he wanted me back in Washington, D.C., every week to brief him.”

The new book also includes the now well-known October 2002 memo in which Dunlavey asked for permission to use more-aggressive interrogation tactics at the camp, including the use of dogs and extreme cold.

ACLU’s role in book
Dunlavey Timeline
* Feb. 7, 2002: President Bush issues order that denies al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners protections of the Geneva Conventions.

* Feb. 21 or 22, 2002: Erie County Judge Michael E. Dunlavey is summoned to a meeting with then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Dunlavey said Rumsfeld tells him the Department of Defense has accumulated “bad guys.” He wants the suspected Taliban and al-Qaida operatives questioned to learn their future plans.

* Rumsfeld turns to Dunlavey because he had more than 30 years of intelligence experience and had conducted more than 3,000 interrogations, Dunlavey said. Dunlavey said Rumsfeld needed a “common sense” way to do business.

* Dunlavey said Rumsfeld wanted “intelligence now.”

* Dunlavey said he is told to report to Rumsfeld and the military, but was later told to report directly to Bush.

* March 2002: Dunlavey takes over command of interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center for suspected terrorists.

* October 2002: Dunlavey issues a request for permission to pursue more aggressive interrogation tactics, including threats of imminent death, cold temperatures and scaring detainees with dogs.

* Rumsfeld approved most of the requests in late 2002, but permission was later rescinded in early 2003.

* November 2002: Dunlavey steps down from his post at Guantanamo, but continues to serve elsewhere.

* August 2003 until March 2004: Dunlavey works as associate director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center.

* March 2004: Dunlavey returns to the bench in Erie County Family Court.

Authors Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union, seek to link official military and civilian policies to the emergence of alleged prisoner abuse, torture and death in places such as the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.

They base their argument on documents the ACLU obtained from the government through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“The Bush administration has professed a commitment to democracy and human rights and claimed solidarity with those who struggle against tyranny. But these documents show unambiguously that the administration has adopted some of the methods of the most tyrannical regimes,” the authors write.

The Erie Times-News currently has an appeal pending over the Department of Defense’s refusal to release to the newspaper documents relating to Dunlavey’s tenure at Guantanamo.

The summary of Dunlavey’s statement about practices at Guantanamo in the new book provides the first detailed account from Dunlavey, who has repeatedly said policy prevented him from commenting.

Dunlavey, an Erie County Court judge, agreed Thursday through a spokesperson in his chambers to review questions about the book from the Erie Times-News and answer them if he felt they were “appropriate.”

He had not yet responded Thursday night.

He previously told the Erie Times-News that detainees at Guantanamo were “not prisoners of war the way we were trained for, or the (kind the) Geneva Conventions envisions.” However, he has said he believes the tactics developed for their interrogations were “consistent with the Geneva Conventions.”

‘I treated them as human beings’

Rumsfeld called Dunlavey from his seat on the Erie County Family Court bench in February 2002 and placed him in charge of interrogations at Guantanamo in March 2002.

Dunlavey, 61, was elected judge in November 1999.

Portions of Dunlavey’s role in the development of interrogation practices after 9/11 have been well-publicized.

After the images of abuse and torture of prisoners emerged from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the government released a series of documents to explain the development of interrogation policy in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The government maintained, and many refuted, that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not the result of government policy.

The Department of Defense released documents in June 2004 showing that while Dunlavey was commander at Guantanamo, he sought permission from Southern Command to use more extreme interrogation tactics, including convincing detainees that they and/or their families faced imminent death, scaring them with dogs, and exposing them to cold temperatures or water.

Most of Dunlavey’s proposed methods, excluding the most severe, were approved by Rumsfeld in late 2002, but then retracted in early 2003. Dunlavey stepped down from his post at Guantanamo in early November 2002.

For the first time in the new book, “Administration of Torture,” military documents that purport to show Dunlavey’s view of the mission at Guantanamo have been released.

In the statement, as summarized by Schmidt, Dunlavey said the camp was in disarray when he arrived.

“The facility consisted of literally a dangling fence,” he said.

The detainees were not in control, he said.

“They were shaking out their blankets and throwing food,” he said.

Some threw feces on guards, fashioned weapons, even urinated on female interrogators, he said.

The guards, he said, were living no better than the detainees were.

Dunlavey also said most of the interrogators had little experience.

“The linguists were worthless. They came out of school and could order coffee, but they were getting smoked by the detainees,” he said.

Dunlavey acknowledged loud music, shouting, dogs, and shackling were used to intimidate or control detainees. But he denied they denied the prisoners food or water or allowed female interrogators to taunt the detainees with their bodies.

He said he clearly communicated his task force rules.

“The Geneva Conventions applied. I treated them as human beings, but not like soldiers. They had significant culture. The rugs and beads were significant to me. I let them practice religion,” he said.

LISA THOMPSON can be reached at 870-1802 or by e-mail.

The Book
“Administration of Torture” (2007, Columbia University Press), is not available in local bookstores. It is listed for $29.95 on Amazon.com.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/NEWS02/711020374/-1/NEWS

Have Your Say: Guantanamo Torture Sanctioned by Bush & Rumsfeld
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Lib Dems warn on DNA records

Monday, November 5th, 2007

The Liberal Democrats have described as “disturbing and illiberal” the policy of keeping the DNA profiles of children who have not been convicted of any offence.

Home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg was speaking after a parliamentary written answer revealed that there are almost 150,000 under-16s on the national database.

“These figures underline the shocking extent to which this database has intruded, often without parental consent, into the lives of our children,” he said.

“Thousands of these children will have been found guilty of no crime, yet samples of their DNA will remain on file for life.

“The disturbing and illiberal policy of adding a child’s most personal information to a massive government computer system, simply on the grounds of an accusation, must stop immediately.”

Under the current system, the DNA of a suspect remains on the database even if the individual is not convicted of any crime.

And urging the government to “come up with a proportionate and sensible way of using this technology”, Clegg warned against the “unfair scatter-gun approach that currently prevails”.

Have Your Say: Lib Dems warn on DNA records
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Bush defense spending highest since WWII

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Hey, $1 billion here, $1 billion there, who’s counting? Not the State Department, which admitted this week that it can’t say “specifically what it received” for the $1.2 billion it paid DynCorp, ostensibly to train the Iraqi police - other than that somebody got an Olympic-size swimming pool out of the deal.On Monday, President Bush demanded that Congress fork over another $46 billion to pay for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, insisting that it be approved by the end of the year. That brings the total requested this year in “supplementary funds” for his foreign adventures to $196.4 billion. The prez said Congress had best pony up, or the members would be betraying the family of the dead Marine that he was using as prop for this particular White House photo-op.

Of course the Democrats, after some pussyfooting, will sign off, as they have for the rest of the more than $800 billion that will have been allotted to Iraq and Afghanistan by year’s end, lest they be accused of failing the troops that Bush has put in harm’s way. “Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.,” Bush warned darkly, while edging ever closer to the family of the fallen Marine. “I often hear that war critics oppose my decisions, but still support the troops,” he said. “Well, I’ll take them at their word - and this is the chance to show it.”

I half-expected some leading Democrat to respond, “Hey, you want support for the troops, I’ll see your $46 billion and raise you another $46 billion.” But then again, Joe Lieberman is no longer running the party. Instead, the Democrats tried to show that $46 billion is not loose change and that, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, put it, a mere 40 days of the cost of the Iraq war could provided annual health insurance coverage for 10 million American children. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., added that the money might be better spent for law enforcement, homeland security and fixing the nation’s sagging infrastructure, but his argument wasn’t going to get any better traction than Pelosi’s. As Reid pointed out, “this intractable civil war in Iraq … is being paid for by borrowed money.”

Sure, some day the Chinese communists and others holding our debt will have to be paid back with compounded interest, but for now the war has been successfully marketed as a financial freebie. Leave it to the next generation to wake up and discover that this war, which in constant dollars has already cost more than the Korean or Vietnam wars, prevents Congress from implementing any of the needed domestic programs, even those advocated by both parties, as was the children’s health insurance bill vetoed by Bush last week. But even if you think none of that domestic spending is needed, even for fixing Medicare and Social Security, the cost of this war will require a substantial increase in taxes over coming decades.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the future additional costs of these wars over the next 10 years at between at between $481 billion to $1.01 trillion, depending on how fast the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wound down. Those are extremely optimistic projections that assume these wars will wind down and that the United States will be able to finally climb out of the quagmire. Much more likely is the spread of those wars to neighboring battle theaters in Pakistan and Iran. And that’s without conjuring up the prospect of WWIII, as Bush did last week.

Understand further that all of the numbers referenced above refer only to that part of the defense budget directly attributable to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Post-9/11 defense spending, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has increased 40 percent to build high-tech Cold War-era weapons in a charade that assumes that stateless terrorists present a military challenge even greater than the once mighty Soviet Union’s armed forces. The $686 billion overall 2008 defense budget is the highest since World War II.

There was a time when responsible politicians would sharply decry this looting of the public treasury, but not now, when we are in the midst of a never-ending “war on terror.” Not now, when a Marine dies a needless death in Iraq, a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or in any substantiated way presented a threat to the United States, and his family can be produced as cover for a president determined to morally and financially bankrupt the nation.

Robert Scheer

Have Your Say: Bush defense spending highest since WWII
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Monday, November 5th, 2007 at 10:54 pm and is filed under 9/11 Truth, Editor, General, Reviews . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: