If you want to make the case that invading Iraq was illegal, you have to provide legal reasoning.

Did that.....

".....the 'pretext' of an imminent threat used to justify "pre-emptive" invasion was and is recognized in international law as a simple prohibited act of aggression.''

.....events since suggest that some here, as well as some in Bush's circle, choose instead to ignore that simple tenet.

(....not to mention they choose to simply claim to be not bound by international law, as was evident when Bush claimed he could both withdraw from, and not be bound by international treaties and internationally recognized courts of law.)

That's to be expected of some when reality does not jibe with their ideological bent.

Simple self-imposed alteration of their sense of reality squares things quite nicely and they are then able to continue to fully support their chosen ideology.

How you choose to view reality won't change reality, ......but, as is so often seen in some here, and in those in the Bush administration, ....it may enable one to clear the contradictions from their rhetoric.

Wish harder, clap louder...... fascist imperialism can be your reality, ........you just have to believe in it.

---

If you want to make the case that invading Iraq was illegal, you have to provide legal reasoning.

Did that.....

".....the 'pretext' of an imminent threat used to justify "pre-emptive" invasion was and is recognized in international law as a simple prohibited act of aggression.''

Simple question: what part of "cease-fire violations" don't you understand? You have never addressed the point that Saddam's actions (whether WMD were found or not) justified resumption of hostilities.

If you want to make the case that invading Iraq was illegal, you have to provide legal reasoning.

Did that.....

".....the 'pretext' of an imminent threat used to justify "pre-emptive" invasion was and is recognized in international law as a simple prohibited act of aggression.''

No, you didn't. What I said was, "You have to provide legal reasoning. What law applies, how the legal authority in question applies the law, how the action at issue is in contradiction to that law, what remedies are available, and so forth."

What you did do is provide a comment concerning pretext as if that were sufficient and self-evident legal reasoning. As others have noted, every intelligence agency on earth thought Iraq had WMDs. The English, the Russians, the Fronsh, the Democrats, the UN inspectors, the Clinton Adminstration, everyone, thought Iraq had them. In fact, Iraq had used them in Falabja. While it may be your opinion that Dubya used "pretext" when he acted on the best information available to him, information accepted even by his own loyal opposition, that fails at making a sufficent legal argument for pretext, and by extension that invading Iraq was illegal.

As far as international law, there's a real dice roll as to whether that even really exists in any meaningful way. Countries opt out all of the time.

The rest of your commentary adds nothing to the discussion.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

......rather than conflating seperate and disparate issues, (tom), and/or endlessly repeating talking point myths, (rush), one might want to avail themselves of some authoritative facts and references that might help one form conclusions based on known and accepted realities.

Attempting to shift the justification for the grounds for invasion has repeatedly been tried by the Bush administration and it's supporters, but a review of the facts shows,

......the U.S. conducted a diplomatic effort at the United Nations, seeking to obtain that body's approval for a new WMD inspection regime, and, potentially, for the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government. The UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling on Iraq to make "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure" of its WMD programs, and threatening "serious consequences" if it did not comply. In the wake of resolution 1441, Iraq allowed UN weapons inspectors to return to the country.

While the inspections were taking place, the U.S. continued to lobby the members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq. As part of that effort, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a presentation to the UN on February 5, 2003, in which he detailed U.S. intelligence findings regarding Iraqi WMD, (...now understood to be factually erroneous, and at the time, was not supported by intelligence analysts outside of Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans).

Faced with the opposition of a majority of the Security Council's members, including Germany, France, and Russia, and seeing no explicit authorization for an invasion expected to be forthcoming from the Security Council, the U.S. abandoned the effort to obtain an explicit use-of-force authorization from the UN.

So, just as with the Bush administration, when one alternate version of reality doesn't seem to fit the explanations, .....it's considered perfectly acceptable to just create another and deny that there was ever a need or an effort to seek approval. It's far easier at that point to just declare that the 'approval' you so eagerly sought just isn't, and wasn't 'necessary' anymore....

The myth of 'everybody believed' is not credible in any way shape or form. Yet, the Bush administration and it's supporters attempt to bolster this fallacy endlessly with no factual basis...... it's been falsely repeated so many times, I suspect that some actually believe it.

Actually, the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence Iraq had WMD.

Before the war, Rumsfeld not only claimed Iraq had WMD but that “we know where they are.” U.N. inspectors began openly complaining that U.S. tips on WMD were “garbage upon garbage.”

Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspections team, had 250 inspectors from 60 nations on the ground in Iraq, and the United States thwarted efforts to double the size of his team. You may recall that during this period, the administration repeatedly dismissed the United Nations as incompetent and irrelevant.

Our own CIA director, George Tenet, said intelligence analysts never told the White House “that Iraq posed an imminent threat.”

General Anthony Zinni, who has extensive experience in the Middle East, said, “We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started.” ...more plainly he stated, “In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence failure.”

Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan and Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, were equally blunt in their opposition to the so-called intelligence.

Tenet, Zinni, Sheehan, and Shineski, (among others), were forced out and ridiculed by those in the Bush administration for their opposition, but the fact remains, there was not unanimous aggreement, even in our own country's intelligence communities and our own military analysts, let alone all the rest of the world.

Mohamed el-Baradei, the head of the UN atomic energy agency, called for his nuclear inspectors to be given "something like a year" before they could come to a "credible conclusion" on the question of Iraq's nuclear weapons.


So, where might one find some more authoritative facts about the lead up to the invasion?
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was supposed to review and report on pre war intelligence, but that report has been stalled, and further substantive evidence may not be released by that body for some time, .....if at all.......

The second part of the Senate investigation into bungled pre-war Iraq intelligence is still being held up by an internal Pentagon investigation of Douglas Feith, one of the war's leading architects.

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KN) has deferred to the Pentagon's Inspector General, allowing the Pentagon to investigate itself, Feith and its clandestine Office of Special Plans.

This lack of oversight has caused great concern among many former military and intelligence sources. One former intelligence source points to "a bigger can of worms" that a Feith investigation may unravel, pointing to the Israeli spy case -- in which Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin passed classified information to a pro-Israeli lobby.

In 1978, the current head of the World Bank and former Deputy Defense Secretary Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was investigated for passing classified information through AIPAC, the same organization that Franklin is charged with passing state secrets to.

Wolfowitz, who at the time was working for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), was himself brought in by yet another high level alleged leaker, Richard Perle. Perle, too, is being investigated in the current AIPAC case.

Perle, who most recently served as chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board and quietly resigned after the AIPAC case broke, was alleged to have passed on highly classified information to the Israeli embassy when he was a foreign policy aide for Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson in 1970.

Perle was instrumental in bringing Feith into several positions, starting in the early 80s. By the mid-1980s Feith was relieved of his clearances for allegations of passing secrets to AIPAC, bringing the question of clearances full circle.

Despite their checkered past, Rumsfeld's Pentagon reissued clearances to Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz. Clearances were also issued to several of Feith's consultants, some of whom were major players in the Iran Contra scandal.

....the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) inquiry -- titled Phase II -- is waiting on a report from the Pentagon inspector general as to Feith's alleged role in manipulating pre-war intelligence to support a case for war. Feith, who is also being probed by the FBI for his role in an Israeli spy case, resigned in January 2005.

Therein lies the rub. Military and former intelligence sources say that if the Pentagon reissues clearances to the same group of people who have repeatedly been accused of espionage, its ability to further investigate itself for the breach of those clearances is compromised.

The Senate continues to wait for the Pentagon's report on Feith and the Office of Special Plans.

A full year ago, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made the following promises..........

"We will address the question of whether intelligence was exaggerated or misused by reviewing statements by senior policy makers to determine if those statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

"We will take a closer look at the shortfalls in our intelligence collection."

"We will compare pre-war estimates to the situation in postwar Iraq, and we will pursue a better understanding of what role the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans played in pre-war intelligence."

Of course, if, or seemingly more likely, whenever that information is finally released and confirmed, there will be those who feel free to deny or dismiss such evidence in favor of their own preferred sense of reality.... it's so much more convenient to ignore that which does not bolster one's own sense of reality, right?

------------------------
If you care to seek more info, ...well respected, exhaustive, and quantitative, Iraqi wmd claims and evaluation studies can be found here.....

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

...as noted in the file, the study was compiled before UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors were withdrawn from the country on 18 March 2003, and the evaluations contained have not been altered in light of subsequent information. However, suggestions for further reading continue to be added in light of the new information that has come to light since that date.

---

......rather than conflating seperate and disparate issues, (tom), and/or endlessly repeating talking point myths, (rush), one might want to avail themselves of some authoritative facts and references that might help one form conclusions based on known and accepted realities.

Paul, I'm not repeating talking point myths. I noted specifically how you would make a legal case that the Iraq invasion was illegal--a case that is not made by citing the comments of others that agree with you. As I said, I would not have invaded Iraq, and I do not support that sort of interventionism; however, your lack of support it doesn't make it illegal. You have to make a legal case, and so far you haven't.

You have presented reasons why you disagree with the invasion, but everyone is entitled to disagree, including Dubya, his administration, and Congress. Dubya and Congress seemed to agree long enough to authorize the use of force...

......the U.S. conducted a diplomatic effort at the United Nations, >snip< It's far easier at that point to just declare that the 'approval' you so eagerly sought just isn't, and wasn't 'necessary' anymore....

Surprise, surprise. This is what is called politics-as-usual. Why would you be surprised that Dubya's administration would spin their position?

The myth of 'everybody believed' is not credible in any way shape or form. Yet, the Bush administration and it's supporters attempt to bolster this fallacy endlessly with no factual basis...... it's been falsely repeated so many times, I suspect that some actually believe it.

You should ask the people of Halabja if they think the VX, mustard gas, and sarin they were attacked with are a "myth."

Actually, the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence Iraq had WMD.

Neither, of course, could those same agencies provide the proof that Hussein had destroyed what he had, either. Hussein said he had destroy them, but didn't provide the proof. He also hemmed and hawed about what had happened to these:

Before the war, Rumsfeld not only claimed Iraq had WMD but that “we know where they are.” U.N. inspectors began openly complaining that U.S. tips on WMD were “garbage upon garbage.”

And yet, they find hidden things like the above.

Tenet, Zinni, Sheehan, and Shineski, (among others), were forced out and ridiculed by those in the Bush administration for their opposition, but the fact remains, there was not unanimous aggreement, even in our own country's intelligence communities and our own military analysts, let alone all the rest of the world.

Exactly. There was no unanimous agreement. Some thought yes, some thought no. Which, of course, does not make the case that the invasion was illegal. It means people disagree. Everyone knew he had it, but where did it go? Buried next to those MiGs? Who knows?

Even the site you mentioned talks about Hussein's BS: Iraq at first denied the production of VX. When confronted with the evidence of its past VX production by UNSCOM, to explain the lack of documentary proof of the destruction of this quantity of VX, it "provided UNSCOM with handwritten notes that recorded the issuance of oral instructions, inter alia, to destroy any evidence indicating the presence of VX and a key precursor of VX, 'Iraqi choline.'" Which was it? He had it? He never had it? He had made a bunch and then forgot it? He said he didn't have MiGs anymore either. Who the hell would have known what to believe?

>snip a bunch of stuff about Wolfie, and others<

"We will take a closer look at the shortfalls in our intelligence collection."

"We will compare pre-war estimates to the situation in postwar Iraq, and we will pursue a better understanding of what role the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans played in pre-war intelligence."

Of course, if, or seemingly more likely, whenever that information is finally released and confirmed, there will be those who feel free to deny or dismiss such evidence in favor of their own preferred sense of reality.... it's so much more convenient to ignore that which does not bolster one's own sense of reality, right?

Again, none of this makes the case that the war was illegal. If you want to make the case that there was cronyism involved, fine. Duh, that's politics as usual.

If you want to make the case that the Administration didn't agree with others with differing opinions, fine. Duh, that's politics as usual.

If you want to make the case that there was some conspiracy, well you'll have to work much harder than you have with this cutting and pasting. If your efforts on convincing others that the invasion was illegal are any indication, I don't think any war supporters have anything to worry about.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Agency links Iran civilian nuclear work with military
International atomic group to debate report tomorrow

By Elaine Sciolino and William J. Broad
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

February 1, 2006

VIENNA, Austria – The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has evidence that suggests links between Iran's ostensibly peaceful nuclear program and its military work on high explosives and missiles, according to a report from the agency released to member countries yesterday.

The four-page report, which officials say was based at least in part on intelligence provided by the United States, refers to a secretive Iranian entity called the “Green Salt Project,” which worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design.

The combination suggests a “military-nuclear dimension,” the report said, that if true would undercut Iran's claims that its nuclear program is aimed solely at producing electrical power.

The report will be debated by the 35 countries that make up the international agency's board when they meet in emergency session tomorrow to decide whether Iran should be reported to the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities.

The agency says it has confronted Iran repeatedly with the allegations, which Tehran dismissed as “baseless,” adding that “it would provide further clarifications later,” the report said. Iran also reiterated that all its nuclear projects are conducted under the authority of its national atomic energy agency and not the military.

More broadly, the report states that the country has not been fully cooperative on all of the outstanding nuclear issues where the agency has been raising questions for years and that formed the basis of a board resolution last fall that Iran was not complying with its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Green Salt Project derives its name from uranium tetrafluoride, also known as green salt, which is an intermediate product in the conversion of uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride – a toxic gas that can undergo enrichment or purification into fuel for nuclear reactors or bombs.

The report suggests that the fuel project, the “high explosives” tests and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle “appear to have administrative interconnections.” It appears to be the first time the agency has publicly suggested that the fuel production – which Iran has said it purely for civilian purposes – was linked to its military programs.

While the Bush administration long has argued that Iran was using its civilian program to hide ambitions to build a nuclear weapon, the agency has always steered clear of that accusation.

With yesterday's report, it for the first time has provided evidence directly suggesting that at least some of Iran's activities point to a military project.

The trigger for the meeting was a decision by Iran to reopen its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz in violation of a voluntary agreement it made with France, Germany and Britain in November 2004 that froze Iran's enrichment-related activities while it negotiated a package of economic and political incentives.

That led to a compromise Monday under which Russia and China joined the United States and the European nations in referring Iran's nuclear activities to the U.N. Security Council.

In response, Iran lashed out yesterday, saying there was no legal justification for such a move.

“Informing the Security Council or referring the Iranian case to it will bring an end to diplomacy and that is not at all positive,” said Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, who is close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“We will have to start all nuclear work that has been voluntarily suspended,” Larijani said.

I see this turning into a very nasty "us" verses "them" thing. The future doesn't look very good at this point. Islam has managed to overtake Christianity in blantant hypocrisy, and is now in a field of its' own.

Religious disputes has a tendency to become violent. Remember the crusades, for instance. But not all muslems are fanatics, only a few. The moderate muslems, who follow their religion peacefully, are outraged by the extremists who resort to terror.

I wouldn't be at all surpriced if Islam split into two religions in the next 50 years. Just as Protestantism and Catholesism split in the 1520's in Europe. And I wouldn't be surpriced if the islamic split would be just as violent as the christian - probably more violent.

We've not seen the end yet. Only the beginning.

Religious disputes has a tendency to become violent. Remember the crusades, for instance. But not all muslems are fanatics, only a few. The moderate muslems, who follow their religion peacefully, are outraged by the extremists who resort to terror.

Really? Outraged? Then maybe they should they should take to the streets and protest IEDs and suicide bombers, instead of worrying about some half-assed political cartoons.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Absolutely, I agree with you on that. I think moderate muslems should be more visible about their views on this. It would strengthen their claims to be "outraged". I'm willing to let the benefit of doubt be to their advantage until further, but if they only continue to say they're outraged and doesn't do anything more about it, these words wither.

Personally, I know quite a few moderate muslems who I beleive are sincere about their outrage concerning islamic extremists. But I don't know if they're representative for the majority or if it's just by chance I've met so many. In the end, the muslems must speak out for themselves. We can only try not to judge all by the example of a few.

Mercans need not fear torture
Lest they maintain contact
With Axis of Evil friends or family-
Gitmo can be easily avoided.
It's so simple.
A real friend will know-
Your silence is a requirement
Of your self preservation.
Let freedom ring!...cc

rush,

..to state unequivocally that ....."every intelligence agency on earth thought Iraq had WMD's" is repeating talking point myths....

...sorry to argue the point but the distinction between the truth and lies goes to the heart of the discussion.

The Bush administration has proven to attempt to rule by lies, .....repeating their lies is as unworthy as their own spawning of those lies.

----------------------

As I said before, a pretext of an imminent threat as justification for invasion is recognized in international law as nothing less than a simple act of aggression.

To take the analogy further, ...were this type of behavior condoned in any way, ...any nation could then invade any other on the mere pretext of a fraudulently created imminent threat.

Universal condemnation of unjustified acts of aggression is a part of the somewhat tenuous thread of checks and balances that helps to maintain some semblance of peace and a balance of power in the world today.

You personally may think the jury is still out, but as far as legal precedent is concerned an unfounded cry of 'imminent' threat is still not a recognized legal excuse for acts of aggression.

You're free to wish otherwise, or believe that law should change for some reason or other but unless or until that happens, Bush's ""Iraq"" invasion is nothing more than an illegal act of aggression founded on wildly exaggerated pretext of imminent threat.

That there isn't universal condemnation and action to remedy Bush's illegal invasion and imperialistic nation building only points to the general decline in honorable mores of a large number of the world's government leaders today.

To their credit, some few have spoken out, condemned his actions and accepted risking the ire and bullying tactics of Bush's foreign policy procedures in response as the cost of maintaining some credibility and honor.

Just as what happened in England, when the Senate Intelligence Committee stopped their reporting, they effectively muzzled the investigation and publication into just how wide and how far reaching the pretext was promulgated.

....and far from being surprised by the Bush administration's actions or merely pointing out 'cronyism', the additional information on who's who and where they come from only points up the criminality of those behind the scenes who are pullings the strings on Bush's talking points.

The thoroughly inadequate investigations into illegal torture, illegal acts of rendition, and unconstitutional warrantless domestic spying will someday come to light and the crimes will be properly documented.

Thugs and hoodlums are at the helm of our ship of state and they enlist more thugs and hoodlums as a crew to work with them.... that they act illegally is in their very nature.

To again name just a few, when the veil of secrecy is lifted on the Niger uranium hoax and other fraudulent documents cited to justify the Iraq invasion, the pro-Isreal PAC secrets passing case, the Pentagon's Inspector General's investigation, and the Senate Intelligence reports, the further connections between the criminals of today and the criminals of previous administrations, such as those of Iran/Contra crimes, will be duly noted.

It's often years later that cries of conspiracy and acts of crime are borne out by the release of 'secrets'.... our history is rife with examples of what couldn't be believed at the time, but later the truth came along to smash that ill-held belief.

Some may think on a story about a boy who cried wolf......

The one thing often neglected to be emphasized, but never the less true, in the fable of the boy who cried wolf.......... the wolf does, in the end, make his appearance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is only a very small part of a list of some current indictees. When these and other investigations are finally aired, the list will grow exponentially, and these and other crimes uncovered will continue to confirm that criminality permeates to the very core of the Bush administration

Jack Abramoff - Pled Guilty - To Be Sentenced March 16th for SunCruz fraud
There are two separate prosecutions against Jack Abramoff.
The first is focused on Abramoff's defrauding of investors in his purchase, along with Adam Kidan, of SunCruz, a fleet of casino boats. That investigation is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida. Abramoff was indicted for his involvement in the SunCruz fraud case August 11th, 2005, pled guilty January 4th, 2006 to two counts (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Wire Fraud), and will be sentenced March 16th.
The other relates to bribing public officials and defrauding his Indian clients - it's being led by Justice Department prosecutors and is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Jack Abramoff pled guilty January 3rd, 2006 to three counts (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Mail Fraud, and Tax Evasion). No future court dates scheduled for that case - he's cooperating.

Gus Boulis Murder Trio - Indicted - Trial Date To Be Set March 23rd
Gus Boulis, the man who sold SunCruz to Adam Kidan and Jack Abramoff, was gunned down on February 6th, 2001. Three men were subsequently indicted September 23rd, 2005 for the murder: James “Pudgy” Fiorillo, Anthony “Little Tony” Ferrari and Anthony “Big Tony” Moscatiello. They were charged with Murder in the First Degree, Conspiracy to Murder in the First Degree, and Soliticing Murder in the First Degree (Fiorillo doesn't face the soliticing charge).
Moscatiello, a former bookkeeper for the Gambino crime family, had received $145k in payments from SunCruz, then under Abramoff and Kidan’s control, for what Kidan described as catering services, consulting, and site inspections, though there is no evidence such services were rendered. Ferrari’s company, Moon Over Miami Beach, received $95k in payments from SunCruz for “surveillance.”
A discovery hearing is scheduled for February 8th, and a Bond Hearing for February 24th. A trial date will be set March 23rd, 2006.

John Colyandro - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
John Colyandro was Executive Director of Tom DeLay's PAC Texans for a Republican Majority. He, along with Jim Ellis, was indicted for Money Laundering in 2004 alleging an illegal money swap with the Republican National State Elections Committee, an arm of the Republican National Committee. Colyandro also faces a charge for Unlawful Acceptance of a Contribution from a Corporation. On September 28th, 2005, Tom DeLay became a co-defendant under an added Conspiracy charge. On October 3rd, a Money Laundering charge was added for DeLay. All of the charged crimes are felonies.
On December 5th, 2005 the judge threw out the Conspiracy charge against the three. The prosecutor, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, appealed. The case is waiting on that decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals, which is forthcoming, most likely in late February or possibly as late as March.

Duke Cunningham - Pled Guilty - No Future Court Dates Scheduled
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) pled guilty November 28th, 2005 to two counts: Conspiracy to Commit Crimes against the United States (including Fraud and Bribery) and Tax Evasion. No future court dates are set for him as he's cooperating with investigators.

Tom DeLay - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is being prosecuted in Texas by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle for Money Laundering, a felony. He was indicted September 28th, 2005 on a Criminal Conspiracy charge. On October 3rd, a Money Laundering charge was added.
On December 5th, 2005 the judge threw out the Conspiracy charge against DeLay. The prosecutor, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, appealed. The case is waiting on that decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals, which is forthcoming, most likely in late February or possibly as late as March.

Jim Ellis - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
Jim Ellis was Executive Director of DeLay's PAC Americans for a Republican Majority. He, along with John Colyandro, was indicted for Money Laundering in 2004 alleging an illegal money swap with the Republican National State Elections Committee, an arm of the Republican National Committee. On September 28th, 2005, Tom DeLay became a co-defendant under an added Conspiracy charge. On October 3rd, a Money Laundering charge was added for DeLay. All of the charged crimes are felonies.
On December 5th, 2005 the judge threw out the Conspiracy charge against the three. The prosecutor, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, appealed. The case is waiting on that decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals, which is forthcoming, most likely in late February or possibly as late as March.

William Jefferson - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was named ("Representative A") in Brent Pfeffer's guilty plea. Pfeffer admitted to bribing Jefferson in exchange for Jefferson's help with a business deal in Nigeria. According to Pfeffer's plea, the bribes were given at Jefferson's direction.>

Adam Kidan - Pled Guilty - To Be Sentenced March 1st for SunCruz fraud
Adam Kidan was Jack Abramoff's partner in the SunCruz deal. He was indicted August 11th, 2005, pled guilty December 15th, 2005 to two counts (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Wire Fraud), and will be sentenced March 1st.

Thomas Kontogiannis - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Thomas Kontogiannis bribed Duke Cunningham, according to Cunningham's plea, where he appeared as "Conconspirator #3".

Scooter Libby - Indicted - No Trial Date Set
Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements on October 28th, 2005.
A "Status Conference" is scheduled for February 3rd, 2006 during which the two sides will discuss the pretrial motions made by Libby's lawyers. A transcript will be made available to the public.
No trial date is set.

Chuck McGee - Pled Guilty - Time Served
Chuck McGee, the former Executive Director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, pled guilty July 28th, 2004 to one count: Conspiracy to engage in interstate telephone communications with the intent to annoy or harass. On March 11th, 2005, he was sentenced to 7 months in prison, which he began serving April 26th, 2005. He served his time and has been released.
McGee conspired with James Tobin, New England Regional Political Director for the Republican National Committee, and Allen Raymond, president of GOP Marketplace, to jam the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts on Election Day, November 5, 2002. Both McGee and Raymond pled guilty and testified against Tobin, who was convicted.

John T. Michael - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
John T. Michael, owner of a mortgage company in New York, helped Thomas Kontogiannis bribe Duke Cunningham, according to Cunningham's plea, where he appeared as "Conconspirator #4".

Bob Ney - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) is being investigated for accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. He was named as a coconspirator ("Representative #1") in Abramoff's plea and ("Legislator #1") in Scanlon's plea.

Brent M. Pfeffer - Pled Guilty - To Be Sentenced March 31st
Brent Pfeffer, a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), pled guilty January 10th, 2006 to two counts: Conspiracy to Commit Bribery of a Public Official and Aiding and Abetting the Bribery of a Public Official. Rep. Jefferson is the public official.
Pfeffer is due to be sentenced March 31st, 2006.

Allen Raymond - Pled Guilty - Appeal to be Decided February 2nd
Allen Raymond, president of GOP Marketplace, pled guilty June 30th, 2004 to one count: Conspiracy to engage in interstate telephone communications with the intent to annoy or harass. On February 8th, 2005, he was sentenced to 5 months in prison. He's made a motion to reduce his sentence, which will be decided on February 2nd.
Raymond conspired with James Tobin, New England Regional Political Director for the Republican National Committee, and Chuck McGee, executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, to jam the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts on Election Day, November 5, 2002. Both McGee and Raymond pled guilty and testified against Tobin, who was convicted.

Warren RoBold - Indicted - Trial Pending Appeals Decision
Warren RoBold was a fundraiser for Tom DeLay's PACs (TRMPAC and ARMPAC) and was indicted in 2004 for taking illegal corporate money for TRMPAC - nine counts of Unlawful Acceptance of a Political Contribution from a Corporation.
His case is also waiting on that decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals, which is forthcoming, most likely in late February or possibly as late as March.

Tony Rudy - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Tony Rudy, a former aide to Tom DeLay, colleague of Jack Abramoff's and then lobbyist at Alexander Strategy Group, was named ("Staffer A") as a coconspirator in Abramoff's plea.

David Safavian - Indicted - Trial Set To Begin April 3rd
David Safavian was indicted October 5th, 2005 for Obstruction of Proceedings before an Agency and Making False Statements. He is accused of lying to investigators about his dealings with Jack Abramoff while he was chief of staff for the General Services Administration. He went on to be the government's top procurement officer in the Office of Management and Budget until he had to step down because of the investigation.
The case is in pretrial litigation - Safavian filed a motion to dismiss the case on January 27th. The judge will rule on the pretrial motions February 28th.
The trial date is set for April 3rd, 2006.

Michael Scanlon - Pled Guilty - No Future Court Dates Scheduled
On November 21st, 2005, Michael Scanlon, Jack Abramoff's partner in the Indian fraud and bribery schemes, pled guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. No future court dates are scheduled - as a cooperator, he'll only be sentenced after prosecutors are finished using him to bring cases against others.

James Tobin - Found Guilty on Two Counts - Sentencing is Set for March 21st
James Tobin, the former New England Regional Political Director for the Republian National Committee, was found guilty December 15th, 2005 of two counts: Conspiracy to commit the commission of interstate telephone harassment and Aiding and abetting the commission of interstate telephone harassment. He was acquitted of a third count, Conspiracy against voters' rights.
He appealed the verdict December 21st. He's scheduled to be sentenced March 21st.
Tobin conspired with Chuck McGee, executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and Allen Raymond, president of GOP Marketplace, to jam the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts on Election Day, November 5, 2002. Both McGee and Raymond pled guilty and testified against Tobin.

Neil Volz - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Neil Volz, a former aide to Bob Ney and member of Team Abramoff, was named ("Staffer B") as a conconspirator in Abramoff's plea.

Mitchell Wade - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Mitchell Wade, President of the defense contracting firm MZM, Inc., bribed Duke Cunningham, according to Cunningham's plea, where he appeared as "Conconspirator #2".

Brent Wilkes - Named by Prosecutors as Unindicted Coconspirator
Brent Wilkes, owner of the defense contracting firm ACDS, Inc., bribed Duke Cunningham, according to Cunningham's plea, where he appeared as "Conconspirator #1".

---

---

Account frozen...

Paul,
Dude, calm down, you remind me of those people who use to spew this same kind of stuff about Clinton. You need to understand that in the end, no one will listen to you when you go out into crazy land. If we allowed guilt by association then many of us would be in big trouble.

---

EU wants Iran taken to Security Council

Knight Ridder News Service

WASHINGTON – Concerned that Iran may be secretly developing a nuclear arsenal, European Union nations yesterday submitted a draft resolution that calls for the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The 35-member board of governors of the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was expected to adopt the resolution in some form during a two-day emergency meeting beginning today at the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

Iran warned again yesterday that it would take retaliatory steps if reported to the Security Council.

'Some may think on a story about a boy who cried wolf......

The one thing often neglected to be emphasized, but never the less true, in the fable of the boy who cried wolf.......... the wolf does, in the end, make his appearance.'


Imagine the shock and awe when the veil is finally lifted... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Paul,
Dude, calm down, you remind me of those people who use to spew this same kind of stuff about Clinton. You need to understand that in the end, no one will listen to you when you go out into crazy land. If we allowed guilt by association then many of us would be in big trouble.

---

Account frozen...

Something tells me when this big bad wolf rears its ugly head it's not gonna resemble Monica, nor will it huff and puff and blow Bill Clinton's house down... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

This is related to the ongoing NSA spying issue.

EFF sues AT&T to stop NSA spying

February 2, 2006
by Peter Pollack

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit against both the old and new versions of AT&T, alleging that they have illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's (NSA) recently revealed domestic wiretapping program. A related lawsuit was filed against the NSA itself several weeks ago by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In that suit, the ACLU requested an end to the spying program, on behalf of "prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East." continued

---