Opednews

Bad Precedent and Bad Faith

Part I — Hedges v. Obama

Back in January of 2012 former war correspondent Christopher Hedges and others, including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and specifically the Act’s Section 1021(b)(2), which allows for indefinite detention by the U.S. military of people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States." This detention denies those held of the ability to "contest the allegations against them because they have no right to be notified of the specific charges against them."

In this suit filed by Hedges et al., the issue in question was the vagueness of the terms "substantially support" and "associated forces." For instance, could this vagueness lead to apprehension and detention of journalists who publish interviews with members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban? Could it lead to the same treatment against political activists protesting U.S. policies against these or "associated" groups?

The case, now designated Hedges v. Obama, was initially heard in New York District Court by Judge Katherine Forrest. The plaintiffs claimed that the NDAA violated the 1st (free speech), 5th (due process as well as the stipulation that people must be able to understand what actions break the law) and 14th (equal protection) Amendments to the Constitution. To address the question, Judge Forrest asked the government lawyers if they could assure the court that the activities of the plaintiffs would not result in indefinite detention under the act. If they could give such assurances it would, as far as the judge was concerned, eliminate the plaintiff’s "standing" to challenge the law.

The government lawyers refused to give those assurances, and as a result, the judge concluded, "The definitions of ‘substantially supported’ and ‘associated forces’ were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision." This, in turn, would result in what the plaintiffs considered a "chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press." Therefore, in September 2012, the Judge granted a permanent injunction against the practice of indefinite detention as put forth in NDAA.

There is no evidence that the U.S. government ever complied with this injunction, and its lawyers immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. When the case was heard in this court, the U.S. Justice Department suddenly came up with the assurances it refused to give only weeks before. In part it was because of these assurances that the appeals court decided to overturn Forrest’s ruling and grant a permanent stay of her injunction. In one of its interim rulings, the appeals court observed, "Since the U.S. government has promised that citizens, journalists, and activists were not in danger of being detained as a result of NDAA, it was unnecessary to block the enforcement of 102 (b)(2) of the NDAA."

However, as Carl Mayer, the lawyer for Christopher Hedges, had noted earlier, "The government has not put in any evidence. They just keep making these broad assurances. It’s all a ‘trust us’ proceeding." And trust them is exactly what the appellate judges did. The appeals court’s final ruling in favor of the government was given on 17 July 2013.

Part II — Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

One can seriously ask, is any government that trustworthy? Particularly those governments that see themselves at endless war with shadowy enemies and which claim the need for "broad executive war powers" to wage the struggle. One of the reasons that the rule of law is so important is just because there must be limits to behavior for everyone, including the rule makers. Usually the rules that hold governments in check are set forth in constitutions. Laws formulated by branches of U.S. government should explicitly comply with the U.S. Constitution, not just promise to do so.

Despite the naive faith of the Second Circuit judges in the verbal assurances of government lawyers that the NDAA will be enforced in a constitutional manner, there is evidence that such assurances cannot be trusted. Government personnel seem not to have enough objectivity and simple common sense for trust to be placed in them. For example, consider the 2010 case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

This case was argued before the Supreme Court in January 2010 and challenged that part of the USA Patriot Act, which prohibits "material support" to groups designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. Just as "substantially support" and "associated forces" are too vague for Hedges and his fellow plaintiffs, so was "material support" too vague for the Humanitarian Law Project.

The HLP was seeking to interact with alleged terrorist groups such as the Kurdistan Workers Party of Turkey so as to "help the group enter into peace negotiations and United Nations processes." In other words, the HLP wanted to help lead such organizations away from violence and toward nonviolent strategies. Could this be construed as giving "material support" to terrorists? The Obama Justice Department, in striking disregard of common sense, argued that it was indeed material support and thus a criminal venture. And, as it turned out, in its June 2010 decision, the Supreme Court agreed.

This was not just an intellectual exercise in front of the highest court of the land. The resulting Supreme Court decision quickly assumed real-life significance. Within three months of its decision, the FBI was raiding homes in Chicago and Minneapolis, confiscating computers and files, because they suspected some undefined connection between the residents and various alleged Colombian and Palestinian terrorist groups. The FBI cited Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project as legal justification for their actions.

In addition, enforcement of this law turned out to be blatantly selective. In January 2011 civil rights lawyer David Cole, who represented the HLP before the Supreme Court, noted that well-known political figures, such as former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former head of homeland security Tom Ridge, had committed felonies when they publicly spoke in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian designated terrorist group that happened also to be in opposition to the current Islamic government of Iran. The FBI has not, nor will it, raid their homes.

Part III — Conclusion

Under these circumstances, anyone who accepts at face value the assurance of government lawyers that laws such as the Patriot Act and NDAA will conform to the Constitution and not walk all over one’s civil rights should, as the old saying goes, have their head examined.

What we have in the Hedges v. Obama case is yet another very bad precedent. As Judge Forrest had pointed out, "Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights." The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court, clearly not applying the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) to this situation, has sold out that obligation for a handful of dubious promises. Recent history provides no confidence that such promises are given in good faith. No, it is bad faith we are witnessing here. The government lawyers should hang their heads in shame for obviously undermining the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. It just goes to show there are always those, be they soldiers, police, or lawyers who will simply follow orders no matter what the consequences.

Toward the end of this whole unseemly process someone pointed out that President Obama has consistently asserted that he is against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens even though his Justice Department has always supported keeping the detention clause of NDAA in place and operative. Maybe the president is simply playing a double game and lying to the voters. Lying is certainly part of the politician’s toolbox.

On the other hand, maybe Obama is conflicted but dwells in an environment where it is politically "necessary" to be seen as a tough guy, lest the Republican warmongers gain an edge. How much difference does it really make? As it stands now, in terms of civil liberties there is not much "daylight" between Obama’s practice and the past behavior of neoconservative vulgarians such as George W. Bush. "If it swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

By Lawrence Davidson ,

August 18, 2013 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

When is a terrorist no longer a terrorist?

written by Nejat Society

Question: When is a terrorist a terrorist?
Answer: When the US government says so.

When the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan were assassinating members of their government and the Russian troops dispatched to support it, they were, in Washington’s view, freedom fighters, even as their enemies branded them terrorists.

When they turned against an Afghan government imposed by the United States or revolted against a US invasion, they were once again branded terrorists.

When armed groups battling Gadaffy’s govermment were supported by NATO, they were called freedom fighters. When some recently and allegedly turned violently against the United States which is now dominating Libyan politics, they are once again castigated as terrorists.

And now, the United States Government through a decision by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has decided that the Iranian group Mujahedeen Khalq, or People’s Mujahedeen, that had been on the US State Department’s terrorist list for years, ha now been taken off the list.

That means they will no longer face financial and legal sanctions.

One day they were feared terrorists, the next day they were not. The "bad guys" became "good guys" with the swipe of a pen.

The New York Times says this feat was accomplished through what it describes as an "extraordinary" lobbying effort costing millions over many years.

Reports the Times: "The group, known as the M.E.K., carried out terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s, first against the government of the Shah of Iran and later against the clerical rulers who overthrew him. Several Americans were among those killed. In the 1980s, it allied with Saddam Hussein, who permitted it to operate from Camp Ashraf.

But by most accounts, the M.E.K. has not carried out violent attacks for many years. While it is described by some critics as cult-like and unpopular with Iranians both inside and outside the country, the group has been able to gather large crowds at rallies in the United States and Europe to press its bid to reverse the United States’ terrorist designation, imposed in 1997."

The decision comes just before an October 1 cut off date ordered by a Federal appeals court

US News explains: "As recently as 2007, a State Department report warned that the M.E.K., retains "the capacity and will" to attack "Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond.

The M.E.K., which calls for an overthrow of the Iranian government and is considered by many Iranians to be a cult, once fought for Saddam Hussein and in the 1970s was responsible for bombings, attempted plane hijackings, and political assassinations. It was listed as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997.

If the State Department does decide to delist M.E.K., whose name means "People’s Holy Warriors of Iran," it will be with the blessing of dozens of congressmen."

No less than 99 members of Congress–Democrats and Republican alike–signed to a Congressional resolution to take the "holy warriors" off the list.

Just last week at a rally in Paris, none other than former House speaker and hyper conservative Republican presidential candidate New Gingrich, now scurrying to pay off his campaign debts, was caught on camera bowing to the French based movement’s leader Maryam Rajavi.

Top lobbying firms have been paid high fees for rounding up support for M.E.K

US News explains: "Victoria Toensing of DiGenova & Toensing, a lobbying shop famous for its involvement in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, was paid $110,000 in 2011 to lobby for the resolution. The firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld dedicated five lobbyists to getting signatures for the resolution, and was paid $100,000 in 2012 and $290,000 in 2011 to do so. Paul Marcone and Association similarly lobbied for the resolution, and received $5,000 in 2010 and $5,000 in 2011 for its efforts."

Glenn Greenwald has reported on Salon, "That close association on the part of numerous Washington officials with a Terrorist organization has led to a formal federal investigation of those officials,,,, paid MEK shill Howard Dean (a former Democratic liberal presidential candiate) actually called on its leader to be recognized as President of Iran while paid MEK shill Rudy Giuliani has continuously hailed the group’s benevolence."

The Pro-publica not for profit media organization has also revealed that a very prominent liberal journalist known for his Watergate reporting was paid to speak up for M.E.K

"On a Saturday afternoon last February, journalist Carl Bernstein got up on stage at the grand ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan and delivered a speech questioning the listing of an obscure Iranian group called the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MEK) on the U.S. government list of officially designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The speech, before a crowd an organizer put at 1,500, made Bernstein one of the few journalists who has appeared at events in a years-long campaign by MEK supporters to free the group from the official terrorist label and the legal sanctions that come with it. He told ProPublica that he was paid $12,000 for the appearance but that, "I was not there as an advocate."

Bernstein told the crowd that, "I come here as an advocate of the best obtainable version of the truth" and as "someone who believes in basic human rights and their inalienable status." He also challenged the State Department, saying that if the agency "has evidence that the MEK is a terrorist organization, have a show-cause hearing in court, let them prove it."

Listening to the talk was a bi-partisan group of prominent pols including ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former congressman Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

This is a line up that is hard to rent, much less buy, but M.E.K and its well connected lobbyists have shown how money makes things happen in Washington.

It shows how porous is the terrorism issue too. It is subject to changes in political fashions, and how little the media knows or remembers and how open it is to being influenced by insiders, especially when there’s money to be paid for a few hours work.

It also shows the politics of provocation in action, part of a larger strategy of escalating tensions. The tactics range from sending a naval armada to menace Iran, perhaps in hopes of staging a contemporary "Tokin Gulf" incident in which any Iranian defensive maneuver –or attack by "militants" could be projected as an act of aggression justifying air strikes and drone attacks.

Even the decision to refuse visas to Iranians coming to a UN meeting seems part of the same strategy designed to show critics in Israel, and Republicans that the US is ready to get tough.
The delisting of an Iranian terror group fits right in to an approach that could lead to a "October Surprise" designed to get voters to rally behind the flag and their Commander in Chief.

By Danny Schechter

September 24, 2012 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Washington’s Hypocrisies and MKO

written by Nejat Society

The US government is the second worst human rights abuser on the planet and the sole enabler of the worst — Israel. But this doesn’t hamper Washington from pointing the finger elsewhere.
The US State Department’s "human rights report" focuses its ire on Iran and Syria, two countries whose real sin is their independence from Washington, and on the bogyman-in-the-making — China, the country selected for the role of Washington’s new Cold War enemy.

Hillary Clinton, another in a long line of unqualified Secretaries of State, informed "governments around the world: we are watching, and we are holding you accountable," only we are not holding ourselves accountable or Washington’s allies like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the NATO puppets.

Hillary also made it "clear to citizens and activists everywhere: You are not alone. We are standing with you," only not with protesters at the Chicago NATO summit or with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, or anywhere else in the US where there are protests. (ref)

The State Department stands with the protesters funded by the US in the countries whose governments the US wishes to overthrow. Protesters in the US stand alone as do the occupied Palestinians who apparently have no human rights to their homes, lands, olive groves, or lives.

Here are some arrest numbers for a few recent US protests. The New York Daily News reports that as of November 17, 2011, 1,300 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested in New York City alone. Fox News reported (October 2, 2011) that 700 protesters were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. At the NATO summit in Chicago last week, 90 protesters were arrested (Chicago Journal).

In the US some protesters are being officially categorized as "domestic extremists" or "domestic terrorists," a new threat category that Homeland Security announced is now the focus of its attention, displacing Muslim terrorists as the number one threat to the US. In September 2010, federal police raided the homes of peace activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. The FBI is trying to concoct a case against them by claiming that the peace activists donated money to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. As demanded by Israel, the US government has designated the PFLP as a terrorist group.

In Chicago last week, among the many arrested NATO protesters with whom the State Department does not stand are three young white americans arrested for "domestic terrorism" in what Dave Lindorff reports was "a warrantless house invasion reminiscent of what US military forces are doing on a daily [and nightly] basis in Afghanistan." If the US government, which stands with protesters everywhere except in America, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Palestine, can make this into a terrorism case, the three americans can be convicted on the basis of secret evidence or simply be incarcerated for the rest of their lives without a trial.

Meanwhile the three american "domestic terrorists" are being held in solitary confinement. Like many of the NATO protesters, they came from out of town. Brian Church, 20 years old, came from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Jared Chase, 27, came from Keene, New Hampshire. Brent Betterly, 24, came from Oakland Park, Florida. Charged with providing material support for terrorism, the judge set their bail at $1.5 million each.

These three are not charged with actually throwing a Molotov cocktail at a person or thing. They are charged with coming to Chicago with the idea of doing so. Somehow the 16 federal intelligence agencies plus those of our NATO puppets and Israel were unable to discover the 9/11 plot in the making, but the Chicago police knew in advance why two guys from Florida and one from New Hampshire came to Chicago. The domestic terrorism cases turn out to be police concoctions that are foiled before they happen, so we have many terrorists but no actual terrorist acts.

Two other young americans are being framed by their Human Rights Government. Sebastian Senakiewicz, 24, of Chicago is charged with "falsely making a terrorist threat," whatever that means. His bail was set at $750,000. Mark Neiweem, 28, of Chicago is charged with "solicitation for explosives or incendiary devices." His bail is set at $500,000.

This is human rights in america. But the State Department’s human rights report never exams the US. It is a political document aimed at Washington’s chosen enemies.

Meanwhile, Human Rights america continues to violate the national sovereignty of Pakistan, Yeman, and Afghanistan by sending in drones, bombs, special forces and in Afghanistan 150,000 US soldiers to murder people, usually women, children and village elders. Weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, schools and farmers’ houses are also favorite targets for Washington’s attacks. On May 25 the Pakistani Daily Times reported that Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Ali Khan strongly condemned the drone attacks: "We regard them as a violation of our territorial integrity. They are in contravention of international law. They are illegal, counter productive and totally unacceptable."

The US reportedly funnels money to the Iranian terrorist group, MEK, declared terrorists by no less than the US State Department. But it is OK as long as MEK is terrorizing Iran. Washington stands with MEK’s protests delivered via bombs and the assassin’s bullet. After all, we have to bring freedom and democracy to Iran, and violence is Washington’s preferred way to achieve this goal.

Washington is desperate to overthrow the Syrian government in order to get rid of the Russian naval base. On May 15 the Washington Post reported that Washington is coordinating the flow of arms to Syrian rebels. Washington’s justification for interfering in Syria’s internal affairs is human rights charges against the Syrian government. However, a UN report finds that the rebels are no more respectful of human rights than the Syrian government. The rebels torture and murder prisoners and kidnap civilians wealthy enough to bring a ransom.

NATO, guided by Washington, went far outside the UN resolution declaring a no-fly zone over Libya. NATO in blatant violation of the UN resolution provided the air attack on the Libyan government that enabled the CIA-supported "rebels" to overthrow Gadhafi, killing many Libyan civilians in the process.

Under the Nuremberg standard (principle VI.a.i), it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression, which is what Washington and its NATO puppets launched against Libya, but, no sweat, Washington brought Libya freedom and democracy.

Assassinating foreign opponents is the West’s preferred diplomacy. The British were at ease with it, and Washington picked up the practice. In his book, The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, Cambridge University historian Piers Brendon, the Keeper of the Churchill Archives, reports from the documents he has at hand, that in the build up to the "Suez Crisis" in 1956, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden told Foreign Office minister Anthony Nutting, "I want him [Nasser, Egypt’s leader] murdered."

Brendon goes on to report: "Doubtless at the Prime Minister’s behest, the Secret Intelligence Service did hatch plots to assassinate Nasser and to topple his government. Its agents, who proposed to pour nerve gas into Nasser’s office through the ventilation system, were by no means discreet." The secret agents talked too much, and the scheme never came to fruition.

Last week in Malaysia a war crimes tribunal found George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes II, Jay Bybee, and John Choon Yoo guilty of war crimes. (ref)

But don’t expect Washington to take any notice. The war crimes convictions are merely a "political statement."

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 26, 2012 0 comment

USA

Why are MKO terrorists supported by Neocons and Israelis?

written by Nejat Society

Our Schizophrenic Policy Towards Iran Confuses Mid-East

(A State Department diplomat who recently returned from Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that”Israelis are everywhere in Kurdistan.”Some are there for business reasons but a number are engaged in support for the PKK, PEJAK, and the MKO. This Israeli support, carried out with a wink and a nod from the neocon cabal in Washington, has strained Turkey’s relations with both Jerusalem and Washington.)

by Wayne Madsen, Opednews.com, November 9, 2007

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_071109_our_schizophrenic_po.htm

Wayne Madsen

http://www.opednews.com

U.S. State Department sources have told WMR that the neocon strategy to force a U.S. military attack on Iran runs counter to efforts of U.S. diplomats in the region to deal with Iran on some pressing issues of mutual interest.

Although the United States military command in Iraq recently announced that nine Iranians arrested in Iraq by U.S. forces will soon be released, neocons in the Bush administration are delaying the release. The arrested Iranians, including five diplomats seized at an Iranian diplomatic office in the Iraqi Kurdistan capital of Erbil, have never had any charges brought against them and the Iranian and Iraqi governments have protested their detention and America’s violation of international law in storming the diplomatic compound, which recently reopened as a full consulate.

Iran is also concerned about Israeli military and intelligence personnel in Iraqi Kurdistan who are providing logistics and training support to terrorist organizations, including PEJAK, an off-shoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) that is active against both Iran and Turkey, and the People’s Mohajedin Organization (MKO), that is using bases in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch attacks against Iran. The MKO is also supported by leading neocons in the United States.

A State Department diplomat who recently returned from Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that”Israelis are everywhere in Kurdistan.”Some are there for business reasons but a number are engaged in support for the PKK, PEJAK, and the MKO. This Israeli support, carried out with a wink and a nod from the neocon cabal in Washington, has strained Turkey’s relations with both Jerusalem and Washington.

The United States officially designates the PKK and MKO as terrorist organizations, which is causing Ankara and Tehran to question America’s so-called”war against terrorism.”

The Bush administration’s schizophrenic policy toward Iran has also complicated efforts to locate and free retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on Iran’s Kish Island while investigating the counterfeiting of American brand cigarettes by Iranian and Russian-Israeli organized crime syndicates. Although neocon elements in Washington have suggested Levinson was arrested by Iranian police and is being held at a prison in Iran, State Department sources claim that Iranian law enforcement, also concerned about the cigarette smuggling syndicates operating in Iran and Dubai, has tried to cooperate with American authorities in locating Levinson but have been rebuffed by administration officials who want no government-to-government contacts with Tehran.

WMR has also learned that a charitable organization called the Mosaic Foundation (named for the Jewish prophet Moses) and which is largely funded by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, works closely with Israeli Lobby interests in Washington to discourage any U.S rapprochement with Iran or a rapid military withdrawal from Iraq. The Mosaic Foundation proclaims that it serves as a bridge between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and emphasizes that all three religions are from the same Abrahamic and Mosaic roots. The group also reportedly attempted to make a large donation to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com

For more, visit Wayne Madsen Report, which its publisher, Wayne Madsen, keeps refreshed with more news than any one reporter has a right to.

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, nationally distributed columnist, and author who has covered Washington, DC, politics, national security, and intelligence issues since 1994. He has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, CAQ, Counterpunch, and the Intelligence Newsletter (based in Paris).

November 13, 2007 0 comment

Mujahedin Khalq 's Terrorism

Revenge of the Jedi Bag Lady

written by Nejat Society

Communists are long out of vogue, welfare moms are so 1995, and Osama has taken the reclusive shtick a little too far for our short attention spans. My fellow Americans, we obviously-desperately-need a new super-villain to fear, a new reason to circle the wagons, surrender our rights, and embrace a lifetime of Code Orange. Well, hold on to your yellow ribbons, put down your cell phones, and take a good look what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has just dropped on our collective doorstep: a 95-pound, 51-year-old homeless Iranian widow with severe digestive problems (from Queens, no less). Armed only with a tattered coffee cup, a shopping cart overflowing with newspapers, and a name that will make Hollywood drool, say hello to our latest national nightmare: Zeinab Taleb-Jedi.

Don’t let those dirt-infested shopping bags fool you. Pay no mind to her swollen feet or malodorous haze. Two informers have sworn that our homeless Jedi was indeed a member of the leadership council of the Iranian resistance group People’s Mujahedeen, described by the Associated Press as a "heavily armed, Iraq-based terrorist organization." Our queasy Jedi, the informers say, was "responsible for making leadership decisions for the organizations, including approving specific acts of terrorism." No word yet on how an infirm homeless woman no bigger than a sixth grader managed to handle such demonic duties but we should never underestimate the craftiness of a terrorist named Jedi.

Besides, I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking "summer blockbuster" here. Someone get Bruce Willis’ agent on the phone because this might be his most formidable opponent yet: a pint sized femme fatale with acid stomach…and, of course, The Force on her side.

The New York Times reported that Ms. Taleb-Jedi is an American citizen who "came to the United States in 1978 to work on her master’s degree in political science in Atlanta." (Note to screenwriters: possible CNN/Ted Turner angle here). Taleb-Jedi eventually lived for a short time in Lenox Hill Neighborhood House Park Avenue Women’s Shelter in Manhattan, a facility designed to house older women with mental health disorders. However, beneath that ingenious façade of fragility, all the while she was seeking "the violent overthrow of the Iranian government."

Meanwhile, Taleb-Jedi’s unpatriotic lawyer, Justine Harris, says her client is merely "a middle-age woman with absolutely no record." Nice try, Justine. Tell it to Al-Jazeera. The next you know, she’ll be saying Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Some folks just can’t stop blaming America first and it’s people like her that force our poor democracy-loving leaders to use torture.

If Jedi’s lawyer wants to know why a frail middle-age homeless widow would resort to a life of terror, she need only recall the words of President George W. Bush who, in 2002, spoke eloquently about "a group of killers, people who hate." The Commander-in-Chief went to explain that this group of killers really hates "the idea that somebody can go buy a home."

As they say in South Florida: Bingo.

The next time you step over a homeless person or switch subway cars to avoid having to smell one, stay vigilant. You don’t want to fall victim to the Revenge of the Jedi Bag Lady.

By Mickey Z.

opednews.com

October 3, 2006

October 10, 2006 0 comment