High School Security Guards Accused of Excessive Force

Leo Stallworth
ABC
Saturday September 29, 2007

Related: School Guards Break Child's Arm And Arrest Her For Dropping Cake

Three teens and a mother are arrested after a scuffle with security guards at Knight High School in Palmdale. An investigation is underway as to whether excessive force was used by the guards.

One of the students arrested caught the whole thing on video. The incident was instigated over cake.

It was a birthday party at Knight High School in Palmdale. Early last week, during lunch hour, students say the cake dropped, and then everything else dropped. There was mayhem and chaos. On the heels of this incident, a group of parents and students plan to hold a protest on Friday.

(Article continues below)

This is exclusive video that a student at William P. Knight High School in East Palmdale used his cell phone to capture video of 16-year-old Pleajhia Mervin being arrested by campus police early last week.

Mervin says a security guard slammed her against a table at a lunchroom at the high school and twisted her arms behind her back so violently, he broke her wrist. Her wrist is in a cast.

"He put my arm behind my back and he started raising it until it hurt, so I told him, 'Stop, it hurts.' He had slammed me on the table and told me to hold still. He called me a 'nappy-head,' and that's when I just started crying," said Mervin.

Mervin claims she was roughed up simply because she failed to pick up every crumb of a birthday cake she accidentally dropped on the floor of the lunchroom during a lunch-hour birthday celebration for a friend. She says she thought she cleaned up the mess, but the security guard thought otherwise.

"He said, 'You have to come pick the rest of this cake up.' So I said, 'I picked it up.' He gets on his walkie-talkie, he got a call, so I just started walking to class, and that's when he grabbed me," said Mervin.

Mervin says when the security guard realized he was being videotaped, he tackled the student shooting the video. She says another student captured photographs of that incident. She says the whole incident was unnecessary.

"I think that he could have had a better way of cuffing me and throwing me on the table," said Mervin.

Mervin's mother, Latrisha Majors, said when she rushed to the school demanding to see her daughter, she was accused of battering the principal. She says she was then arrested and forced to spend the night in jail.

"This has caused such a disruption in my life," said Majors. "I try to explain this, but I can't. The 'nappy-head' thing, she doesn't understand that there is prejudice going on every day, all day long. It's not right.

School officials had this to say:

"Good afternoon. I can just comment we did have an incident at our school last week. However, I would like to emphasize that we do have a safe campus. I've been working with our staff, with my district office staff, community leaders, and parents, to ensure that we continue to keep our campus safe for all students, but I want people to know that our focus here is academic excellence for all students," said Dr. Susan McDonald, principal of Knight High School.

Pleajhia Mervin has been expelled from school. She will have to go to an expulsion hearing. She says she's even been accused of battering the security guard, and was ticketed for littering. Her mother says she has retained a lawyer from the Cochran firm and plans to sue the school district. A group of parents, students and community activists plan to protest outside the school on Friday morning.

Blackwater Blamed for Guard Deaths

By Richard Lardner and Mike Baker
The Associated Press

Thursday 27 September 2007

Washington - Blackwater USA triggered a major battle in the Iraq war in 2004 by sending an unprepared team of guards into an insurgent stronghold, a move that led to their horrific deaths and a violent response by U.S. forces, says a congressional investigation released Thursday.

The private security company, one of the largest working in Iraq and under scrutiny for how it operates, also is faulted for initially insisting its guards were properly prepared and equipped. It is also accused of impeding the inquiry by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The results of the staff inquiry come less than a week before Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and Blackwater's founder, is scheduled to testify before the committee, which is chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a longtime critic of Blackwater.

The March 2004 incident involving Blackwater was widely viewed as a turning point in the Iraq war after images of the mutilated bodies of the four guards were seen around the world. Four days after the Blackwater guards were killed, a major military offensive, known as the Battle of Fallujah, began.

The combat lasted almost a month in Fallujah, which is 40 miles west of Baghdad. At least 36 U.S. military personnel were killed along with 200 insurgents and an estimated 600 civilians, the congressional investigation found.

In a statement, Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell called the report a "one-sided version" of a tragic incident. She said the committee has documents that show the Blackwater team was "betrayed" and steered into "a well-planned ambush."

The report does not acknowledge "that the terrorists determined what happened that fateful day in 2004," Tyrrell said. "The terrorists were intent on killing Americans and desecrating their bodies."

David Marin, the committee's Republican staff director, criticized the Democratic staff for reaching conclusions before the committee could dig deeper for answers.

"We certainly don't get there in this plaintiff's roadmap masquerading as an investigative report," Marin said.

Donna Zovko, whose son, Jerko "Jerry" Zovko, died in the Fallujah incident, said she hopes the staff report will lead to more oversight and more discussions about the use of contractors.

"Congress can't change anything for my son. He is gone and nothing can bring him back," Zovko said. "But let's see what they can do for the others out there because someone needs to care for these contractors. Blackwater cares about nothing but the mighty dollar."

The families of the four slain contractors filed suit against the company in January 2005, saying Blackwater's cost-cutting measures led to the deaths. That lawsuit is still pending as a federal judge tries to determine whether it should be heard in arbitration or in open court.

Blackwater has argued in court that it is immune to such a lawsuit because the company operates as an extension of the military and cannot be responsible for deaths in a war zone.

The results of the Democratic staff's probe cast Blackwater in a more negative light.

On Sept. 16, 2007, 11 Iraqis were killed in a shoot-out involving Blackwater guards protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad.

The State Department, one of Blackwater's largest customers, has opened an investigation into the incident. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told Congress on Wednesday that the Baghdad incident was tragic, but that private security companies like Blackwater were essential to operations in Iraq.

The staff report called Blackwater an "unprepared and disorderly" organization on the morning of March 31, 2004, when Zovko, Wesley Batalona, Michael Teague, and Scott Helvenston were riding in Mitsubishi Pajeros and guarding a supply convoy.

Although warned by other contractors that it was dangerous to drive through Fallujah, the Blackwater guards "seemed unaware of the potential risk," the report says.

Prior to the team's departure, two members were cut from the mission, leaving the vehicles without rear gunners. The report says they were needed to perform administrative duties elsewhere.

Blackwater "consistently delayed and erected impediments" to the investigation by claiming information was classified and "asserting questionable legal privileges," the report says.

African archbishop says condoms deliberately infected with HIV

BBC
Friday, September 28, 2007

The head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique has told the BBC he believes some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.

Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio claimed some anti-retroviral drugs were also infected "in order to finish quickly the African people".

The Catholic Church formally opposes any use of condoms, advising fidelity within marriage or sexual abstinence.

Aids activists have been angered by the remarks, one calling them "nonsense".

"We've been using condoms for years now, and we still find them safe," prominent Mozambican Aids activist Marcella Mahanjane told the BBC.

(Article continues below)

The UN says anti-retrovirals (ARVs) have proved very effective for treating people with Aids. The drugs are not a cure, but attack the virus on several fronts at once.

The BBC's Jose Tembe in the capital, Maputo, says it is estimated that 16.2% of Mozambique's 19m inhabitants are HIV positive.

About 500 people are infected every day.

'Serious matter'

Archbishop Chimoio told our reporter that abstention, not condoms, was the best way to fight HIV/Aids.

"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose," he alleged, refusing to name the countries.

"They want to finish with the African people. This is the programme. They want to colonise until up to now. If we are not careful we will finish in one century's time."

Aids activists in the country have been shocked by the archbishop's comments.

"Condoms are one of the best ways of getting protection against catching Aids," said Gabe Judas, who runs Tchivirika (Hard Work) - an theatre group that promotes HIV/Aids awareness.

"People must use condoms as it's a safe way of having sex without catching Aids," he told the BBC.

Archbishop Chimoio, who made the remarks at celebrations to mark 33 years of independence, said that fighting the disease was a serious matter.

"If we are joking with this sickness we will be finished as soon as possible.

"If we want to change the situation to face HIV/Aids it's necessary to have a new mentality, if we don't change mentality we'll be finished quickly," he said.

"It means marriage, people being faithful to their wives... (and) young people must be abstaining from sexual relations."

Our correspondent says the archbishop is well respected in the country and the Catholic Church played a leading role in sponsoring the 1992 peace deal that ended a 16-year civil war.

Some 17.5% of Mozambicans are Catholic.

Ron Paul vs. the Neocon Cowards

Dr. James N. Herndon
Lew Rockwell.com
Friday September 28, 2007

Let’s say it straight out: Virtually every architect and supporter of today’s neo-con-game of endless war is a coward.

Why? Because anyone who advocates a policy of military invasion, yet studiously avoids joining the soldiers on the battlefield, is, by definition, a coward.

What kind of a person believes that a cause is worth (someone else) dying for, yet not only refuses to face the "enemy," but remains, at all times, in the cool shadow of security? I’ll tell you what kind – a coward.

What kind of a person can’t wait to send America’s youth to die in Iraq for a series of absurd, constantly evolving fabrications, yet finds it more prudent to receive lobbyists than to fire a rifle? I’ll tell you what kind – a raw coward.

We’ve all heard the deranged platitudes: "Sorry I can’t join ya over there...but I’ll be stayin’ here, representin’ ya, makin’ sure the homeland is secure, and that the economy stays on track. Believe me, I’m gonna be doin’ everything I can to keep you and your buddies well-supplied – with everything you need for victory. So...God’s speed. We’ll all be thinkin’ about ya. And prayin’ for ya. You’re all just fabulous!"

(Article continues below)

Another classic: "I’ve already served my country in the military. I’ve done my duty. Now, someone else can do his. I’m entitled to voice my support for this war. But, right now, I’m just too old to return to battle! And too busy with my job!"

And my all-time favorite? "Well...I haven’t really had any military training. I think it’s best to leave the actual fighting to professionals."

How much training does it take to blow a hole in an eight-year-old girl?

So...soccer mom, construction worker, US Senator, software engineer, grade school teacher, Vice-President of the United States, young, old...whatever you are. You think defeating worldwide "terrorism" is a life-or-death issue for America? Then put your courage where your mouth is.

Join-up, or shut-up.

Just look around. And listen. Listen to all of America’s neo-conned, warriors-in-theory. Their numbers are legion. They’re in Congress. They’re in the White House. They’re wearing the black robes of justice. They’re walking the streets of America, safely preaching genocide. What do they all have in common?

There’s never a doubt, and never a scratch. Cowards, each and every one.

I hereby issue a challenge: I challenge any supporter of our current Middle East blood fest to tell me exactly why he is still here – and not over there.

Do you hear a sudden eerie silence? Of course you do. It’s the silence of cowards.

Have you noticed how the rationale for war these days is becoming less and less important? At this very moment, we are committing mass-extermination in Iraq – for no discernable reason whatsoever.

Except for one – profit.

When our nation’s very existence rests in the balance (as the "War on Terror" drum-beaters repeatedly claim), precisely why is any kind of profit-taking permitted? Why isn’t the military-industrial complex offering its materials and services at cost?

This is a question the cowards would rather not answer, because answering it would reveal the truth: If you take the profit out of war...there is no war. Today’s cowardly patriotism resides only within the perimeter of profit – and safety.

And there’s also a corollary, just for cowards: If you require those calling loudest for war to fire the first shot, the guns remain silent.

Our "War on Terror" has absolutely nothing to do with "terrorists." It has absolutely nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. (The proof? The neo-cowards’ refusal to secure our wide-open borders, due to their love affair with slave labor.) It has nothing to do with a "Clash of Civilizations."

It has everything to do with making money. Lots and lots of money. (And let’s never forget: There’s oil in them-thar hills!)

And it has to do with a new type of "failure." Just as cowardice is now the new bravery, today, failure has also been rebranded. It’s now called "success."

The more American soldiers who die, the longer that innocent blood is spilled, the longer the cycle of destruction and rebuilding, in other words, the longer the horror – the bigger the profit. A normal person believes that he is witnessing chaos in Iraq. Not at all. Success is everywhere in sight.

Of course, it’s a coward’s success. And a coward’s profit.

With every gut-shot Iraqi child, limp in a grieving parent’s arms, we see a bullet that is sold. And a profit that is made. With every suffering, limbless soldier, the military-industrial complex sees a reason to persist. And finds more profits to be made. With every tank that’s ripped-apart, with every screaming, dying civilian, the White House imagines a "surge" that is working. And sees a profit for a friend.

A government that endorses mass murder for profit, and calls it war, deserves no latitude. It deserves a cage.

And so do we, if we stand by in passive assent. Every American deserves what he tolerates. The time for tolerance is over.

There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul.

Positions of Dr. Paul’s that would help achieve this objective include:

• Getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which functions as the financial enabler of war, as well as its head-coach.
• Forcing politicians in favor of war to make a formal declaration of war, as specified in the Constitution.

To which I would add:

• Patriotism requires that the profit-motive be put-aside in time of war. Therefore, financially profiting from a soldier’s courage, and, possibly, from the sacrifice of a soldier’s life, should be forbidden by law.
• By law, every elected representative espousing war must either personally ship-off to battle, or, send a close family member in his stead.

The Ron Paul Revolution is, among other things, a revolution to reclaim our original American spirit, a spirit mangled, at least since the time of Lincoln, by the passive acceptance, and tacit encouragement, of state-sponsored mass-murder for profit.

With God’s help, it is a revolution that will come to pass.

International narcotics agenda behind Myanmar instability

Larry Chin
Online Journal
Friday September 28, 2007

For the past month, the military government of Myanmar has been the focus of increasingly strident demonstrations, resulting in violent military crackdowns in recent days. What must be noted is the Bush administration's open support for the dissidents, in conjunction with growing international (Western) support behind a coup attempt, and the likely parapolitical goals behind this agenda.

The demise of the Golden Triangle: bad for business

According to a report by Thomas Fuller of the International Herald Tribune, the Golden Triangle has, in recent years, lost its prominence as a narco-region. In fact, the legendary Triangle now accounts for as little as 5 percent of world opium supply, according to some estimates. [Notorious Golden Triangle loses sway in opium trade, Thomas Fuller, International Herald Tribune, September 11, 2007]

Not surprisingly, the Golden Crescent and Afghanistan, now under control of the US and its drug-intelligence proxies, are by far and away the world’s number one opium suppliers, as well as the top overall drug producing region, dwarfing Colombia and the Golden Triangle.

(Article continues below)

In fact, the demise of the Golden Triangle in recent years can be traced to geostrategic developments that run counter to the agenda of international interests whose financial and banking system depends on the multi-billion dollar cash flows of the criminal drug trade.

As noted by Fuller:

1. The United Nations credits Myanmar’s central government for leading opium eradication.

2. Militias with long-standing ties to the heroin business have also pushed eradication.

3. China has played a major role pressing opium growers to eradicate.

4. The Laotian government has led its own opium eradication campaign. Officials see the link between poverty and opium, and the fact that “it is mostly organized crime syndicates that profit.”

These narco-developments, parallel with 1) other financial and political reasons why a new Mynamar government would be preferred; 2) a fragile and teetering world economy facing numerous financial bubbles and insolvency; and 3) continued failure to control either the Middle East or contain the rising political and economic power of China, cast a different light on the sudden burst of interest on the part of the Bush administration to back a coup or regime change in Myanmar.

The Bush administration, the epitome of criminal political power, does not support “human rights.” It will utilize every means, including overt military force, to protect geostrategic interests that depend on the world drug trade.

The revitalization of the Golden Triangle drug trade, and the installation or support for an openly pro-US regime in Myanmar, benefits Western financial interests. Any geostrategic foothold in Southeast Asia also benefits efforts to contain China.

Shocking New Revelations On 9/11 Ground Zero Cover-Up

First responder heard WTC 7 demolition countdown, was warned to "shut up" when he reported secondary explosions

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Friday, September 28, 2007

A 9/11 first responder has shed new light on how he heard a countdown before the demolition of Building 7, how he was told to "shut up" by superiors when he tried to report secondary explosions and why "vicious security" measures were enacted to prevent people from accessing certain areas of ground zero.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

In a video interview with Alex Jones, McPadden describes the moments before the collapse of WTC 7.

"When we saw the firemen pick up their equipment and start bustling back and forth they were getting ready to do something, we started asking questions," said McPadden.

(Article continues below)

Despite numerous attempts to glean information from Red Cross officials, McPadden and other first responders were told nothing while one official, shortly after talking to firemen, held his hand over his radio and told them to "just sit tight" and "calm down" before admitting "they're thinking about bringing the building down."

McPadden and his colleagues were miffed as to what the official meant by this statement, initially thinking the building next to them was possibly being brought down.

"He took his hand off for the last three seconds of it - and you hear three, two, one," said McPadden, adding that the official then gave a heartfelt look and told the first responders, "just run for your life."

McPadden got the impression that the Red Cross official had been ordered not to give the first responders a warning that the building was coming down.

"And you heard - boom, boom, boom," said McPadden, describing the sound of bombs tearing down the building.

McPadden explained that the reason Democracy Now host Amy Goodman and others were captured on video (watch above) running from the scene and reaching stationary onlookers as the building started to collapse is that they were able to hear the full countdown on the radio further own the street.

Later in the interview, McPadden reveals how he witnessed up close steel beams from the twin towers that had been symmetrically cut at perfect angles as is shown in this image - a clear sign that explosives were used. McPadden said that officials were acting very suspiciously and subsequently prevented people from getting near the beams.

He also highlighted the fact that "vicious security" was quickly set up around certain areas of ground zero and that people were barred from accessing certain areas for no reason and also had their cameras confiscated.

When McPadden attempted to report that secondary explosions were heard by numerous people, he was harshly ordered to "shut up" and "don't repeat it" by superiors.

He also talked to numerous firefighters who acknowledged that they also heard secondary explosions, but said that "Obviously somewhere in their command structure, they were told to shut up.

Blackwater guard in Iraq said "stop shooting": media

David Clarke
Reuters
Friday September 28, 2007

A Blackwater security guard screamed at colleagues to "stop shooting" in an incident that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead, enraged the government and sparked reviews of security firms in Iraq, U.S. media said on Friday.

The Washington Post and The New York Times quoted unnamed U.S. officials saying they had been told at least one employee of the private American security firm pointed a gun at a fellow guard to try and curb the shooting in Baghdad on September 16.

Blackwater, one of the biggest private security operators in Iraq, employing 1,000 people, has said its guards reacted lawfully to an attack on a U.S. convoy. It was not immediately available for comment on Friday's media reports.

Citing a two-page U.S. embassy report, The Washington Post described an afternoon of mayhem including a car bomb, a shootout at a crowded junction and a standoff between Iraqi soldiers and Blackwater guards, eventually ended by U.S. troops.

(Article continues below)

"We're not commenting on the substance of the investigation," a spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy said.

Iraq has called the incident a flagrant assault and there are now several separate investigations, including a joint Iraqi-U.S. commission looking at private security firms used to protect U.S. government staff in Iraq.

Iraq says there are more than 180 mainly U.S. and European security companies in Iraq, with estimates of the number of private contractors ranging from 25,000 to 48,000.

Under a 2004 rule, the firms are immune from Iraqi law.

"STOP SHOOTING"

Citing the two-page "first blush" embassy report on the September 16 incident, based on Blackwater testimony immediately afterwards, The Washington Post said the events that led to the deadly shooting involved three Blackwater units.

A State Department official quoted by the paper said it was only an initial account and the details could change as the investigations progressed.

The report said two units escorted a U.S. official back to the heavily fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad "without incident" after a car bomb exploded near a compound in which the official was having a meeting.

A third team sent from the Green Zone to help evacuate the official then came under "small arms fire" from "multiple nearby locations" at a road junction in Baghdad's upscale Mansour neighborhood, the report said.

This version contrasts with statements from Iraqi police and witnesses who said Blackwater guards were the only ones firing.

The U.S. official familiar with the investigation told The Washington Post some of those involved in the shooting said at least one guard pointed a weapon at his colleagues.

"Stop shooting -- those are the words that we're hearing were used," the official was quoted as saying.

The U.S. official quoted by The New York Times said the words "cease fire" were used by one or more Blackwater guards and at least one carried on shooting despite the calls.

This unit then returned to the Green Zone. One of the first Blackwater teams sent back to help was surrounded by Iraqi security forces at the same junction.

There was a standoff and U.S. troops came to mediate. They escorted the Blackwater guards back to the Green Zone without incident, the report said.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, a former ambassador to Iraq, said "something went tragically wrong on September 16 and we are taking steps to address the matter".

Speaking on Thursday, he said Blackwater had conducted 1,873 operations outside the Green Zone up to September 18 this year and fired weapons on 56 of those missions. He gave no details but said they were reviewed to ensure procedures were followed.

Attorney Talks About Lawsuit Against Bush, NSA Over Wiretaps

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 27 September 2007

Recently, I sat down with attorney Jon Eisenberg who sued George W. Bush, the National Security Administration (NSA), and other federal agencies, on behalf of two Washington DC-based lawyers who allege their telephone calls were illegally monitored by the NSA in March 2004.

The lawyers, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, appear to be the only American citizens who say they have hard evidence that proves the government spied on them.

Belew and Ghafoor had represented the Islamic charity Al-Haramain. The US Treasury Department accused the charity of funding al-Qaeda and in 2004 froze the organization's assets. During the exchange of documents between Belew and Ghafoor and the Treasury Department in August 2004, the lawyers were sent a top secret document Eisenberg claims is evidence the attorneys' phone calls with the Saudi director of Al-Haramain were monitored in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the US government to obtain a warrant from a special court in order to spy on American citizens.

The top secret document the Treasury Department said it inadvertently gave to Belew and Ghafoor has since been retrieved by FBI agents and is being held in a secure facility in San Francisco. By law, Eisenberg is prohibited from discussing the specific contents of the document because it remains classified.

As the case made its way through the courts, the government asserted the "state secrets" privilege. Justice Department attorneys argued the case should be dismissed on grounds that national security would be at risk if details of the government's warrantless surveillance activities against US citizens became public.

But an Oregon district court judge disagreed with the government's position and said the case could proceed. The government appealed the ruling and the case landed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last month.

In a wide-ranging interview, Eisenberg, one of the attorneys who represented Michael Schiavo several years ago in his battle with Congress and Florida Governor Jeb Bush to have his wife, Terri, removed from artificial life support, discussed the David vs. Goliath battle he has taken on and how it could lead to the unraveling of the Bush administration's warrantless spy program if the appeals court rules in favor of his clients.

Gary Hart Warns Iran Of False Flag Provocation

Gary Hart
Huffington Post
Thursday, September 27, 2007

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.

Saddam asked Bush for 1 billion to go into exile

Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile

By DAVID GARDNER - More by this author » Last updated at 23:45pm on 26th September 2007

Comments (31)

Saddam Hussein is said to have offered to go into exile for $1bn

George Bush was convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

The White House refused to comment on the report last night.

But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.

Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read more...

• Revealed ... Bush's guide to those funny foreign names

The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.

More than 3,800 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, along with 170 Britons and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.

"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.

The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.

Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".

Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."

The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.

"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."

Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.

It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.

A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.

Bomb attacks killed 57 people in Iraq yesterday.

Saddam Offered Exile, But Neo-Cons Unleashed Carnage Anyway

What could have been saved? A trillion dollars, a million lives, the global reputation of the U.S. - but that wasn't the plan

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Thursday, September 27, 2007

Neo-Cons could have saved a trillion dollars, spared over a million lives and prevented tens of thousands of dead and injured U.S. soldiers but decided to unleash carnage anyway, after it was revealed last night that Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq.

"Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)," reports the Daily Mail.

"The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch."

"The White House refused to comment on the report last night. But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted."

According to the tapes, Bush told Aznar that whether Saddam was still in Iraq or not, "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

(Article continues below)

Why didn't the Neo-Cons take Saddam's offer? After all, the invasion was about "weapons of mass destruction" and "spreading freedom", we were told. With the dictator gone, the U.N. and American forces were free to roam the country in search of the non-existent weapons while setting up the "utopian democracy" that Iraqis now live under.

The Neo-Cons didn't take the offer because the invasion of Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, it was about making fat profits for the military-industrial complex by bombing the country back into the stone age, slaughtering countless innocents in the process, seizing control of oil factories, and setting up military bases as a means of launching the Empire's next jaunt into Iran.

The invasion of Iraq was about having a justification to stay there indefinitely and break the country up into different pieces as was the plan all along.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what $1 billion could have saved us.

- At least $200 million every single day that could have been spent on fighting poverty, building schools, taking men to Mars, ad infinitum.

- At least $1 trillion that the Iraq war will eventually cost if we ever leave. A trillion is a million millions.

- At least 1 million dead Iraqis according to the latest numbers, along with millions more that will die in the years to come as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, malnutrition, cholera and all manner of other horrors brought about by the invasion.

- Over 1.1 million displaced Iraqis who have been forced to leave their new "utopian democracy" and another million who have been forced to leave their homes due to sectarian violence and persecution.

- Over 3800 dead U.S. soldiers since the invasion began.

- 300 dead coalition soldiers since the invasion began.

- Anything from 23,000 to 100,000 injured U.S. soldiers since the invasion began.

- The reputation of the U.S. around the world as the most hated nation on earth.

- The ballooning deficit and the probable eventual collapse of the U.S. dollar and the economy.

Thanks Neo-Cons - I hope it was worth it.

What Was Cheney Doing during 911!!!!

Prof. Peter Dale Scott publishes: "9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney’s Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath"

9/11 Blogger
Thursday September 27, 2007

Professor Peter Dale Scott has written an insightful and provocative paper, published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Excerpts from the paper:

"The 9/11 Commission Report is an example of concerted cover-up, partly by omissions, and just as importantly by its cherry-picking of evidence to create impressions that are in fact authoritatively disputed, and in some cases probably not true. There are many examples of cherry-picking and contrived simulations of fact. More importantly, there is a consistent pattern in this: to minimize Cheney’s responsibility for what happened that day."

"In this presentation I have focused on anomalies in the behavior, especially on 9/11, of Richard Cheney. He, and Donald Rumsfeld and others, should testify, under oath, about

(Article continues below)

1) The June 1 JCS Order requiring highest-level approvals for intercepts of off-course planes,

2) The contested time of Cheney’s arrival in the Presidential bunker,

3) Cheney’s orders with respect to a plane approaching Washington, and did this occur around 9:27 AM (as testified to by Mineta), or 10:15 AM (as per the 9/11 Report)?

4) Cheney’s call or calls with Rumsfeld and the President before or about 10 AM, and did they discuss so-called “Continuity of Government” (COG), including warrantless surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, and arrangements for mass detention.?

The story the Report presented was embarrassing enough: of a trillion dollar defence system that broke down on 9/11, and completely failed to perform its allotted function. But the Report’s systematic and repeated distortions lead one to suspect that some even more embarrassing truth is being concealed, and that this truth has to do with orders given on that day by the Vice President.

I believe that COG may be the answer to the mystery question about Cheney’s actions at a time when he was talking to the President and Rumsfeld. If so, the three men were almost certainly not acting on their own. Rather, they would have been key figures in a highly classified agenda that must have involved other people.

The question to be explored is whether that agenda involved revising the U.S. constitutional balance of powers, and whether Cheney on 9/11 was primarily occupied in exploiting the attacks as a means to implement an agenda of constitutional revision which he already had in place.

The 911 Commission decided that its supporting evidence and records should be withheld from public view until January 2, 2009 – a date which would obviously insure the President and Vice-President from possible impeachment. But many would concede that since 9/11, and as a result of 9/11, the American nation has drifted towards a constitutional crisis, requiring a change of policy direction. The issues posed by what happened on 9/11 are very relevant to this crisis, and too significant to be postponed until 2009. As it did belatedly in the case of the John F. Kennedy assassination, Congress should initiate a procedure for these records to be reviewed and released expeditiously.

Records that should be released would include all of the phone logs from the White House on 9/11, to determine, as a matter of priority, the precise time and circumstances of Cheney’s orders on that day. They would also include materials (such as COG files and the videotape of the White House teleconference) that the Commission apparently never requested. The public also needs to establish why other records requested by the Commission did not initially reach them.

And then, I believe, it would be appropriate for a venue to be established in which the Vice President would testify for the first time about 9/11 under oath."

I'm confident you will want to read Prof. Scott's paper, here.

Jon Stewart tells Bolivian president America's elections are 'rigged'

Mike Aivaz and Jason Rhyne
Raw Story
Thursday September 27, 2007

Bolivian president Evo Morales and his translator joined Jon Stewart to discuss the leader's rise from poor farmer to Bolivia's "first indigenous president." Morales also made use of the the opportunity to take some jabs at America and the West.

"I understand that all have rights. It's not just intellectuals and professionals who can become president," Morales said through translation. "People who have other experiences, who have a working life as well, can become president. Therefore indigenous persons can also become president."

"In Bolivia," Steward deadpanned. "In America, it's a little rigged."

"So if it's rigged, then something needs to be done to change that," the leader said.

Discussing Morales's accomplishments, Stewart noted that the president's campaign promises, which had included pledges to nationalize resources, convene a constitutional assembly and institute agrarian reform, were all completed within eight months of his election.

(Article continues below)

"What are you trying to pull?" Stewart asked.

"On the issue of nationalization of oil and gas," Morales said, "in 2005, before I came president, the Bolivian state received only 300 million dollars from its oil and gas exports. And now since they've been nationalized, the Bolivian state receives more than two billion dollars. Therefore, we followed through on what we promised."

"We are going forward with the idea of a multi-cultural state," he continued, "a multi-national state, trying to live in unity at the same time respecting our diversity."

"We're so diverse, there are blue and green-eyed people like you,"the president joked, pointing at Stewart.

Responding to a question about the US and its relationship with countries including Venezuela and Cuba, Morales said the nations should come together to think about "how we can support life and human kind."

"It should be the millennium of life," he said.

"I personally know that there are presidents in countries who send troops abroad to save lives," Morales added later in the program, "but there are also countries who send troops abroad to take away lives. If we compare these two things...certainly we're going to the conclusion that these policies must change."

"And please don't consider me to part of the axis of evil," he begged.

The following video is from Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart, broadcast on September 25, 2007

Click here to discuss this story in our forum

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being “Guarded” by Israel

Michael Collins Piper
Kavkaz-Center
Thursday September 27, 2007

American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems-owned in part by the government of Israel-is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.

The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)-which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.

What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.

Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps America's closest ally on the face of the planet. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms.

(Article continues below)

Be that as it may, however, Magal's global interests are quite broad-ranging. Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern "space age" technology, Magal has now branched out internationally.

Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia. In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London. What's more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems. Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards.

There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.

Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.

However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.

And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties-even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel-Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries-will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.

At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. and Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Smart Interactive Systems, Inc., and the Virginia-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.

All told, the Israeli company holds a 40% share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines.

Magal is also said to be quite interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding America's water supplies.

On July 19, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency announced a "partnership" with the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures to improve what they called "water supply system security in the United States and Israel." Since Magal is so highly respected in Israel, it's an even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.

US Military Official: Blackwater "May Be Worse Than Abu Ghraib"

Steve Benen
Alternet
Thursday September 27, 2007

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

To describe the ongoing Blackwater scandal as a fiasco would be a dramatic understatement. Not only do we have a situation in which private security contractors stand accused of killing Iraqi civilians without provocation, we also have deep divisions brewing between the Pentagon and the State Department, coupled by State stonewalling a congressional investigation.

A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over the involvement of Blackwater USA in the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square Sept. 16, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and government officials.

(Article continues below)

In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department's authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event," the official said.

"This is a nightmare," said a senior U.S. military official. "We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term."

At this point, the State Department seems to be treating Blackwater contractors as the agency's own private army, accountable to no one outside the department. The Maliki government believes Blackwater is a criminal enterprise, the Iraqi people resent Blackwater's presence, the Pentagon believes Blackwater is lying about the Sept. 16 incident in Nisoor Square, and congressional Democrats have questions about what has transpired -- which the State Department refuses to answer.

This is a debacle so severe and humiliating, only the Bush administration could pull it off.

David Kurtz offers this helpful timeline of events that sets the stage for where we are now.

Sun, Sept. 16: Blackwater incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians are killed after State Department convoy reportedly comes under fire, an account disputed by the Iraqis.

Mon, Sept. 17: Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee announces his committee will investigate the Blackwater incident.

Tue, Sept. 18: The American Embassy in Baghdad suspends diplomatic convoys outside the Green Zone.

Wed, Sept. 19: In a phone call, Acting Assistant Secretary of State William Moser warns Blackwater that no information regarding the Blackwater contract can be released without State's prior written approval.

Thu, Sept. 20: Moser repeats the warning in a second call to Blackwater, and State sends Blackwater a follow-up letter again asserting again that the information possessed by Blackwater belongs to State and cannot be disclosed.

Fri, Sept. 21: The four-day suspension of State Department convoys ends and Blackwater resumes business. Secretary of State Condi Rice announces that her department will undertake a "full and complete review" of diplomatic security in Iraq.

And while it's certainly nice of Rice to suddenly take an interest in accountability, Congress, which has oversight responsibility and is paying the bills for all of this, believes a bipartisan review on Capitol Hill will produce a more accurate picture of what's transpired.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not only refuses to cooperate, her office has also ordered Blackwater not to answer any questions from lawmakers.

The State Department has interceded in a congressional investigation of Blackwater USA, the private security firm accused of killing Iraqi civilians last week, ordering the company not to disclose information about its Iraq operations without approval from the Bush administration, according to documents revealed Tuesday.

In a letter sent to a senior Blackwater executive Thursday, a State Department contracting official ordered the company "to make no disclosure of the documents or information" about its work in Iraq without permission.

I appreciate the fact that outrage fatigue is inevitable when dealing with the Bush gang, but this is truly ridiculous. We have American taxpayers financing a private security army, whose members stand accused of slaughtering civilians. The Secretary of State believes no one should ask any questions about this, and those who do must be ignored. It's pure lunacy.

The State Department's cooperation with a congressional inquiry is not optional. Rice can't simply refuse to divulge information, and ordering others to remain silent is getting fairly close to the obstruction-of-justice line.

When these guys act like they have something to hide, it's almost always because they have something to hide. Stay tuned.