[news] Don't Believe the Hype: We're Living In a Police State

[Ishaq]

 http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/28191.php

Don't Believe the Hype: We're Living In a Police State

<mailto:montfu65 at hotmail.com>

    ...the puzzle pieces begin to come together... We are not "looking
    out" for REAL "terrorists." We are looking out for those who may
    only "sympathize" with criminals. Basically, we are being asked to
    spy on our neighbors and report anything and anyone who does not fit
    into the cookie-cutter mold of Western Christianity. i'm like a lot
    of people i have met throughout the years. .... Yes, i "sympathize"
    with these concocted members of organized crime. When i see a police
    chase on the news, i generally "sympathize" with the guy fleeing
    arrest, provided he hasn't hurt anyone.

Don't Believe the Hype: We're Living In a Police State
by Abu Jamal

In the Name of the One and Only God, the Most Compassionate, the Most 
Merciful...

It was a hot Summer night in August, 1992 when Don Carlson heard someone 
trying to beat down his front door. The sound boomed through the front 
room, amplified by the fact that it was empty. Carlson had recently lost 
all his furniture to his ex-wife and now the pounding was echoing off 
the stripped floor and walls of his suburban San Diego house. Fearing 
for his life, he grabbed his handgun and fired two shots at the door. 
Neither shot even went through. Then the pounding got louder and the 
door started tearing off its hinges. Terrified, Carlson spun around, 
dropped the gun, and ran out of the room. A bullet tore into his thigh 
and sent him sprawling across the hallway floor. Staggering into his 
bedroom, he scooped up his cordless phone and started dialing "911" as 
he fell into a corner. Two more bullets ripped into his back. One of 
them splintered and collapsed his lung.

"Don't move or I'll shoot you again," yelled a voice. Carlson was 
blacking out and figured he was dead.

Then a man identified himself as a federal drug agent. He and several 
other men grabbed Carlson, handcuffed him, and left him on the floor 
bleeding as they began tearing what as left of his house apart. "Why 
would they do this to me?" he muttered, barely able to breathe. Carlson 
was a law-abiding citizen, a computer company executive who had never 
been in trouble with the law before.

However, none of that seemed to matter. It hadn't stopped the dozen or 
so U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Customs Service and San Diego 
police officers who broke in and shot him. They had been told he had 
2,500 pounds of cocaine in the house. The tip came from an informant 
named Ronnie Edmond, an ex-drug dealer who was being paid $2,000 by the 
federal government to snitch on others in the drug trade. However, 
Edmond had lied about Carlson. He was no drug dealer. Edmond had picked 
the house because he thought it was empty and figured he could come up 
with another lie when the agents didn't find the cocaine.

Don Carlson believes some of the agents who stormed his house back in 
1992 wanted to kill him to cover up their mistake, but couldn't because 
so many different jurisdictions were there. "The only thing that saved 
me was that there were too many agents involved," he told the 
Post-Gazette for its series.

As it was, Carlson spent the next eight weeks in a hospital hooked up to 
a respirator, then many more months in painful physical therapy trying 
to regain the use of his body. Although the government admitted he 
wasn't a drug dealer, they threatened to charge him with attempted 
murder for the shots he fired at the door in self-defense. Then a 
federal judge sealed the search warrant for the raid, preventing him 
from even learning why he had been targeted by the government in the 
first place.

Carlson retained an attorney who filed a $20 million suit over the 
botched drug raid in December 1992. The government stalled, failing to 
even so much as respond to any court papers until ordered to do so by a 
judge. In 1995, after years of contentious negotiations, the government 
finally settled the case for $2.7 million. Carlson took the money and 
moved away from California to a gated community north of Dallas. He 
still has trouble breathing and a problem with his leg due to the 
gunshot wound. His doctor tells him the injuries will almost certainly 
shorten his life.

Seven years after the raid, Carlson still could not believe he was 
almost killed because of a lying snitch who had cut a deal with the 
government. "[Edmonds] was a low-level street dealer, part-time criminal 
who created this thing to get money out of them," he told the Post-Gazette.

For countless years, the line that "If you haven't done anything wrong, 
you don't have anything to be afraid of" has been used by law 
enforcement officials to trick people into bowing to warrantless 
searches and interrogations without their lawyers present. Ex-President 
Clinton used a variation on this a few days after two disturbed 
teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, shot up Columbine High School 
on April 20,1999. Speaking to a group of students at Virginia high 
school, Clinton urged them to report any classmates who exhibit 
anti-social behavior. "They won't get in trouble if they didn't do 
anything wrong," he assured them.

Clinton was dead wrong. Innocent people are routinely arrested, tried, 
convicted and sent to jail. Hundreds of convicts have been proven 
innocent and set free in the last few decades, including close to 90 who 
were sitting on Death Row waiting to be executed for murders they didn't 
commit. "With little money available to dig up new evidence and appeals 
courts usually unwilling to review claims of innocence (they are more 
likely to entertain possible procedural trial-court errors), it's 
impossible to know just how many other prisoners are living the ultimate 
nightmare," Newsweek said in its June 2000 Special Report.

Even convicted killers who are not ultimately proven innocent frequently 
have their convictions overturned on appeal, according to a study 
conducted by a team of layers and criminologists at Columbia University. 
Led by law professor James S. Liebman, the study reviewed all appeals 
from 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, to 
1995. It found that two out of three convictions were overturned on 
appeal. Seventy-five percent of those who had their sentences set aside 
were later given lesser sentences after retrials, in plea bargains or by 
order of a judge.

Many of those released from Death Row in recent years were exonerated by 
the Innocence Project, a New York-based public interest law firm started 
by famed criminal defense attorney Barry Scheck. The organization used 
newly developed DNA tests to prove they didn't do the crimes of which 
they were convicted. Several of these former inmates appeared at the 
National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty, 
sponsored by a number of anti-death penalty organizations in early 1999. 
The conference examined many cases of innocent people who had been 
wrongly convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. In almost 
every instance, the conviction was based on perjured testimony from 
actual criminals seeking reduced charges or preferential treatment. Some 
snitches lied to avoid the death penalty for their own killings. In each 
case, it took many years for the wrongly-convicted defendants to clear 
their names.

As University of California law professor Clifford S. Zimmerman put it, 
"Information mishandling and misconduct victimizes many innocent people. 
Examples of the resulting harm include: prosecutions based upon 
informant perjury; false arrests due to unreliable informants; 
non-disclosure of informant information by prosecutors in criminal 
proceedings; informant abuses promoted through rewards; and felonious 
activity committed with the knowledge and, at time, assent of the police 
and prosecutors."

University of Oregon law professor Garret Epps is more blunt: "The truth 
is, everyone has something to hide. For most people, it's not a crime; 
it may be a health condition that could expose them to discrimination, 
and unfashionable political allegiance, a deeply held personal religious 
commitment, a painful family secret or jut a juvenile sense of humor. 
For each of us, there is something we choose not to share with people we 
do not know well. And when these personal foibles are stripped bare, the 
people exposed often feel a deep sense of violation and may lose 
friends, jobs or spouses."

Theoretically, the Constitution and numerous Supreme Court rulings 
provide the necessary safeguards. Grand juries are supposed to 
double-check prosecutors, preventing them from bringing flimsy cases 
based on questionable testimony. Numerous Supreme Court rulings are 
intended to ensure that trials are fair and open. One of the most 
significant safeguards is the so-called Brady Rule, adopted by the 
Supreme Court in 1963. Under this rule, prosecutors must turn over to 
defendants any evidence which might help prove their innocence or show 
biases and criminal records of the witnessed used against them.

However, in these days of interlocking computer databases, simply 
reporting someone to the authorities can destroy their lives. Consider 
what is happening to African Americans. The crack cocaine scare of the 
1980's prompted police agencies across the country to build computer 
lists of African American gang members. The lists quickly expanded to 
include other, far more ambiguous categories, including gang associates, 
gang affiliates and even "gang affected" juveniles.

Much of the information put into the computers was unverified gossip 
picked up during routine patrols. A mere accusation was all it took to 
open a file. If the police pulled over a car driven by a "suspected" 
gang member, all of the passengers became gang "associates." If a 
boastful teenager claimed to be in a gang, that's what the police 
accepted, with all of this brothers and sisters becoming "associates," 
"affiliates" or "affected" by his claimed membership. No one bothered to 
double-check the allegations; the information just went straight into 
the computers.

This same system is in play now across the country. Even in the 
underground "Straight Edge" music scene in Salt Lake City, Utah, 
overzealous and over-armed Police form "Anti-Gang Taskforces." "Straight 
Edge" emerged in the early 1980's from the hardcore punk-rock music 
scene. Disenfranchised youth eschewed drug use, alcohol, smoking and 
promiscuity. This was viewed as "counter-culture" - an extension of its 
outgrowth of the punk scene - and became symbolized in the wearing of an 
"X" on the fist; as clubs that served alcohol wear these bands would 
play would put an "X" on the hand of anyone underage, in order to make 
it clear that no alcohol could be served to them.

Straight Edgers began showing up to these venues already "X-ed up." From 
this different sub-categories would later emerge. However, in the mid, 
to late 1990's the "Anti-Gang" Salt Lake City Police would define this 
subculture as a "gang." Many of these "gang" members were completely 
non-violent people, many girls, even the daughter of the HEAD of the 
Anti-Gang taskforce was "Straight Edge." But ALL were lumped into this 
category and given the designation of "gang members."

Similar rules were applied to these individuals as were applied to 
African American's in other cities. Perhaps it is because of Salt Lake 
City's notoriety for not having a large African American population. 
African descended peoples were not permitted into the Mormon priesthood 
until as late as June 9, 1978! So in the absence of this "external" 
enemy of the Police State, the Mormon Rangers; armed with assault rifles 
in each of their trunks, even Hummers and there very own "Anti-Gang 
Taskforce" - since gang violence is OBVIOUSLY such a rampant problem in 
Utah (note the sarcasm) - internalized their war on Freedom, and battle 
for "Total Information Awareness" (as the Bush Administration would 
later coin it).

More recently, the Bush administration said on Wednesday, May 26th that 
it had credible intelligence suggesting that Al-Qa'ida is planning to 
attack the United States in the next several months, a period in which 
events like an international summit meeting and the two political 
conventions could offer tempting targets.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said at a news conference that 
intelligence reports and public statements by people associated with 
Al-Qa'ida suggested that the terrorist group was "almost ready to attack 
the United States" and harbored a "specific intention to hit the United 
States hard."

However, some intelligence officials, terrorism experts - and to some 
extent even Mr. Ashcroft's own FBI director, Robert S. Mueller III - 
offered a more tempered assessment, saying, "For the next few weeks we 
have reason to believe there is a heightened threat to the U.S. 
interests around the world.'' U.S. "interests" or the U.S.... which is it?

The "interests" of the U.S. Government are very often not the 
"interests" of the American people. So are we being told that there is 
an imminent threat to OUR lives, or the lives of, perhaps, "Israeli's?" 
Frankly, there are many Americans who do not care about the latter, 
regardless of what the "interests" of the Bush Administration are.

"There's no real new intelligence, and a lot of this has been out there 
already," said one administration official who spoke on the condition of 
anonymity. "There really is no significant change that would require us 
to change the alert level of the country."

John Ashcroft said the government did not have any information about 
where the terrorists might strike, and he said there was "extraordinary" 
security being put in place for events like a summit meeting of 
international leaders next month in Savannah, Ga., the Democratic 
convention in Boston in late July and the Republican convention in New 
York in late August and early September.

So what exactly was the point?

Ashcroft called for greater "public vigilance," especially in "looking 
out" for seven people sought by the FBI who are suspected of being 
Al-Qa'ida members or "sympathizers."

Now the puzzle pieces begin to come together... We are not "looking out" 
for REAL "terrorists." We are looking out for those who may only 
"sympathize" with criminals. Basically, we are being asked to spy on our 
neighbors and report anything and anyone who does not fit into the 
cookie-cutter mold of Western Christianity.

i'm like a lot of people i have met throughout the years. When i see 
movies like "Goodfellas" or "Heat," i have a strange "sympathy" for the 
main characters. Yes, i "sympathize" with these concocted members of 
organized crime. When i see a police chase on the news, i generally 
"sympathize" with the guy fleeing arrest, provided he hasn't hurt anyone.

Why do i "sympathize" with them? It's anyone's guess isn't it? Maybe 
it's because i hate the Police State that is common to myself and that 
person on the TV screen SO MUCH that i sympathize with even criminals 
trying to elude capture from the Police State that i know also arrests, 
and in some cases frames, citizens whose only crime is political 
dissent. So for THIS should i be charged with money laundering? With 
extortion? With racketeering? With any number of charges related to 
organized crime? Of course not. "Sympathizing" with something does not 
imply guilt of said thing, anymore than it implies that Mick Jagger is 
the devil.

The official said, there was "no real new intelligence." So does that 
mean that we just found out this information against these "suspects" 
based on "new FAKE intelligence?" What did we find it out from if there 
was "no real new intelligence?" Is the implication that we knew 
everything we know about these individuals before? Why then are we only 
now hearing about these dangerous "potential terrorists?"

In reality, we are not being told to look out for SPECIFIC people at 
all. Of the seven people Ashcroft asked the public and law enforcement 
agencies to watch out for, the only one whose name had not been 
previously released was Adam Yahiye Gadahn, 25, who officials said is an 
American citizen from California.

Adam Gadahn converted to Islam and is believed to have attended 
Al-Qa'ida training camps in Afghanistan several years ago, officials 
said. He is "thought" to have done "translation work for Al-Qa'ida" and 
was "associated" with Abu Zubayda, a senior Al-Qa'ida associate now 
imprisoned by the United States, they said.

Remember those dubious categories, including gang "associates," gang 
"affiliates" and "gang affected" juveniles? Here they have popped up 
again; Doublespeak for the New World Order. Adam Gadahn was "thought" to 
have been an "associate" of Abu Zubayda, who was himself a senior 
"associate" of "Al-Qa'ida;" an organization ranking only 17th out of 20 
before 9.11.2001 in terms of potential danger to the U.S. Interestingly 
"Al-Qa'ida" (the Base), was just the name of `Usama bin Ladin's old 
house; a meeting place for his particular "gang." Maybe someday Law 
Enforcement will catch on and start referring to the dangerous "Crib" 
terrorists (based on a group of criminals meeting at eat other's "Crib" 
before committing crimes).

How do we know that Adam Gadahn is a member of "The Crib" or 
"Al-Qa'ida?" Is translating something now a terrorist act? Translating? 
We are not to believe he was translating any special information that 
would help to harm America citizens. We are not being asked to believe 
that he was translating plans to murder innocent civilians. No, he 
translated what were likely just pamphlets and small texts. Nothing that 
could do any more harm to American citizens than giving someone a paper 
cut, perhaps.

Maybe these texts had nothing to do with killing Americans at all. 
Maybe... that is, MOST LIKELY they were merely political in nature; 
against the U.S. military presence in the Hijaz, Afghanistan and Iraq, 
or against the so-called state of "Israel." So because he translated 
something, because he agreed with the politics of some written words and 
then translated it for others to READ, for others to THINK about, he is 
now a card carrying member of a terrorist organization? This is a 
ridiculous and baseless claim.

At least two of these seven terrorists identified by John Ashcroft as 
part of an "Al-Qa'ida cell" that is waiting to attack America this 
summer are already in jail. A respected website that holds databases on 
terror suspects lists Amer El-Maati as "incarcerated."

http://www.trackingthethreat.com/db/ENT1711.htm

Likewise, Aafia Siddiqui, a female former MIT student, was arrested in 
Pakistan over a year ago, according to NBC.

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/04/03/19137-1.html

The "cell" that these individuals are said to belong to doesn't even 
exist. The Abu Hafs al-Masri group was described by the Boston Globe as 
a "phantom organization." Their researchers could find no evidence that 
the group was real. Imagine that; dishonest Big Government. Who would 
have thought?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/13/officials_group_tying_self_to_blasts_may_not_be_real/ 


Each time a new terror threat is announced or a terror suspect is 
"captured," we discover that they have either already been arrested or 
they have been dead for a year or more. That is, except for the 9.11 
suspects; many of whom are alive and well in foreign countries (despite 
allegedly having blown themselves up in the fiery inferno of the World 
Trade Center and Pentagon). What's that, you are noticing some 
inconsistencies? Never mind that, the last episode of "Friends" is on 
the television. The "WB" has a new spin off of American Idol. What are 
you doing wasting time reading the paranoid delusions of a Thought 
Criminal who is probably a terrorist himself? Get back to the "real" 
world of Rueben Stutter and Clay Aiken. Pay no attention to the man 
behind the curtain.

In his press conference, John Ashcroft cited a number of upcoming events 
that "could be" "potential" targets, including the Group of Eight 
economic summit on Sea Island, Georgia, and the Democratic and 
Republican national conventions in Boston, Massachusetts, and New York, 
respectively. If i was a gambling man, i'd wager everything i have that 
none of these WILL BE ACTUAL targets.

Ashcroft also warned that terrorists may not have a typical look and 
that "the face of al Qa'ida may be changing."

It "may be changing" or it "is changing." Please let us know Mr. 
Ashcroft. i don't want to worry about it if it is only a "maybe." Only 
if it is something which there is credible evidence of will i worry 
myself into a fit of orange and red alerts over it. If not then keep 
your mouth shut and stop trying to frighten the public into electing Bush.

"Our intelligence confirms al-Qa'ida is seeking recruits who can portray 
themselves as Europeans," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/26/terror.threat/index.html

So never mind all of the years of justification for the racial profiling 
of Arabs and people traditionally thought to be Muslim. Now you should 
look at EVERYONE as a potential terrorist.

Ashcroft said the group adapts quickly to new security measures and may 
be recruiting operatives in their late 20s or early 30s and "may travel 
with families to lower their profile."

Again, never mind the "Homeland Security" paranoia of UNmarried Muslims 
- you know the ones who were supposed to be unmarried because they were 
going to blow themselves and others up at any moment - now you should 
also be suspicious of Muslims with families... Basically, just consider 
ANY Muslim a potential terrorist, right?

Strangely, Ashcroft said in this same press conference that of these 
seven "all pose a clear and present danger to America" and "should be 
considered armed and dangerous."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/26/terror.threat.transcript/index.html

What "clear" and "present" danger do these individuals pose? What "clear 
and present danger" do Amer El-Maati and Aafia Siddiqui present to us 
behind bars, since both have been imprisoned long before Ashcroft told 
us to call in tips as to their whereabouts? What is "clear" about this 
danger? What is "present" about a danger that has already passed? What 
"danger" exactly does Adam Gadahn pose to us... "clearly" that is? Is he 
going to translate us to death? He is considered "armed and dangerous" 
with what? A pen and paper? A computer? Armed with "sympathy" for the 
enemies of the United States?

What is the meaning of this then? CNN inadvertently illustrates this in 
their follow up news report which headlines "Thousands of tips received 
on suspected seven; FBI: 'Please keep them coming'."

The report reads: "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI has received more than 
2,000 tips from the public in the 24 hours after a news conference 
asking for help in locating seven people Attorney General John Ashcroft 
called al-Qa'ida operatives.

"'Many thanks for your help on locating those pictured below,' the FBI 
Web site said Thursday. 'Over 2,000 tips were sent by mid-afternoon 
today on tips.fbi.gov alone. Please keep them coming.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/27/terror.threat/index.html

So there are seven of these guys... Two of them are already in prison 
and were in prison before the press conference. So five of them really. 
 From these five there yielded more than 2,000 tips. So that is 400 tips 
for each one of these people. Do you think that ANY of these tips was 
ACTUALLY related to the individuals in question? i don't. If they were 
then they certainly were not very good tips as the FBI is still left 
empty handed... except for those two suspects which they had all along.

Furthermore, New York City and Los Angeles officials told Reuters that 
they had not been informed by the government of any terror threat, 
despite the fact that people like Ashcroft and Ridge are all over the 
media fear mongering about the inevitability of an attack before the 
election.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KX1FUUUBRY3B2CRBAEKSFEY?type=domesticNews&storyID=5265538 
<http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KX1FUUUBRY3B2CRBAEKSFEY?type=domesticNews&storyID=5265538> 


So what is this all about? It is about a society of spies and snitches 
not unlike that of the Orwellian world of 1984 where political 
dissidents even feared talking in their sleep. It is about fear tactics 
that make people afraid to live. It is about a Big Brother, Orwellian, 
Ashcroftian Big Federalist Government that preys on the fear of 
terrorism it both orchestrates and brings upon itself by inciting the 
hatred of the world through its corrupt foreign policies, support for 
brutal regimes and dictators and use of weapons of mass destruction. It 
is about locking people up and throwing away the key if they 
"sympathize" with those who oppose the Bush Regime... that is, 
Administration.

The 5th Amendment to U.S. Constitution reads: "No person shall be held 
to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a 
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in 
the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in 
time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the 
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be 
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be 
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor 
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Yet on June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla (`Abd'ullah Al-Muhajir), was 
transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military 
control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a Navy brig in South 
Carolina. Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have 
access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clearly abominable 
violation of the democratic traditions purportedly upheld by the United 
States. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and a violation 
of the 6th Amendment (which reads):

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district 
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have 
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and 
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, 
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Padilla has been accused of plotting acts of terrorism, particularly the 
setting off of a "dirty bomb;" something which no one, no where has EVER 
even made so much as a prototype of. He has been accused of conspiring 
with members of... that's right, you guessed it, the Boogyman, 
catch-all, terrorist organization: al-Qa'ida, and planning to scout for 
that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. 
President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant;" meaning that 
the Bush Regime can do whatever the Hell they want to and with him and 
there isn't a damned thing you can do about it... (unless you are a 
"terrorist" as well, in which case you're next).

These are frightening accusations, and they may very well be true. 
However, accusations do not give the President the authority to lock 
someone away. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way 
to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial 
by jury. So much for that though. In this Brave New World, individual 
guilt is determined by the Administration. "Democracy" is brought to 
foreign lands by way of ousting an elected President and then APPOINTING 
a President that the Administration likes. Or for that matter, in this 
Brave New World, the President loses the popular vote by over half a 
million votes and is then APPOINTED to the Presidency by the Supreme Court!

Jose Padilla may be a traitor and he may even be a terrorist. However, 
he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was 
arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without 
criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any 
American can be. That is tyranny and that is not the "America" many of 
us were sold in school.

But prosecution for "terrorism" is not what the government has in mind 
for Padilla. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that Padilla may 
NEVER face trial.

"Our interest is not in trying him and punishing him, our interest is in 
finding out what he knows."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/11/dirty.bomb.suspect/

If he was REALLY planning on bombing Americans then why wouldn't we want 
him to be charged with a crime and be tried and punished? Obviously this 
admission makes it clear that this man never did ANYTHING, but obviously 
is being illegally detained by a Police State until he tells them the 
things that they want to hear.

How did Padilla come to be in this situation that he finds himself in? 
The first tip about "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla came about two 
weeks before his May 8 arrest, U.S. officials said.

Officials said the information came from senior al-Qa'ida operative Abu 
Zubaydah, who is being held in U.S. custody. Zubaydah provided a 
physical description of Padilla but did not name him, officials said.

A U.S. official said that Zubaydah appeared to be giving out minimal 
information, apparently assuming that authorities would not be able to 
figure out whom he was describing. Perhaps the fact that he was shot in 
the testicles might have had something to do with the "minimal 
information" he was giving out? Or perhaps, just like Ronnie Edmond, he 
was making up a story to buy himself time, so when they found out that 
he was making the whole thing up, he could then just invent another lie. 
Maybe Jose Padilla is just like Don Carlson. How can we tell? We can't. 
That's why American Law has maintained the criteria of guilt that one is 
"Innocent until PROVEN guilty." If Padilla is guilty, then the 
government should prove it. They should at least bring charges and 
evidence against him. The fact that they have not PROVES THEIR guilt; 
that THEY are guilty of falsely and ILLEGALLY imprisoning American 
citizens based on nothing but the hearsay of a terrorist trying to save 
himself, taking the spotlight off of his own crimes and pointing it onto 
someone else that he could not even produce so much as a name for.

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials took the vague 
description from Abu Zubaydah and then questioned other captured 
al-Qa'ida prisoners; using an FBI database to find the names of the 
suspect and another man - believed to be Pakistani - who is being held 
in Pakistan in connection with the same alleged plot to attack targets 
in the United States. Once they had the names, U.S. officials then 
obtained photographs of the two suspects and showed them to Zubaydah. He 
confirmed they were the two men involved, officials said.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/11/dirty.bomb.zubaydah/index.html

That's all it took. That and a one page letter from the President 
stripping this American citizen of his Constitutionally "guaranteed" 
rights. All based upon hearsay from a man who is himself a criminal. A 
criminal who was shot in the testicles and blackmailed; "If you want 
some more painkillers, medical treatment, whatever, then you will give 
us some names, faces, anything"

This is the world we are living in. There is no question as to the way 
things are. This is reality. The question is, what are you going to do 
about it?

http://www.taliyah.org/articles/dbth2.shtml

-\
___\
Stay Strong\
\
 "Be a friend to the oppressed and an enemy to the oppressor" \
--Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as)\
\
"This mathematical rhythmatical mechanism enhances my wisdom\
of Islam, keeps me calm from doing you harm, when I attack, it's Vietnam"\
--HellRazah\
\
"It's not too good to stay in a white man's country too long"\
--Mutabartuka\
\
"Everyday is Ashura and every land is Kerbala"\
-Imam Ja'far Sadiq\
\
http://www.sleepybrain.net/vanilla.html\
\
http://awol.objector.org/artistprofiles/welfarepoets.html\
\
http://ilovepoetry.com/search.asp?keywords=braithwaite&orderBy=date\
\
http://www.dpgrecordz.com/fredwreck/\
\
http://www.lowliferecords.co.uk/\
\
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THCO2\
}

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/news/attachments/20040723/5f47258c/attachment.html>