This is a great article today. Good job!

After all these years of telling my story, it’s not uncommon to find that people are having a difficult time believing what I’m trying to tell them. And believe me, I’ve tried all kinds of ways to explain it but it’s so unbelievable still that it’ll take a little while longer. However this article as well as others now being shown do start to surface some of the issues that are part of the over all that I’ve found difficult to have people believe. Thanks for doing a great job.

To summarize: Our political system has been changed into two groups with one WANTING the Constitution and the other NOT WANTING the Constitution. I don’t know when it exactly happened but it’s been like this for a while. Back in the 90’s when the family talked about the Political system they said that out of every 10 Lawmakers, 7 are Republicans and 3 are Democrats who are involved to NOT WANT the Constitution.

Some of the stories are starting to assemble what appeared to be different situations into a larger one. I guess the view from the bottom up takes time to slog through the detail. As for me, I spent more than 26 years in a family who are active players in the group that DOESN’T WANT the Constitution. But their job in this over all movement is to Launder Drug and Gun Running money straight into Property using a huge Laundromat consisting of big Banks and a large host of others. The started in the late 70’s with laundering for a CIA operation for “The Dirty War” then continued to this day. They brag about being a CIA Asset which means those around them also the same. There are other families involved such as “The DuPont family” and more as I’ve met some of them through the family. In the 90’s my brother-in-law’s wife’s brother got out of the service as a pilot and the whole family met at my house. There my brother-in-law approached his wife’s brother with a proposition to go into business air freighting huge amounts of drugs into the US and starting their business in Florida. I was standing right next to the two of them when this happened.

The Florida business has been in the news since last year as one of their jets went down in Mexico. “Clyde O’Connor” was caught and not arrested and remains at large to this day. The O’Connor’s live in the Chicago area where my ex-wife’s family lives and everyone seems foot-loose and fancy free.

If you’ve been following the Federal Rezko trial in the Chicago area, please note that this trial is addressing what has been happening in the Illinois Governor Administration. But what many don’t know is it also includes the Daily administration but this is also personal to me since my youngest son is tied in with Rezko through the family.

The huge drug system mentioned above is a weekly $100 Million dollar Drug shipment into the Chicago area. There its split with Florida and Chicago as told to me in the 90’s. It’s important to consider that there are other shipments going elsewhere too so the annual amount is considerably huge as the Chicago shipment represent over $5Billion annually. The Illinois Governor all the way down to Daley know about the drug system as told to me by the family.

I was told throughout the later 80’s and 90’s about their plans but back then I didn’t believe it either. Who would? It seemed much like pure fantasy.

The drug system’s profits are being used to fund “Black Op’s” that are supporting another White House Coup. This group knows well that they failed back in 1933 and have done as much as they can to make sure they don’t fail this time.

Unfortunately there is far too much to talk about to describe this but I’ll try to give more information. Around Chicago is a huge group of people supporting their interests with protecting the drug system and much more. There are so many things happening in this area that it’s difficult to account for all of them. Even the Newspapers are involved and have been for decades to limit information. I’ve personally had lots of trouble recently trying to post on the Tribune website.

I’ll try to explain more another time….

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL

For years now, Bush and Cheney have willfully Obstructed any independent, non-Executive Branch review of their actions – even going so far as to commute the Felony Convictions of a Loyal Lying Henchperson – while so far failing to provide any compelling Legal Argument that would justify the On-Going Secret Exemption from Legislative Oversight and Judicial Review that they granted themselves.

If we leave this precedent intact…if we fail to hold Bush and Cheney accountable to the Rule of Law…then Who can fail to see the Seeds of Our Own Future Demise being Flauntingly Displayed before Our very eyes?

Impeachment restores Integrity to the Constitution.

A walk for BushCo ratifies the End of US.

What are We asking for?

Are We going to re-claim what was taken from US in the dark of Secrecy?

Or are We going to say, “It’s okay,” and rollover, hoping the nightmares will end?

What’s it gonna be?

You know, it doesn’t really even have to be the Hague. There’s nothing to prevent any country whose laws or sovereignty was violated from maintaining an action. That’s pretty much what is happening in Italy right now (although if Bushe Berlusconi gets back in office I’m not sure what happens there) and as the Sands article points out, with the MCA, Germany has lost the grounds on which it originally rejected pursuing actions against Rumsfeld et al (that the US courts could/would maintain the action).

but the pardon would not, IMHO, serve as an absolute bar to his extradition to the Hague. BTW, for political reasons, this ain’t gonna happen to a former American president – I’d settle for Rumsfeld though!

Totally agree. Years ago, I was an intern at UN Office at Geneva (UNOG). So, I follow news releases from their office. (Good reading BTW). You might appreciate the following:

Among positive developments in the second periodic report of the United States, the Committee welcomed the State party’s statement that all officials, from all Government agencies, including its contractors, were prohibited from engaging in torture at all times and in all places, and from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee noted with satisfaction the State party’s statement that it did not transfer persons to countries where it believed that it was “more likely than not” they would be tortured, and that that also applied, as a matter of policy, to the transfer of any individual in the State party’s custody or control, regardless of where they were detained. The Committee also noted with satisfaction the enactment of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which addressed sexual assault of persons in the custody of correctional agencies. The Committee also noted the intention to adopt a new Army Field Manual for intelligence interrogation, applicable to all its personnel, which, according to the State party, will ensure that interrogation techniques fully comply with the Convention.

The Committee reiterated its concern with regard to the absence of a federal crime of torture consistent with Article 1 of the Convention and requested, among others, that the State party ensure that acts of psychological torture, prohibited by the Convention, were not limited to “prolonged mental harm”, but constituted a wider category of acts, which caused severe mental suffering, irrespective of their prolongation or its duration. The Committee regretted the State party’s opinion that the Convention was not applicable in times and in the context of armed conflict, and that the Convention’s application would result in an overlap of the different treaties which would undermine the objective of eradicating torture.

The Committee urged the United States to register all persons it detained in any territory under its jurisdiction to prevent acts of torture. In that regard, the Committee was concerned by allegations that the State party had established secret detention facilities, which were not accessible to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Detainees were deprived of fundamental legal safeguards, including an oversight mechanism in regard to their treatment and review procedures with respect to their detention. The Committee was also concerned by allegations that those detained in such facilities could be held for prolonged periods and faced torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee considered the “no comment” policy of the State party regarding the existence of such secret detention facilities, as well as on its intelligence activities, to be regrettable. In addition, the United States should cease to detain any person at Guantánamo Bay and close that detention facility. It should permit access by the detainees to judicial process or release them as soon as possible, ensuring that they were not returned to any State where they could face a real risk of being tortured.

(From May 19, 2006 meeting of UN Committee Against Torture)

and this:

In a world community which has adopted global measures to counter terrorism, the United States is a leader. This position carries with it a special responsibility also to take leadership in the protection of human rights while countering terrorism. The example of the United States will have its followers, in good and in bad. The Special Rapporteur has a deep respect for the long traditions in the United States of respect for individual rights, the rule of law, and a strong level of judicial protection. Despite the existence of a tradition in the United States of respect for the rule of law, and the presence of self-correcting mechanisms under the United States Constitution, it is most regretful that a number of important mechanisms for the protection of rights have been removed or obfuscated under law and practice since the events of 11 September, including under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and under Executive Orders and classified programs.

The Special Rapporteur thus sees his visit as one step in the process of restoring the role of the United States as a positive example for respecting human rights, including in the context of the fight against terrorism. He dismisses the perception that the United States has become an enemy of human rights. It is a country which still has a great deal to be proud of.

The framework of public international law

The Special Rapporteur does not consider the international fight against terrorism as a “war”, at least not in other than rhetorical terms. During high-level meetings with Government officials, it has been repeated that the United States sees itself as being engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, commencing prior to the events of 11 September and continuing today, until the capabilities of Al Qaeda can be so degraded that their conduct can be dealt with through regular law enforcement mechanisms. The United States consequently identifies humanitarian law as the applicable international law to the apprehension, detention and trial of persons detained at Guantánamo Bay. The Special Rapporteur reminds the United States of the well-established principle that, even during an armed conflict triggering the application of international humanitarian law, international human rights law continues to apply. This is a point made clear, for example, by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 29, and has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice. The conduct of the United States must therefore comply not only with the Geneva Conventions, but also with applicable international human rights law.

From the Special Rapporteur who conducted a 10-day visit to the United States, at the invitation of the Government, from 16 to 25 May 2007.

Note: we invited the Special Rapporteur on a visit during the same time we had an accountability report before the UN Committee Against Torture. Guess which one made the news headlines?

(My bold btw)

full link here:

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/5FBB9C351B9E70EBC1257173004EB4CE

The UN is watching…

Political pressure by Bush 41 and Margaret Thatcher eventually resulted in a decision by the British government that Pinochet was too ill to stand trial and he was returned to Chile instead of Spain for trial.

What was their incentive? Was it a broad interest in not wanting any head of state prosecuted in order to ensure no head of state of Britain or the US would ever be prosecuted? Or was it more self-serving, fearing what evidence might come out in such a trial that would make Bush41 or Thatcher look bad?

Relatedly, what if folks who are pardoned are indicted in other venues, such as Europe. Will the pardon protect them from extradition? Or more generally, how would such an extradition attempt be treated under the law?