12/23/03: Post by Thom Shanker
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Why War? why-war.comToo many people, in too many countries, see US foreign policy as lacking universal principles that resonate with the rest of the world. It seems to them that an America projecting its power in pursuit of its own interests will only end up destabilizing a globalizing world.Yutaka Mataebara, Washington Post, Jan. 6, 2002
12/23/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
How's this for LOL?Rumsfeld Made Iraq Overture in '84 Despite Chemical RaidsBy CHRISTOPHER MARQUISPublished: December 23, 2003WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 As a special envoy for the Reagan administration in 1984, Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, traveled to Iraq to persuade officials there that the United States was eager to improve ties with President Saddam Hussein despite his use of chemical weapons, newly declassified documents show. Advertisement Mr. Rumsfeld, who ran a pharmaceutical company at the time, was tapped by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to reinforce a message that a recent move to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons was strictly in principle and that America's priority was to prevent an Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war and to improve bilateral ties.During that war, the United States secretly provided Iraq with combat planning assistance, even after Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons was widely known. The highly classified program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who shared intelligence on Iranian deployments, bomb-damage assessments and other crucial information with Iraq.The disclosures round out a picture of American outreach to the Iraqi government, even as the United States professed to be neutral in the eight-year war, and suggests a private nonchalance toward Mr. Hussein's use of chemicals in warfare. Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have cited Iraq's use of poisonous gas as a main reason for ousting Mr. Hussein.The documents, which were released as part of a declassification project by the National Security Archive, and are available on the Web at www.nsarchive.org, provide details of the instructions given to Mr. Rumsfeld on his second trip to Iraq in four months. The notes of Mr. Rumsfeld's encounter with Tariq Aziz, the foreign minister, remain classified, but officials acknowledged that it would be unusual if Mr. Rumsfeld did not carry out the instructions.Since the release of the documents, he has told members of his inner circle at the Pentagon that he does not recall whether he had read, or even had received, the State Department memo, Defense Department officials said.One official noted that the documents reflected the State Department's thinking on Iraq, but did not indicate Mr. Rumsfeld's planning for his meeting with Mr. Hussein nor his comments on the meeting after its conclusion.Mr. Rumsfeld's trip was his second visit to Iraq. On his first visit, in late December 1983, he had a cordial meeting with Mr. Hussein, and photographs and a report of that encounter have been widely published.In a follow-up memo, the chief of the American interests section reported that Mr. Aziz had conveyed Mr. Hussein's satisfaction with the meeting. "The Iraqi leadership was extremely pleased with Amb. Rumsfeld's visit," the memo said. "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person."When news emerged last year of the December trip, Mr. Rumsfeld told CNN that he had "cautioned" Mr. Hussein to forgo chemical weapons. But when presented with declassified notes of their meeting that made no mention of that, a spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld said he had raised the issue in a meeting with Mr. Aziz.Lawrence Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said on Friday that there was no inconsistency between Mr. Rumsfeld's previous comments on his missions to Iraq and the State Department documents.By early 1984, events threatened to upset the American-Iraqi relationship. After pleading for a year for international action against the chemical warfare, Iran had finally persuaded the United Nations to criticize the use of chemical weapons, albeit in vague terms. Pressure mounted on the Reagan administration, which had already verified Iraq's "almost daily" use of the weapons against Iran and against Kurdish rebels, documents show. In February, Iraq warned Iranian "invaders" that "for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it." Within weeks, the American authorities intercepted precursor chemicals that were bound for Iraq. Finally, on March 5, the United States issued a public condemnation of Iraq.But days later, Mr. Shultz and his deputy met with an Iraqi diplomat, Ismet Kittani, to soften the blow. The American relationship with Iraq was too important involving business interests, Middle East diplomacy and a shared determination to thwart Iran to sacrifice. Mr. Kittani left the meeting "unpersuaded," documents show.Mr. Shultz then turned to Mr. Rumsfeld. In a March 24 briefing document, Mr. Rumsfeld was asked to present America's bottom line. At first, the memo recapitulated Mr. Shultz's message to Mr. Kittani, saying it "clarified that our CW [chemical weapons] condemnation was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs." The American officials had "emphasized that our interests in 1) preventing an Iranian victory and 2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remain undiminished," it said.Then came the instructions for Mr. Rumsfeld: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."The American relationship with Iraq during its crippling war with Iran was rife with such ambiguities. Though the United States was outwardly neutral, it tilted toward Iraq and even monitored talks toward the sale of military equipment by private American contractors. Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, said: "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980's, and it didn't make any difference to U.S. policy." Mr. Blanton suggested that the United States was now paying the price for earlier indulgence. "The embrace of Saddam in the 1980's and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances," he said. "Shaking hands with dictators today can turn them into Saddams tomorrow."Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.
12/21/03: Post by Orson Scott Card
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Thank you Franklin. You just proved my point.
12/20/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
A few images for you to ponder, Orson:Bush at an aircraft carrier with a big banner backdrop stating "Mission Accomplished."Bush saying to the Iraqi insurgents via the press: "Bring'em on."Bush lying about WMD along with everyone else in his Administration.Let's see, you say you're a Democrat but you don't like the range of Democrats from Lieberman to Kucinich. Since you believe the candidates are extreme to the left, then your true blue Democrat would be to the right of Lieberman. Doesn't leave too many of them, does it? Are you sure you're a Democrat?
12/20/03: Post by Orson Scott Card
Posted by: BLOWBACK
A campaign Hate and Fear from some of my friends on the left: In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans." Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public. There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America. But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not. And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us. Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle. It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reuters recently ran a feature that trumpeted the "fact" that U.S. casualties in Iraq have now surpassed U.S. casualties in the first three years of the Vietnam War. Never mind that this is a specious distortion of the facts, which depends on the ignorance of American readers. The fact is that during the first three years of the war in Vietnam, dating from the official "beginning" of the war in 1961, American casualties were low because (a) we had fewer than 20,000 soldiers there, (b) most of them were advisers, deliberately trying to avoid a direct combat role, (c) our few combat troops were special forces, who generally get to pick and choose the time and place of their combat, and (d) because our presence was so much smaller, there were fewer American targets than in Iraq today. Compare our casualties in Iraq with our casualties in Vietnam when we had a comparable number of troops, and by every rational measure--casualties per thousand troops, casualties per year, or absolute number of casualties--you'll find that the Iraq campaign is far, far less costly than Vietnam. But the media want Americans to think that Iraq is like Vietnam--or rather, that Iraq is like the story that the Left likes to tell about Vietnam. Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it that way. If we had closed North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the enemy, victory could have been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese involvement was too great. Memories of Korea were fresh in everyone's minds, and so Vietnam was fought in such a way as to avoid "another Korea." That's why Vietnam became, well, Vietnam. But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign. In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic? Not at all--I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil. Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like--but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage. Think what it will mean if we elect a Democratic candidate who has committed himself to an antiwar posture in order to get his party's nomination. Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works. Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know that their commander in chief is a man who is not committed to winning the war they have risked death in order to fight. When the commander in chief is willing to call victory defeat in order to win an election, his soldiers can only assume that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. That's when an army, filled with despair, becomes beatable even by inferior forces. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------When did we lose the Vietnam War? Not in 1968, when we held an election that hinged on the war. None of the three candidates (Humphrey, Nixon, Wallace) were committed to unilateral withdrawal. Not during Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, in which more and more of the war effort was turned over to Vietnamese troops. In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked. We lost the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress specifically banned all military aid to South Vietnam, and a beleaguered Republican president signed it into law. With Russia and China massively supplying North Vietnam, and Saigon forced to buy pathetic quantities of ammunition and spare parts on the open market because America had cut off all aid, the imbalance doomed them, and they knew it. The South Vietnamese people were subjected to a murderous totalitarian government (and the Hmong people of the Vietnamese mountains were victims of near-genocide) because the U.S. Congress deliberately cut off military aid--even after almost all our soldiers were home and the Vietnamese were doing the fighting themselves. That wasn't about "peace," that was about political posturing and an indecent lack of honor. Is that where we're headed again? This time an enemy attacked civilian targets on our soil. The enemy--a conspiracy of terrorists sponsored by a dozen or so nations and unable to function without their aid--was hard to attack directly; so the only feasible strategy was to remove, by force if necessary, the governments that sheltered and sponsored terrorism. I would not have chosen Afghanistan and Iraq to start with; Syria, Iran, Sudan and Libya were much more culpable and militarily more important to neutralize as sponsors of terror. (They say that Libya and Sudan have changed their tune lately, but I have my doubts.) But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted. And in the midst of this global struggle, when both parties should have united, disagreeing at times about methods and priorities, but never about the steadfast will of the American people to see the war through to a successful conclusion, we find that the candidates of the party out of power are attacking the president for fighting the war at all, and are calling the war itself a "failure" even though there is no rational measure by which it can be said to have failed--especially since we're still fighting it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------In a war, the enemy probes for weaknesses, and always finds some. When they find a weakness in your positions, they teach you where it is by attacking there; then you learn, and strengthen that point or avoid that mistake. Meanwhile, you constantly probe the enemy for weakness. The result is that even when you are overwhelmingly victorious, the enemy still finds ways to inflict damage along the way. The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties. Our national media are covering this war as if we were "losing the peace"--even though we are not at peace and we are not losing. Why are they doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the world situation in such a way as to bring down President Bush. It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape. This is the same trick they played on the first President Bush, for his recession was also over before the election--but the media worked very hard to conceal it from the American public. They did it as they're doing it now, with yes-but coverage: Yes, the economy is growing again, but there aren't any new jobs. Yes, there are new jobs now, but they're not good jobs. And that's how they're covering the war. Yes, the Taliban were toppled, but there are still guerrillas fighting against us in various regions of Afghanistan. (As if anyone ever expected anything else.) Yes, Saddam was driven out of power incredibly quickly and with scant loss of life on either side, but our forces were not adequately prepared to do all the nonmilitary jobs that devolved on them as an occupying army. Ultimately, the outcome of this war is going to depend more on the American people than anything that happens on the battlefield. Are we going to be suckered again the way we were in 1992, when we allowed ourselves to be deceived about our own recent history and current events? We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a trivial way. The kind of dishonest vitriolic hate campaign that in 2000 was conducted only before black audiences is now being played on the national stage; and the national media, instead of holding the liars' and haters' feet to the fire (as they do when the liars and haters are Republicans or conservatives), are cooperating in building up a false image of a failing economy and a lost war, when the truth is more nearly the exact opposite. And in all the campaign rhetoric, I keep looking, as a Democrat, for a single candidate who is actually offering a significant improvement over the Republican policies that in fact don't work, while supporting or improving upon the American policies that will help make us and our children secure against terrorists. We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel. But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans. I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home. And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.
12/18/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Thanks a lot Necktie Bob. I'm enjoying the fumes of the bumper-sticker glue...
12/18/03: Post by Necktie Bob
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Yeah, I think it's great too! What a great opportunity to get the music out on an international level (while supporting something worthwhile)!I only wish something like this happened during the Neckties period. (But if it did, then maybe Blowback wouldn't have happened and Blowback is a kickass band! Y'all and the Layabouts are my current favorite bands!)I'm hoping you guys get considered!
12/18/03: Post by BIII
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Thanks Bob, this is great stuff. We'll send a song to them to consider.Our new 4 song 7" vinyl is done, 6 song EP CD is being mastered and should hopefully be available by the end of January.Peace
12/18/03: Post by Necktie Bob
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Franklin and company.I thought I'd let you guys know, the Peace Not War group is looking for bands for their upcoming second istallation Peace Not War comp. 1st one features the likes of Crass, Chumbawamba, Public Enemy, Pete Seeger, Billy Bragg, etc.So,why not Blowback, eh?Here's the contact info!we want anti-war and pro-peace music and artfor this website and for the next Peace Not War CDssubmission deadline 12noon, Monday 16th February 2004download the information sheet as Acrobat PDF (404k)MUSIC:Please send your anti-war songs on professional-quality, mint-condition audio CDs (CDs are the preferred format, but DAT and other formats accepted too).We will master all the tracks together, so unmastered (ie uncompressed) tracks are preferred, unless you have professional mastering facilities.Send carefully packaged CDs by registered post or courier to:Peace Not WarPO Box 44212LondonE3 4WBUKAND send the following info by email(preferably as attached Word document, RTF, Text file etc, or in email text):all credit information (writers, producers, performers & instrumentation, copyright owners, publishers, dates, license info etc)and also full lyrics and transcriptions of samples(uncleared samples of copyrighted audio not accepted, so evidence of sample clearance should be included. If you cannot get hold of a speaker or musician you have sampled, then perhaps we can contact them if you ask us).NB: songs will not be considered for the next CD without all this informationor email a high-quality MP3 (or link to download page) with lyrics & credit info to:music@peace-not-war.org... and also book a venue to hold a peace concert on Feb 15th 2004(proposed international day of peace concerts).IMAGES:We would like to add your anti-war/pro-peace images to our website.Please attach a high-resolution JPG (at least 1000 pixels X 1000 pixels) to an email addressed to images@peace-not-war.orgIf you want your images to be in a CD booklet, you'll need to send the original artwork, or high-resolution file on a CD or Zip disk - with 300dpi TIF, Photoshop, EPS, PNG, AI, or similar file (NOT JPG).We would also like Flash animations, Quicktime movies, MiniDV tapes, etc...Peace Not WarPO Box 44212LondonE3 4WBUK
12/17/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Way to address the issues Frankie... Bumper-sticker glue gettin' to ya???
12/17/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Why is it that rabid right wingers (or is it just one of you) like to spend all their time on our website? Must be CAUSE WE ROCK AND BUSH SUCKS!!
12/16/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Why is the lowly-looney-left hated so much? Here is just one reason:CAMPAIGN CASH RACE TURNS INTERNATIONAL; MOVEON.ORG CENTER OF INTRIGUE; CLARK SEEKS CANADIAN SUPPORT, WEBSITE SHOWSFrustrated with the lack of domestic support, left-leaning website MoveOn.org has apparently been reaching beyond American borders to generate cash revenue over the internet!The provocative international fundraising strategy threatens to embroil the presidential candidacies of General Wesley Clark and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Both men are named on international fundraising websites suggesting donations to MoveOn.org.MORE Meanwhile, MoveOn.org, which has been running ads critical of the Bush Administration, has named an "International Campaigns Director," the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. It is not clear how much money has been raised -- to date-- from foreign sources, but political websites from London to Portugal to Montreal are directing their citizens to stop the American president George Bush by donating to MoveOn.org! Wesley Clark's official campaign website has been offering a link to "Canada For Clark", which in turn advises Canadians: "Non-Americans can't by law, give money to any particular candidate's campaign. But we can support pro-democracy, progressive American organizations like MoveOn.org, which do their best to spread the ugly truth about Bush and publicize the Democratic message. Click here to donate to MoveOn.org."The top traffic referrer to CanadaForClark.com is Clark's Official Campaign Website. MORE Dean04Worldwide.com is a noncommercial and volunteer website offered by Corinne Sinclair, a non-US citizen, based in London. Domain registration information indicates the website name servers are owned by PromoHosting.com, a website hosting service based in Portugal. Dean04Worldwide.com encourages non-Americans across the global to help Dean win the 2004 election. A notice on the website explains how to provide funds to MoveOn.org, since non-Americans cannot donate directly to the Dean campaign.Late last week, a Swedish website removed an "EU-MoveOn.org Fundraising Appeal," claiming MoveOn.org "No Longer Accepts Contributions From Non US Citizens/Permanent Resident Aliens."Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who has been headlining moveone.org events, is said to have vocalized serious concerns about the website accepting cash from foreign sources, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. MORE "To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, we are not going to take contributions from overseas," Wes Boyd, one of the founders of MoveOn.org, explained this weekend.Boyd refused to disclose how much revenue had already been generated abroad.
12/14/03: Post by Dean Supporter
Posted by: BLOWBACK
The Dow Jones Industrial Average had closed above 10000 for the first time since May 2002. Please folks, don't start that "We should be happy for people...They are seeing nice gains in their 401k's..yadda yadda" Bottom line, this will HELP BUSH! I took a look at my IRA today and see it sitting at a three year high. I admit, for a moment, I felt a moment of glee, then I remembered who this is REALLY helping, big corporations, Bush's supporters, and the sheep who think he really did anything to boost the economy. Like it or not, people vote with their pocketbooks and when they see these big gains, they will be happy. Couple this with the bigger than ever tax refund checks people we getting (Thanks in no small part to the politically motivated tactic of reducing tax brackets across the board in JULY, and making the bill retroactive, so the first 7 months of overpaid taxes will be INCLUDED in your tax refund...in addition to the doubled child credit and marriage penalty drop...my GOD...I know most of tax cuts help the rich, but this shit really will help middle America with larger refunds. ALSO, since Dubya dropped the steel tariffs, the price of nearly everything with metal in it will be DROPPING over the next few months...meaning more spending...more demand...more products sold...more corporate revenue...more jobs needed...We need to admit this and prepare for it. The people are going to be happy.They like their tax reductions.They like cheap prices on stuff.They like their 401k's being up 40% this year.If the economy keeps this pace, unemployment will likely be down to 5.5% by next November and we better have a damn good argument against Bush's policies. Is there any way we can take credit for helping the economy? We certainly are going to need an argument for this next year. Don't give up the fight!!! Bush must be destroyed at ANY cost!!!
12/14/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
"...Saddam will now face the justice that he has denied his people..."
12/14/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
A REAL Leader....:http://webpages.marshall.edu/~smith234/George_Bush_-_Posing_In_Front_Of_Flag.jpg
12/10/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Hey BII:Why don't you stomp and shout in front of this red diaper-doper baby Judge's house...or maybe you agree with the ruling.HIV transmission case tossed out Man didn't intentionally infect, judge finds Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff WriterWednesday, December 10, 2003 ©2003 San Francisco ChronicleURL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/10/BAGL53JSM61.DTL A San Francisco judge Tuesday found insufficient evidence to support charges that a former San Francisco health commissioner had intentionally infected sexual partners with the virus that causes AIDS. The ruling by Superior Court Judge Kay Tsenin to throw out a grand jury's indictment in the case marked the first-ever judicial review of a 1998 state law against knowingly and deliberately infecting partners. Prosecutors alleged that Ronald Gene Hill, 46, of Grass Valley (Nevada County) engaged in a pattern of soliciting sex with men on the Internet and falsely telling them he wasn't infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. At least two men infected with HIV told the grand jury that they had had sex with Hill and that he had repeatedly told them he didn't have the virus. Prosecutors say that Hill took advantage of his position as a health commissioner to stave off questions about his HIV status. But Hill's attorney, Peter Fitzpatrick, argued in court papers and before Tsenin that there was not enough evidence to show his client had intended to infect anyone. He said that the contacts between Hill and the two alleged victims, Thomas Lister and Christopher M., were "normal relationships.'' Fitzpatrick argued that even if Hill had lied about his HIV status, such deception would not meet the standard of illegal acts under the law, which requires the specific intent to infect someone. "That does not rise to the level of specific intent,'' Fitzpatrick said. He also argued that the prosecutors had tainted the grand jury by wrongly emphasizing that Hill had refused to testify before the body. Prosecutor Greg Barge said he was fulfilling the legal burden of telling the grand jury to consider Hill's side of the story. In the end, Tsenin said prosecutors just could not meet the legal burden in the face of a "very marginal amount'' of evidence against Hill. Prosecutors lamented that the state Legislature set the bar high on the law so that someone could not be prosecuted simply for withholding his or her HIV status from a partner. Barge said he did not know whether the case would be refiled or whether Tsenin's ruling would be appealed. "I believe that especially when you have two separate victims, with identical Internet solicitation and identical conduct, I do believe he intended to infect,'' Barge said. "I believe the jury should have been allowed to consider the question.'' Fitzpatrick said he felt the ruling was fair. "My client is dying of AIDS,'' he said. "He is very happy not to be a criminal defendant at this stage in his life.'' Lister said Tuesday that he believed the fight was worth it. "We've pursued it to the limit,'' he said. "I don't see it as a victory for the defense or a defeat for the D.A.'s office but as an opportunity to go the Legislature in California to get this law changed. It's a law that is not working -- and we need to change that.'' Hill, a onetime registered nurse, former florist and funeral home director, was appointed to the city Health Commission by Mayor Willie Brown in 1997. He resigned in 2000. ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
12/09/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Hey BIII:My flock doesn't like the smell of your flock. You guys should try bathing some time. Have fun at your little rally there sunshine.
12/08/03: Post by BIII
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Hey "I Hate", maybe you and some of your flock of sheep can go protest against this rally. Oh wait, protesting is un-American, never mind. Continue being useless.What: Rally and press conference against police violenceWhen: Wednesday, Dec. 10, noonWhere: One Police Plaza (NYPD Headquarters), Chambers and Centre Streets, Manhattan NEW YORK - The New York-based Campaign to Demilitarize the Police (CDP) will gather near One Police Plaza on Wednesday in the first of a series of public events to protest growing police use of military-style weapons and tactics at demonstrations. The Republican National Convention, to be held in New York Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2004, is expected to draw tens of thousands of activists outraged at Bush Administration policies. CDP members are concerned that the New York Police Department are preparing to greet them with the same brutal and illegal violence the Miami police recently used against activists at the anti-Free Trade Area of the Americas protests. "The militarization of law enforcement is tied to state efforts to repress and suppress protest," says author and CDP founding member Frank Morales. "We can no longer sit idly by and allow the increasing repression of protest in America." Speakers at Wednesday's press conference will include leading civil rights attorney Norman Siegel and medics who treated police victims at the Miami FTAA protests. DON'T LET MIAMI 2003 BECOME NEW YORK 2004! The Campaign to Demilitarize the Police is demanding:* Full disclosure and civilian representation in NYPD planning for the RNC 2004.* No NYPD use of chemical weapons such as tear gas and CS gas - outlawed as weapons of war under the Geneva Convention.* No NYPD firing of wooden pellets and rubber bullets, which can cause serious and lasting injury at close range.* An end to antagonistic NYPD use of interlocking metal barricades, preventing people from reaching demonstration sites by providing false information, unwarranted searches, seizures and destruction of personal property, aggressive mounted police attacks, and denial of freedom of movement - all of which serve to spread panic and anger among demonstrators.* An end to harmful and invasive surveillance of protesters - including monitoring of telephone and computer activity, facial recognition scanning, etc. - under the guise of the so called "war on terrorism." An end to harassment and preemptive arrests. The CDP has compiled a fact sheet on the growing pattern of police scaremongering and violence against activists who take to the streets in the U.S., from the Seattle WTO protests to the present. Please contact us at the Website above for a copy. # # # # #THE CAMPAIGN TO DEMILITARIZE THE POLICE http://demilitarizethepolice.netfirms.com
12/06/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Ahhhhh...... And there is the rat peacenick showing his colors again. Choke on this, scumbag:Bush in 2004! 4 more years! Ha hah hahahah hah!It must suck for you and the other coolaid drinking Ramsey Clark uber-leftists these days..... Have a nice day :-)
12/06/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
And yet you sieg heil to the monkey in the White House, who doesn't even know how to speak in complete sentences, who had an even more privileged upbringing than Dead, and who along with his cabal stole the US Presidential elections and is now ensuring that every two-bit would-be terrorist sets his sights on US citizens? Get a life, "IHate"!Suggested reading for you: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
12/06/03: Post by I Hate Peacenicks!
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Air Force One.... Keep scraping dude! You guys have at least 5 years before there's even a chance of another liberal/socialist in the White House. Your front runner is a reflection of the state of the democrap party of today. Drunk with ideological intoxication, Dean is coming perilously close to the secular equivalent of speaking in tongues. Every generation or so, our great Republic manages to give birth to a political figure so obnoxiously certain of his moral and intellectual superiority over the booboisie that we lowly, simple folk eventually begin to heave with nausea. The insufferable Governor Dean is the latest incarnation. Born deep in the heartland of Manhattans Upper East Side, schooled at only the best of New Yorks private preparatory institutions before entering the real world of the Ivy League, young Howard spent his summers in the Hamptons. Certainly these early life experiences prepared Mr. Dean to empathize with the average, middle-class American. One might assume that this upbringing, while not disqualifying one to represent the great expanse of America, would insulate Howard from the common man. This is not to say that Howard was not nice to the familys domestics. In fact, I would gainsay that Howard was very polite with the help and probably engaged in conversation from time to time. At Yale we learn over and over and over again that Master Howard actually had not one, but two black roommates!! Ultimately Howard received a medical degree and chose the life of a country doctor in Vermont. Vermont is a place where real people live. Of course this was no longer the Vermont of old Yankees, but ex-hippies and the counterculture. The spoiled little snots of the Sixties had found their little haven in Vermont. As an illustration, look at Vermonts only Congressman, Bernie Sanders. Hes yet another ex-New Yorker who ran and won to become the only openly socialist congressman in the US House of Representatives. Indeed Vermont is as American as…well, crepes. We know little of Deans homespun, country doctoring -- except for one story about a young girl who came to the good Dr. and reported she was raped by her father. Dr. Deans memory fades as to whether he reported this to the authorities as required by law or not. It turns out the girl was not raped by her father, but it makes for a whopper of a story if you want to make a point in favor of abortion and against parental notification. Too bad its all a fabrication. I guess Dean figures it COULD have happened. We know little of Deans governorship and Dean would like to keep it that way. Hes had his records sealed for ten years. We do know that he championed and signed into law the nations first civil unions (read: gay marriage) law. Dean likes to mention his executive experience he had as a Governor in Vermont. Just to maintain some perspective, lets recall that Vermont would be no more than a rural county in many states of the Union. Howard Deans Manhattan-prep school-Hampton-Ivy-Vermont frame of mind is, in fact, a little island of democratic socialist Europe within America. Howard Dean may justly be called the Jacques Chirac of America. Like the slightly overweight Chirac, Dean nearly bursts out of his suit and ties with indignation and outrage over the small mindedness of anyone who can not see the secular, multicultural worldview of himself and fellow progressive-minded intelligentsia. His worldview reminds me of a professor I had at Harvard who would begin each pronouncement of opinion by stating, As we all know… The problem was that the rest of the sentence was almost never an obvious fact or given, but rather the ideological assumptions of the Left which were to be taken as unassailable to them as the Nicene Creed to orthodox Christians.
12/04/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Has anyone noticed the ongoing flap over the White House's inability to tell the truth about Bush and Air Force one? Here's an unpublished letter to the Washington Post on the subject:"Wow! Another story (Pilots Didn't Radio Air Force One, Airline Says A3, 02/12) circulated by the White House about Air Force One that can not be confirmed? You may recall the earlier episode, when the White House claimed that Bush remained aloft on Air Force One in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 because the Secret Service had said there was a threat against him. A week or two later, the Secret Service stated that they had never issued this warning and the story was buried in an unrelated article. Now, another story about Bush and Air Force One that can not be confirmed.Perhaps the reason the White House continues to fib about Air Force One is that it remembers how the news media effectively buried the earlier Air Force One fib. Maybe this time, you can get to the bottom of this story and prominently out the source of disinformation in the White House?"In subsequent days the White House has tried to modify its story and each time British Airways has denied the new version. Also, did you see the picture of Bush with the Turkey dinner with the troops in Baghdad? Turns out that he was holding the ornament and not the real dinner.But by now, everyone is accustomed to this Texas crusader who was tro restore dignity to the White House as being a pathological liar. If not him, all the people that surround him.
12/03/03: Post by Franklin
Posted by: BLOWBACK
Thank you "I Hate Peacenicks!" for posting the article!This of course wouldn't be the first time that the FBI is used for political -- and not crime-fighting -- ends. In the 1980s, the FBI spied on groups opposed to Reagan's carnage in Central America. Prior to that, the FBI had COINTELPRO under their belt and the debacle at Pine Ridge (BTW, Leonard Peltier should be released!!!). Before that, harrassment against Martin Luther King. Thus, the current demonstrators are in good company.It would seem that by now, the FBI, with the Wen Ho Lee case and that of their double-agent in California who was sleeping with their agents, would have no credibility left. (Oops. did I forget to mention: NO PROGRESS ON THE ANTHRAX?) Yet for some reason, the agency manages to survive.