Maybe This Time Congress Will Have The Guts To Do The Right Thing, Though I Doubt It!

Kucinich vs. The Establishment: Impeachment Hearing On Friday

Congressman Dennis Kucinich will this Friday present his single article of impeachment concerning the Bush administration’s deliberate and unconstitutional lies that led us to war in Iraq, putting him in tandem with the majority of the American people, yet in the cross hairs of both Neo-Cons and Democrats who have tried to block his efforts at every turn.

Kucinich should be commended for his brave and restless pursuit of impeachment. Whether Bush had a few months left in office or a few years doesn’t matter one iota – the Congressman’s efforts are aimed squarely at ensuring Bush rightly goes down in history as the most flagrantly criminal and anti-American president in history, while also making sure that a repeat of the debacle we have witnessed over the past eight years is not allowed to happen again.
Here it is:

——————-

CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This secret program was defended by the White House Press Secretary following its exposure. This program follows the pattern of crimes detailed in Article I, II, IV and VIII.. The mission of this program placed it within the field controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson.

The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of Iraq’s nuclear threat that later proved to be false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the WHIG’s white papers provided “gripping images and stories” and used “literary license” with intelligence. The WHIG’s white papers were written at the same time and by the same people as speeches and talking points prepared for President Bush and some of his top officials.

The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous interviews and all provided similarly gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

September 7-8, 2002:
NBC’s “Meet the Press: Vice President Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms. CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was “six months away from developing a weapon,” and cited satellite photos of construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors once visited as evidence that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms.

The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was revealed in an April 20, 2002, New York Times article. The program illegally involved “covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and according to the New York Times report, which has not been disputed by the Pentagon or the White House, “Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.”

According to the Pentagon’s own internal documents, the military analysts were considered “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who would deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.” In fact, they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not reveal that the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News military analyst described this as follows: “It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.’”

Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”

A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service states that “publicity or propaganda is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) selfaggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) “covert propaganda.”

These concerns about “covert propaganda” were also the basis for the GAO’s standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:

“The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual — the essential fact of attribution is missing.”

The White House’s own Office of Legal Council stated in a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the Armstrong Williams scandal: “Over the years, GAO has interpreted ‘publicity or propaganda’ restrictions to preclude use of appropriated funds for, among other things, so-called ‘covert propaganda.’ … Consistent with that view, the OLC determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for ‘publicity or propaganda’ precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that ‘covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties’ would run afoul of restrictions on using appropriated funds for ‘propaganda.’”

Asked about the Pentagon’s propaganda program at White House press briefing in April 2008, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino defended it, not by arguing that it was legal but by suggesting that it “should” be: “Look, I didn’t know look, I think that you guys should take a step back and look at this look, DOD has made a decision, they’ve decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something. And I don’t think that that should be against the law. And I think that it’s absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it. It doesn’t necessarily mean that all of those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the administration. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk to
people.”

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

George W. Bush is a criminal and should be dealt with as one. Let us hope our elected officials are willing to do the right thing. even if they don’t, when he leaves office he should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity along with his other Reptilian friends and collegues.

See below link for more on the Reptilian Agenda:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles.htm

Published in: on July 25, 2008 at 7:56 am  Comments (2)  

Yeah, It’s Like That

And human rights activists have sent a letter to President Bush, asking him to raise human rights issues with the Chinese government during the Olympics. Unfortunately, they also sent a letter to the Chinese government asking them to bring up human rights issues with President Bush. So, it’s pretty much a wash.

— Jay Leno, The Tonight Show

Published in: on July 25, 2008 at 7:14 am  Leave a Comment  

Memphis Police to Use ‘Amnesia-like’ Injection in Lieu of Taser

It is happening to US citizens

So let me ask you. Do you want a Cop prescribing and injecting you or a loved one because they think you are out of control? ie. your home is flooded and you are upset. your child has just died and they are afraid you might get angry ect. ect…….

I’m tellin’ you folks there is coming a day when you may have to defend yourself against the govt. Are you prepared to protect yourself from authorities who think that they have the right to decide what is best for you and your family?

http://www.infowars.com/?p=3351

WSMV-TV | July 14, 2008

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – While the Metro police had banned the use of Tasers for a time, they still used a controversial method to subdue unruly people, according to an I-Team report.

The city’s policy to use the method, which calls for the injection of a drug into a person, came as a “total surprise” to people most would expect to know all about it.

For almost two years, Metro police have had the option of calling for a needle loaded with a strong sedative to control the most unruly people they encounter on the street.

One of the doctors who came up with the protocol said it’s the safest option out there and that it is used all over the country.

But many people said that the injection was news to them, and a top medical ethicist said it’s a troubling precedent.

The drug is called Midazolam, which is better known as Versed. People who have had a colonoscopy have probably had a shot of the drug for the procedure.

“The drug has an amnesia effect, and we use that therapeutically because one of the nice ways to take care of the discomfort is to make people forget that they’ve had it,” said biomedical ethics and law enforcement expert Dr. Steven Miles.

But the shots have also been used on the streets on people police said were out of control.

One of the first to get the shot administered to them was Dameon Beasley.

“Well, that night, I hadn’t been properly taking my meds, you know, like I’m supposed to. I got so depressed that when I was up on the bridge running into traffic back and forth, cars dodging me, swerving, I ended up with two sharp objects in my hands. By that time, the police had arrived. I was charging them with these sharp objects trying to make them shoot me, actually yelling at them to shoot me,” he said.

When a Taser didn’t work on Beasley, police turned to a brand new protocol — an injection of Versed. Officers called emergency medical personnel for the injection.

“I remember they were holding me down. There was maybe four or five on each side, and I remember they were calling for something, you know. Some guy came up on the left side and hit me with it,” he said.

“I do know that whatever it was works immediately. I mean, you ain’t got a chance if you are 300 pounds. It’s like a horse tranquilizer. I don’t care. You’re gone. It’s a wrap,” he said.

Beasley said he had no idea what happened after he was injected.

“I woke up — I don’t know how much time had passed — with a sergeant standing over me telling me to sign here. I didn’t know what I was signing Ms. (Channel 4 I-Team reporter Demetria) Kalodimos. I just signed a piece of paper and was immediately right back out,” he said.

Kalodimos reported that Beasley ended up at Metro General Hospital and was then put in psychiatric care. He was not charged in the incident on the bridge.

But Beasley’s lawyer, a public defender, had no idea that Versed had been used to subdue him until Kalodimos told him about it.

Very few people seem to know about the almost 2-year-old policy, Kalodimos said.

The state’s largest mental health advocacy group, Nashville’s mental health judge, the Nashville Rescue Mission, the American Civil Liberties Union all said they had no knowledge of the use of the drug by police.

“I’ve talked to my colleagues around the country, and none of the people from the south to the north to the east to the west have ever heard about this kind of program, this kind of use where they basically force an injection upon an individual knowing nothing about his or her medical condition,” said ACLU Director Hedy Weinberg.

“I can’t tell you why those individuals don’t know about it,” said Dr. Corey Slovis, Nashville?s emergency medical director.

Along with medical examiner Dr. Bruce Levy, Slovis customized a Versed policy for Nashville that is endorsed by a group of emergency medical experts called the Eagles.

“It’s something that in the medical community and in the EMS medical community is very common. It’s a given. When I surveyed the major metropolitan areas around the country, I think only two cities were not actively using it,” Slovis said.

Some have asked the question about potential problems.

Miles said he also had never heard of Versed being used in this way.

“There is no research guideline. There is no validated protocol for this. There’s not even a clear set of indications for when this is to be used except when people are agitated. By saying that it’s done by the emergency medical personnel, they basically are trying to have it both ways. That is, they?re trying to use a medical protocol that is not validated, not for a police function, arrest and detention,” Miles said.

“The decision to administer Versed is based purely on a paramedic decision, not a police decision,” Slovis said.

It’s up to the officer to call an ambulance and determine if a person is in a condition called excited delirium.

“I don’t know if I would use the word diagnosing, but they are assessing the situation and saying, ‘This person is not acting rationally. This is something I’ve been trained to recognize, this seems like excited delirium.’ I don’t view delirium in the field as a police function. It is a medical emergency. We’re giving the drug Versed that’s routinely used in thousands of health care settings across the country in the field by trained paramedics. I view what we’re doing as the best possible medical practice to a medical emergency,” Slovis said.

Metro Government would not release the names of the eight other people who got Versed injections after police calls. A representative from Metro said that the information was protected in the way a medical record would be.

The representative said that only one person out of the nine had shown no improvement after the injection.

Versed was most recently used on a female in early June.

Three women of child bearing age have apparently gotten shots without consent, even though the package insert for Versed suggests that, “the patient should be apprised of the potential hazard to the fetus.”

“A single administration to calm a wildly delirious patient down even if she’s pregnant is much safer to the woman and her unborn child than being allowed to be delirious, hypothermic, hyperventilating and perhaps hypoxic,” Slovis said.

“I would think that with enough people being able to tackle the person to inject them, there should be another way to try to subdue someone without putting an injection in their vein,” Weinberg said.

The biggest side effect that is seen in more than 80 percent of those who are injected with Versed is amnesia.

The side effect raises the question of a person being able to defend themselves in court if they can’t remember what happened.

“If they would’ve said I’d done anything after that shot, hey, I couldn’t have argued that fact. I don’t remember,” Beasley said.

Kalodimos reported that while doing research for this report, she found a post on a paramedics Internet chat site that said, “One good thing about Versed is that the patient won’t remember how he got that footprint on his chest.”

“We’re very careful in Nashville,” Slovis said. “Every instance of Versed use is reviewed by the both medical director, myself, our head of EMS quality assurance. We make sure that our paramedics treat patients right.”

Miles said it would have been appropriate to put the idea of using Versed before what’s called an Institutional Review Board for study to anticipate problems before they pop up.

“It may well be that a protocol could be designed to test the use of Versed in handling agitated persons at the time of detention. I’m not going to say that’s not possible, but at any rate, you do it under a condition where you collect data rather than simply just going ahead and doing the drug and waiting to see if problems to develop,” he said.

Miles added that, “Doing medicine by the seat of your pants is not the way to develop new therapies.”

Slovis said the shots are given as a medical treatment, not a police function, even though ultimately they aid in an arrest.

Published in: on July 24, 2008 at 9:54 pm  Leave a Comment  

Pentagon “Calmatives”: Biochemical Substances as Incapacitating Weapons of War and Social Control

by Tom Burghardt July 12, 2008

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9573

Ours is a social system spinning wildly out of control. Wherever one glances, the political-economic-ecological crises engulfing late capitalism are insolvable in terms of structural reforms that might mitigate the system’s approaching zero hour. Call it the proverbial band-aid over gangrene syndrome; a plethora of terminal “fixes” that fix nothing.

During periods of extreme crisis, ruling class elites and the technocratic “wizards of armageddon” who serve them–bankrupt authoritarians without authority–harbor a not-so-secret longing for “magic bullets” that will put things right.

Thus, the quixotic crusade by politicians, military planners and corporate grifters out to make a buck to discover what they hope will be an antidote to the spreading virus of desperation and anger gripping the planet as the alleged “beautiful world” promised by neoliberalism morphs into an unlimited–and endless–low-intensity “war on terror” waged against the world’s poor.

A futile quest to be sure, while the immense, untapped social potential for resolving humanity’s most pressing needs–food, shelter, healthcare, repair of the environment–are grimly shuttled “off world” to various “green zones” and “secure, undisclosed locations” where science, and scientists, function as the equivalent of nerdy call-girls in the “Pentagon Madame’s” little black book of atrocities.

In “‘Non-Lethal’ Weapons: Where Science and Technology Service Repression,” I began a preliminary inquiry into “less than lethal” weapons research; that investigation continues.

Calmative Agents

For six decades, the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have explored ways to harness biochemical substances as incapacitating weapons of war. During 1977 congressional hearings, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence published material on “Project MKULTRA, The CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification.”

While the media focused on the sensationalistic dosing of unsuspecting “subjects” with LSD and other psychoactive substances during unethical CIA and Army experiments, purportedly as a means to gain “control” over the minds of “enemy agents” or “target populations,” the demise of MKULTRA supposedly signalled that research into these forbidden zones were a closed book.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. While “mind control” as a weapon of war has proven chimerical, the Pentagon has hardly neglected its search for biochemical agents as mechanisms for repressive domination. Under the broad heading “calmatives,” such research continues to this day. The now-defunct Sunshine Project offered a preliminary assessment and defined calmatives as,

chemical or biological agents with sedative, sleep-inducing or similar psychoactive effects. Chemical calmative weapons such as BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, a compound related to scopolamine) were developed during the Cold War. Proponents of calmatives are creating a new and alarming legal ambiguity surrounding their use. …The US Department of Defense (DoD) arguments imply the creation of two loopholes in the Chemical Weapons Convention: the possible definition of psychoactive substances as riot control agents, and a distinction between “military operations other than war” [MOOTW] and armed conflicts. In the latter, DoD argues that even toxic chemicals would be of operational utility. (“Non-Lethal Weapons Research in the U.S.: Calmatives and Malodorants,” The Sunshine Project, Backgrounder Series #8, July 2001)

In other words, while deploying these agents in the “battlespace” is prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention, their use on civilian populations during MOOTW, “if classified as riot control agents, can be acceptable.”

As Neil Davison, a researcher at the University of Bradford’s Disarmament Research Centre (BDRC) describes,

From a military perspective, specific characteristics of such agents have been seen as follows:

  1. Highly potent (an extremely low dose is effective) and logistically feasible.
  2. Able to produce their effects by altering the higher regulatory activity of the central nervous system.
  3. Of a duration of action lasting hours or days, rather than of a momentary or fleeting action.
  4. Not seriously dangerous to life except at doses many times the effective dose.

(5) Not likely to produce permanent injury in concentrations which are militarily effective.

However, contemporary definitions emphasise rapid onset of action and short duration of effects, characteristics which reflect the current preoccupation with counter-terrorism and the associated convergence of military and policing requirements. Generally for reasons of politics and public relations rather than accuracy these weapons have also been referred to as “calmatives” and “advanced riot control agents”. (Neil Davison, Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, ‘Off the Rocker’ and ‘On the Floor’: The Continued Development of Biochemical Incapacitating Weapons, Bradford Science and Technology Report No. 8, August 2007) [emphasis added]

As Davison narrates, BDRC’s title refers to the nomenclature assigned these substances by Cold War researchers.

Broadly speaking agents were colloquially divided into “off the rocker” agents having psychotropic effects and “on the floor” agents causing incapacitation through effects on other physiological processes. “Off the rocker” agents prevailed since the safety margins for other agents, including anaesthetic agents, sedatives, and opiate analgesics, were not considered sufficiently wide for them to perform as ‘safe’ military incapacitating agents.

This is hardly an academic exercise considering that the Pentagon’s Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) is carrying-out on-going experimentation into what it euphemistically calls “Human Effects Research” to develop an “Advanced Total Body Model (ATBM) for predicting the effects of non-lethal impacts.”

The JNLWP non-lethal human effects community has begun to increase its focus on improving the characterization and quantification of NLW effectiveness. In other words, researchers are attempting to better answer the question of how well the human response relates to desired mission outcomes. This area of research is critical to ensuring that the end user will get reliable, repeatable, and safe results from future non-lethal capabilities. (“Human Effects Research,” Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, April 10, 2008)

Perhaps, the JNLWD “human effects community” should ponder the “living laboratory” on display during the October 2002 Moscow Theatre siege. Under “real world” conditions, 50 Chechen terrorists (some allegedly linked to the Afghan-Arab database of disposable intelligence assets known as al-Qaeda) and 129 hostages were killed when Russian OSNAZ forces pumped an aerosolized fentanyl derivative through the ventilation system. A KGB-developed “psycho-chemical gas” known as Kolokol-1 was the suspected calmative used during the “rescue.” Kolokol-1 has been described by medical experts as being 1000 times more potent than morphine.

When a normal dose of fentanyl enters the brain, it is quickly redistributed throughout the body and acts as a short-lived anesthetic. A larger, more concentrated dose however, is not so easily redistributed and remains concentrated in the brain and shuts down normal respiratory functions. This was the mechanism that caused the Moscow deaths; hostages were chemically suffocated by their “rescuers.”

The former Soviet Union however, wasn’t alone in looking at fentanyl derivatives as “non-lethal” incapacitating agents. In 1987, the U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) had established a “Less-Than-Lethal Technology Program,” and awarded its first contract to the U.S. Army’s Chemical Research, Development, and Engineering Center (CREDEC, [rebranded as the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center [ECBC)] ) at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, “for a feasibility assessment of a dart to deliver an incapacitating agent to stop a fleeing suspect,” BDRC reports.

According to Davison, “the requirement for rapid immobilization apparently led to consideration of fentanyl analogues, in particular alfentanil. … However, its’ low safety margin was a major problem.” The prototype delivery system was a failure and NIJ moved on.

But “mission creep” being what it is the military, perhaps “inspired” by NIJ’s pursuit of incapacitating agents for civilian police use, quickly adopted the “less-than-lethal” terminology and rekindled its own interest in fielding such weapons. By 1990, Davison writes, the “Army terminated their ‘Incapacitating Chemical Program’ and reinvented it as the ‘Riot Control Program’.”

Through slight-of-hand tricks designed to circumvent the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the Pentagon sought to place incapacitating agents in the same category as irritant riot control agents (RCA) such as pepper spray.

However, the British Medical Association (BMA) in its 2007 report, “The Use of Drugs as Weapons,” raised serious ethical concerns for healthcare professionals’ involvement in what they term “tactical pharmacology” as deployable “non-lethal” weapons. To wit,

The use of a drug as a method of warfare would constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Ambiguity in the text of the CWC leaves open the possibility of the use of a drug as a weapon for the purposes of ‘law enforcement including domestic riot control’. There is also a question as to whether some drugs fall within the definition of a biological weapon as defined in the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). It is vital that the international community makes every effort to ensure that these weapons conventions remain intact. The development and deployment of drugs as weapons for whatever reason risks undermining the norms these conventions represent.

Serious questions are raised by the BMA over the state’s proposed use of drugs as weapons. Indeed, the use of these agents by military and security forces “is simply not feasible without generating a significant mortality among the target population.” The BMA concludes, “it is and will continue to be almost impossible to deliver the right agent to the right people in the right dose without exposing the wrong people, or delivering the wrong dose.” But over and above “tactical” considerations, the BMA avers,

From an ethical perspective, healthcare professionals need to begin a deeper examination of their roles in relation to such use of biomedical knowledge and medical expertise for hostile purposes. This is, ultimately, a matter relating to health because the lives and wellbeing of humans are at stake.

But as we have seen in the anemic response by many American healthcare professionals to CIA and U.S. military torture policies at Guantánamo Bay and transnational “black sites,” biomedical knowledge has been perverted for devilish “national security” considerations. Indeed, some doctors, nurses and psychologists–military officers and/or “outsourced” contractors–like their Argentine and Chilean colleagues during the “dirty war” period of the 1970s and 1980s have been complicit in U.S. war crimes. This too, seems to be the case as Pentagon specialists transform drugs into “tactical” weapons.

By 2000, the Pentagon’s JNLWD was pressing for a range of programs to develop new incapacitating agents, rechristened as we have seen, as “non-lethal” weapons. Indeed, Davison reports that the U.S. Army issued a “solicitation under its’ Small Business Innovation Research programme…that included a request for proposals on ‘Topic# CBD 00-108: Chemical Immobilizing Agents for Non-Lethal Applications.”

“Phase I” sought “to identify new agents and agent combinations including an analysis of ‘…recent breakthroughs in pharmacological classes such as Anesthetics/analgesics, tranquilizers, hypnotics and neuromuscular blockers’,” Davison reports.

Program design and testing regimens would lead to the development of an appropriate delivery system(s) and the consideration of “dual-use” applications of the technology by the military and civilian law enforcement agencies.

Potential military uses, according the JNLWD solicitation included “meeting US and NATO objectives in peacekeeping missions; crowd control; embassy protection; rescue missions; and counter-terrorism” whereas law enforcement applications cited were “hostage and barricade situations; crowd control; close proximity encounters, such as, domestic disturbances, bar fights and stopped motorists; to halt fleeing felons; and prison riots.” In other words, military/law enforcement deployment of “calmatives” are envisaged as weapons for social control.

The JNLWD awarded its initial “Phase I” contract to Ann Arbor, MI-based capitalist grifter OptiMetrics Inc., for work on the program at ECBC. As of this writing, there is no available information on “Phase II” or “Phase III.” If the program panned-out, the JNLWD isn’t saying. However, research continues at Pennsylvania State University’s (PSU) College of Medicine and the Navy’s Applied Research Laboratory (ARL). The ARL/PSU study sought to,

  • Define the advantages and limitations of pharmaceutical compounds as calmatives with potential use in non-lethal techniques.
  • Provide a comprehensive survey of the medical literature utilizing pharmaceutical agents to produce a calm state with potential for use as a non-lethal technique. This information will provide a current database of the relevant literature on calmatives.
  • Provide an in-depth review of selected calmatives identified by the literature search with high potential for further consideration as a non lethal technique.
  • Identify and recommend promising new areas in pharmaceutical drug development that are poised to uniquely meet the requirements of calmatives as non-lethal techniques. (emphasis added)

Davison notes that the October 2000 ARL/PSU report, The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique, concludes ominously that “different chemical agents would be required for different scenarios with ‘…different mechanisms of action, duration, of effects and different depths of ‘calm’.”

While the report doesn’t specify a delivery system, Davison writes “the authors envisage a variety of delivery routes including ‘…application to drinking water, topical administration to the skin, an aerosol spray inhalation route, or a drug filled rubber bullet’.” Perhaps the authors’ propose drugging municipal water systems to suppress “anti-social behaviors” such as a general strike or mass antiwar protests to achieve their goal of effecting “different depths of ‘calm'”!

The ARL/PSU report concludes: “The extensive survey of the literature conducted on calmatives serves to emphasize that the ‘time is right’ with respect to considering pharmaceutical agents…” as new a new class of “non-lethal” weapons. (emphasis added) The time is “right” indeed as the JNLWD considers newer and ever-more insidious methods of repression!

Currently under development are programs that employ unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as a delivery system for calmatives as well as other “non-lethal” weapons. With tens of billions of dollars invested by the Pentagon in UAVs since the 1990s, a small, though significant area of interest is the use of UAVs as a “non-lethal” dispersal platform. One 1998 study concluded that a “UAV-dispenser system could be used with any UAV with a 40 lb or more payload capability.”

The JNLWD has funded development of an “unmanned platform” to “spray liquid payloads” by remote control at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). According to Davison,

SwRI engineers developed a computer-controlled unmanned powered Para foil (UPP) equipped with a payload that dispenses liquid spray while in flight. Developed for the Marine Corps Non-Lethal Directorate, the system is intended to provide non-lethal crowd control options for the U.S. military. The UPP was fitted with a pan-tilt camera to continually locate the impact point of the liquid spray. Using computer-assisted flight modes and the camera image, a remote operator can direct the UPP over a target at low altitude and release the spray.

Similarly, Raytheon was “tasked” with “assessing the feasibility” of delivering “non-lethal” payloads, including chemical agents from its Extended Range Guided Munition. Another “major recommendation” was for “further development of unmanned vehicles to deliver ‘non-lethal’ weapons including chemical agents at long distance with greater accuracy,” Davison reports.

Just this week, The Guardian reported a new “tool” appeared in the Pentagon’s “non-lethal” weapons arsenal. The U.S. Army’s XM1063 155mm howitzer launched projectile is capable of scattering “152 small non-explosive submunitions over a 1-hectare area; as each parachutes down, it sprays a chemical agent.”

Designed by major corporate grifter General Dynamics for the U.S. Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, the XM1063 is touted as the latest in a series of “non-lethals” which will “‘suppress’ people without harming them.”

The Guardian reports,

Testing of the XM1063 was completed successfully last year and it is due for low-rate production from 2009. Ardec says that the production decision is on hold awaiting further direction from the program manager. It seems the decision on whether to enter a new age of chemical warfare now rests with the military rather then civilians. Unless put under pressure, the US Army seems unlikely to give any details of what’s in the surprise package until it is used. And maybe not even then. (David Hambling, “U.S. Weapons Research Is Raising a Stink,” The Guardian, July 10, 2008)

As we have seen in this outline, there is no question that research into these appalling weapons systems will continue. The Defense Science Board (DSB), which advises the Pentagon on science and technology issues, have recommended that work on “non-lethal” weapons–including so-called “calmatives”–move forward.

In 2004, the DSB concluded that “Applications of biological, chemical or electromagnetic radiation effects on humans should be pursued.” Davison notes that in the section on “strategic payload concepts” the report states:

  • Calmatives might be considered to deal with otherwise difficult situations in which neutralizing individuals could enable ultimate mission success
  • The principle technical issue is the balance between effectiveness (i.e., the targets are truly “calmed”) and margins of safety (i.e., avoiding overexposure and resulting fatalities of neutral bystanders)
  • The treaty implications are significant

But as with other treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory, notably the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the now-renounced Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, “national security,” in the Orwellian sense understood by the United States, always trumps human rights and the rule of law.

The democratic Republic which most Americans have long-cherished is rapidly falling by the wayside as economic crisis, endless wars and ecological collapse fuel moves by the U.S. ruling class to complete constructing their corporatist police state. It within this context, that “calmatives” and other “non-lethal” weapons technologies arise: both as metaphor and method for an ever-more sinister rebranding of fascism.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press.

Tom Burghardt is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Tom Burghardt

Published in: on July 24, 2008 at 9:30 pm  Comments (2)  

It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.

— Thomas Paine

Published in: on July 24, 2008 at 8:29 pm  Leave a Comment  

David Icke – Big Brother, the Big Picture (July 6th 2008)

Published in: on July 15, 2008 at 8:46 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Comics Get It-Do You!!

FFF

 

President Bush signed a bill giving phone companies immunity for letting the government spy on its customers without a warrant. Isn’t that unbelievable? President Bush said 9/11 changed everything. And you know, he’s right, because violating the Constitution and breaking the law used to mean jail time. Apparently no more.

 

— Jay Leno, The Tonight Show

Published in: on July 15, 2008 at 8:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

Bush, McCain & Obama To Visit Bohemian Grove?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 11, 2008
Outgoing President George W. Bush and both of his presumptive replacements John McCain and Barack Obama are rumored to be in attendance at this year’s Bohemian Grove gathering, an annual get-together of the global elite staged inside a sprawling forest encampment which kicks off tonight and runs until July 27.

Bohemian Grove is a 136-year-old all-male encampment complete with restaurants, bars, stages and lodges, which caters to around 2,000 members of the global elite along with Californian hoi polloi on a yearly basis in July. The camp is set within a 2,700 acre secluded forest replete with giant redwood trees.

Former attendees include Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who both went on to become President, as well as regulars like Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, David Rockefeller, Colin Powell, as well as George W. Bush and his father.

In 2000 radio host and film maker Alex Jones infiltrated the gathering and caught exclusive video footage of a bizarre mock human sacrifice ritual, known as “the cremation of care”, under a 40 foot stone owl that the members refer to as Molech.

Attendees dress up like Klan members in hooded robes and perform druidic pagan ceremonies to mark the spectacular finale of the event.

In 2004, The New York Post reported that top gay porn star Chad Savage was hired by the Grove to “service” its members during the event and “attend to their every need”.

“When they’re not listening to policy speeches, “Bohos” are known to urinate freely in the redwoods and perform mock-druidic rituals that revolve around a 40-foot-tall stone owl. In one ritual, called “Cremation of Care,” members wearing red-hooded robes cremate a coffin effigy of “Dull Care” at the base of the owl altar,” the report stated.

Homosexual orgies are known to be part of the festivities enjoyed by the predominately “Christian conservative” leaders who go there. Former attendee Richard Nixon once referred to the Grove as, “the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine.”

A reader who got a summer job working at the Grove in 2005, Chris Jones, told us that he was regularly propositioned for sex by the old men attending the encampment and asked if he “slept around” and wanted to have some fun.

Jones was later sentenced to three years in jail by California authorities for simply showing a tape of his visit to minors.

However, the media’s attitude to hundreds of powerbrokers attending an event at which the Manhattan Project was known to have been born, while frolicking around dressed up as women pissing up trees and having gay sex, has been sophomoric to say the least.

One such hit piece in the Sacramento News & Review, which ties the Grove as well as public organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission with shape-shifting reptoid conspiracies, is useful for only one piece of information – the claim that Presidential hopeful John McCain may be attending this year’s gathering.

George W. Bush and his father give a lakeside talk at Bohemian Grove in this photo from the Grove’s annual yearbook.

In addition, according to an Arizona Daily Star report about a different subject, President Bush’s schedule for next week has not been released, meaning Bush, a regular attendee with his father to Bohemian Grove in past years, could be set to make a visit at some point to mark the last year of his presidency.

Tellingly, both McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama will be in California from Saturday to Tuesday, during which time both candidates are scheduled to speak at the National Council of La Raza, a racist Mexican separatist group that advocates a violent overthrow of the southwestern U.S. states.

Their schedule puts them in the perfect location to enjoy a night at the Grove this weekend.

Two years ago we were able to accurately surmise then British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to the Grove, which coincided with a visit to San Francisco where he met with powerbrokers.

Thus far, there has only been one other mainstream report concerning the event, an article entitled Power brokers due at Bohemian Grove, appearing in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, a local paper that routinely covers the gathering.

“Critics, who until recent years mounted protests outside its gates, say the gatherings serve as strategy sessions for a New World Order operating outside democratic institutions,” states the article.

“Most critics raise the specter of national policy with global implications coming from behind the gates of an exclusive, closed-door gathering of largely conservative, wealthy white men.”

Published in: on July 15, 2008 at 1:20 am  Comments (5)  

Libertarians: A (Not So) Lunatic Fringe

By NATHAN THORNBURGH/NYE COUNTY, NEV. Thursday, Jul. 10, 2008

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=035668&From=News

Wayne Allyn Root, left, Mike Gravel, moderator David Weigel, Bob Barr and Vern McKinley engage in a Libertarian Party debate in Washington, D.C., May 20, 2008.

Jay Mallin / Bloomberg News / Landov

With his belly hiding his belt, with his red suspenders and white beard, Glen Parshall is a dead ringer for Santa Claus, except for the snub-nosed pistol he keeps tucked in his back pocket. Parshall spends his days behind the gun cage of Bargain Pawn, in a roughneck North Las Vegas neighborhood littered with homeless encampments, Catholic charities and pawnshops. It’s no Bellagio. But he is a gentle man who treats his customers with respect, whether hoodlum or homeowner. He knows everything there is to know about weapons and is a stickler for the byzantine rules of gun ownership–the waiting periods, the background checks, the ATF callbacks and information requests.

But just because he obeys the rules doesn’t mean he likes them. Parshall is dissatisfied with a lot of what government does. He hates our gun laws. Hates the war in Iraq. He doesn’t use drugs, but he sees the fight against them as another government power grab. Growing up as a Mormon in Salt Lake City, Parshall was a Barry Goldwater Republican. Now he’s the kind of voter who should scare the GOP most–and he’s not alone.

Maybe you haven’t heard, but this is the year of freedom. First there was the Ron Paul revolution, in which an avuncular 10-term Representative from Brazoria County, Texas, raised more than $34 million as a pseudo-Republican candidate, garnered more than a million primary votes and outperformed Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, all on the back of a get-government-off-my-back platform. Now there’s the Libertarian Party, which sold a little bit of its hard-line liberty-loving soul in exchange for the most respectable candidate it has ever had: recently converted former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who’s polling nationally near 6% and could conceivably Naderize John McCain in a few key states and help nudge the presidency to Barack Obama.

Since 2000, Libertarian candidates have peeled off enough votes from Republican congressional candidates to cost the party races in Washington, Nevada, Montana and, most recently, Louisiana. But if anything, the GOP platform has grown more committed to foreign military intervention and domestic moralizing. The selection of John McCain was a final insult–most libertarians view him, fairly or not, as pro-war, anti-gun, pro-environmentalism and anti–free speech (thanks to his advocacy for campaign-finance reform). In Nevada, where the liberty lobby is strong, McCain got trounced in the primary voting, coming in third behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. When the state GOP tried to crown McCain at its Reno convention in April, so many Paul supporters showed up that party leaders literally fled the hall, turned off the lights and postponed the convention to make sure the anemic pro-McCain camp wasn’t swamped by liberty’s marauders. It was like a John Ford western set inside a hotel ballroom.

Land of Liberty

The central goal of Libertarianism is hard to disagree with: freedom. Defining it is another matter. Party members I’ve met often speak of freedom as if it were a phantom limb: you’re born with it, but it gets taken from you by the bureaucratic violence of the EPA, the ATF, the DOE, the DEA, the U.N., NCLB, NAFTA and–above all–the IRS. Freedom’s restoration is the magic moment when the nanny state melts away and you can see the life you were supposed to live before the tax auditors and environmental regulators and drug warriors all came to rope, brand and pen you in for life with their endless rulemaking and intrusions.

If the freedom that lives in the Libertarian imagination has an earthly home, it is the American West. If it has a temple, it’s Nevada. It’s not just the low taxes or the libertine veneer of Las Vegas; Nevada is free, I was told, in part because so much of it is populated by an unbroken and unbowed caste of ranchers, miners and homesteaders who believe in the primacy of private property.

As you might guess, things that come between a Nevadan and his land don’t sit well, and over the past decade, there’s been nothing more disruptive than the environmental movement’s good intentions. Nye County rancher Jim Berg, 68, doesn’t call himself a Libertarian, but he thinks the GOP has lost its will to keep the government from affecting his livelihood. He has plenty of war stories about his county’s showdowns with the Federal Government, including a 1991 standoff when armed federales came to confiscate cattle belonging to a neighboring rancher who had let his herd graze on off-limits federal land. The Forest Service got some of Berg’s cattle in the dragnet, auctioned them off and kept the proceeds. “They wanted trouble that day,” he says. “Why else would you gather another man’s cattle with 25 to 30 armed men?”

Just across the mountain range, the tiny town of Belmont prides itself on being beyond government control. It was a mining boomtown in its heyday, filled with Cornish and Chinese and Germans and Italians. The main street of the town, now home to just seven households, winds up a steep grade past a row of crumbling stone buildings. One of the buildings had been the local whorehouse. In the basement of another building, local legend goes, two men–union organizers–were hauled out from a mine they were hiding in and lynched. All that history is falling in on itself, but Henry Berg (yup, Jim’s cousin), who owns the Belmont Inn with his wife Bertie, is fine with a little neglect. What he really fears is that the electricity will get hooked up. “We don’t want power, but it will come in someday, and that will be the end of it,” he says. “More people will come in, and they’ll want to build a Wal-Mart.”

There is a lot in the complaints in the Libertarian heartland that sounds like nostalgia for an idealized American past. Jim Berg will tell you about grazing-rights grievances, but he’s just as quick to lament the death of the ranching lifestyle. “My grandkids have scattered like quail,” he says. “They’ve all gone city.”

This sense that progress has gone too far and too fast unites a large swath of Libertarians from coast to coast. To many, modernity just means having our daily lives ruled by mechanisms that have grown so complex that they are beyond comprehension or control. It’s a notion that bonds anti-WTO progressives and anti-U.N. conservatives alike–and if the party has any real hope of becoming powerful, those seemingly disparate points on the political continuum will have to get closer.

It’s tempting to think of Libertarianism as nothing more than old-school Republicanism, but it’s always been partially left-wing, drawing from a long history of American anarchism. The modern challenge is to unite those two wings–or, as magician (and stalwart Libertarian) Penn Jillette told me, “Convince the dope guys that the gun guys are O.K., and vice versa.” And many Libertarians believe the time is now. It helps that the U.S. has been throttled for a century by two parties whose core differences are narrowing. The current general election has seemed at times a contest about who can crib off the other party’s platform more, from McCain’s enthusiasm for using government to fight global warming to Obama’s hedging on warrantless wiretapping. For an electorate having a harder time distinguishing Coke from Pepsi, there’s a thirst for something–anything–new.

The Standard Bearer

“Everybody is Libertarian about something in this country,” Bob Barr told me over breakfast in midtown Manhattan recently. It’s his best pitch, an oft-used explanation of why the Libertarian Party can leverage the country’s many discontents. The strongest part of his message is the delivery. Barr is a level man with a rich, assuring voice. Even in a D.C.-standard-issue dark three-piece suit, there’s something warm and tweedy about him–a perfectly calm spokesman for the often cantankerous ideas of his party.

His candidacy, though, is not without risks. The Libertarian Party is looking to introduce itself as an alternative to the major parties, but it has done so by poaching politicians who, like Barr, were very recently Republicans. And Barr wasn’t just any Republican. He was a premier culture warrior in Congress, leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton and fighting medical marijuana, gay marriage, even the right of soldiers to practice Wicca–all of which are anathema to the out-of-our-bedrooms libertarian ideal. In fact, one of the biggest political victories of the modern Libertarian Party was to unseat Barr in 2002; it poured money into an anti-Barr campaign, ran attack ads and called him the “worst drug warrior in Congress.” Another strike against Barr: he’s a former CIA official and a former federal prosecutor. “To Libertarians,” one of his opponents told me, “that’s like being a child molester.”

Barr now alternates between expressing contrition for his past and highlighting his post-9/11 record of fighting against federal rollbacks of civil liberties. He works with both the ACLU and the NRA and quotes Ayn Rand fluently. His platform these days is a soft libertarian diet of lower taxes, more privacy and school choice.

Barr’s moderation may keep him from tapping into Ron Paul’s base, which rallied around its candidate for one of the most uncompromising campaigns in recent memory. In an interview in his congressional office, Paul told me there’s a reason he had so much success, particularly with younger voters. “They’re idealistic. They like consistency. They like principle,” he said. For a sense of his hard-line heart, consider the fact that his signal issue was the gold standard–returning to the peg the dollar used before 1971 as a bulwark against inflation and federal mismanagement. That would mean scrapping the Federal Reserve, for starters. While Barr talks about shrinking the size of government, Paul wants to tear the entire global financial system limb from limb.

Paul, who ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988, won’t be telling his supporters whom to vote for. (Despite his attacks on McCain, Paul decided to stay in the Republican Party rather than mount a third-party run.) He has said, however, that they’re free to go Libertarian or head for the Constitution Party. “Others,” he said, “might be disgusted and go away.” Hardly a ringing endorsement of the former Republicans leading his former party.

How much will Paul’s coolness toward Barr hurt the Libertarians? The party ticket is directed by Ross Perot’s old campaign manager and is already polling a respectable 6% nationwide in the latest Zogby poll–exactly the same percentage that separates McCain and Obama. Not all of Barr’s voters would be McCain voters, of course, but Barr did best with conservatives (7%) and independents (11%).

In the end, that may not be enough to make a difference in 2008. But Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, says the party can ride a wave of new followers into the next election cycle. Just three years ago, after all, he wrote a book called Millionaire Republican: Why Rich Republicans Get Rich–and How You Can Too! If he can convert, he says, anyone can.

I visited Root at his suburban Las Vegas home back in May. He is certainly well off, having built a sports-handicapping business that he says led him to politics. (The Founding Fathers “loved gambling,” he says.) But politics isn’t his only passion. Before we could begin talking about the Libertarian Party, he started selling me on his lifestyle. He takes 100 vitamin supplements every day. He and his kids never drink cow’s milk, just rice milk and spring water. “I meditate, exercise, pray and do yoga every day,” he says. “If I had a staff of 20, they couldn’t do the work I do.”

All that bluster makes him seem more like a telemarketer or talk-show host than a politician, and he tells me he’d at least like to get a nationally syndicated radio show out of this presidential campaign. It would be a mistake, though, to write Root off. The things he cares about–being able to gamble legally via his home computer, continuing to homeschool his kids without much interference, keeping taxes low–speak to a lot of Americans. If the old party was cobbled together from hard-line strains of voluntarianism, propertarianism and paleolibertarianism, the new Libertarian Party is more likely to build off Root’s take, which is essentially suburbanarianism.

And if that happens, voters alienated by our calcified party system may find in the Libertarians a party that’s a lot like Glen Parshall–armed to the teeth but with a gentle logic and a contagious enthusiasm for freedom in all its forms. Libertarians are getting ready for the mainstream, and mainstream America may finally be ready for them.

Published in: on July 14, 2008 at 10:25 pm  Comments (3)  

We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.

— Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man [1792

Published in: on July 14, 2008 at 9:56 pm  Leave a Comment