Friday, July 28, 2006

C-SPAN to Air Historic 9/11 Exposé: July 29th at 8PM (EST), and then air it again for the West Coast at 11pm EST (10pm CST).

C-SPAN to Air Historic 9/11 Exposé

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Panel Discussion to Run on Saturday, July 29th at 8PM (EST)

Infowars | July 27, 2006

C-SPAN has confirmed that their coverage of the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Panel Discussion will air on C-SPAN 1 on July 29th at 8PM (EST). The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

The appearance of this discussion on the nation’s premiere public affairs cable network is an incredible boon to the 9/11 Truth Movement. None of the 9/11 Truth events that C-SPAN has covered in the past are as hard-hitting as the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda program. This panel discussion cuts to the heart of the issue and exposes the events of September 11th, 2001 as a complex premeditated plot carried out by criminal elements within the U.S. Government as a pretext for launching the endless “War on Terror” in which the globe is currently embroiled. C-SPAN’s coverage of this pivotal information will bring considerable national attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement. It will also lend further credibility to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the premiere organization within the movement for peer-reviewed scientific research on 9/11 issues.


If you don't have cable, you can watch online by clicking here

See the four-camera Infowars coverage of the Panel Discussion right now by becoming a member of

Each member of the panel brought their own particular perspective and expertise to the discussion while each maintained throughout their comments that 9/11 was an “inside job.”

Alex Jones, a progenitor of the 9/11 Truth Movement introduced the panel and acted as moderator. Professor Steven E. Jones, an expert in Physics, re-capped his vital new research which has conclusively proven that demolition incendiaries were used to bring down World Trade Center and could have only been placed there in advance of 9/11.

As a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and a former Marine Corps officer, James Fetzer cut through the myths surrounding the 9/11 hijackers. Former Air Force Interceptor Pilot Robert Bowman brought up the lack of air defense on the day of 9/11 and shed light on the slough of drills conducted on 9/11 to distract the military and prevent Flights 11 & 77 from being shot down.

Finally Author and Historian Webster Tarpley tied all of the information together to paint a picture of 9/11. He described the drills, Bush’s actions and the blow-by-blow details of that fateful day that revealed what could only be called the horrible truth of a conspiracy fact.

It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards. This is an incredible step in spreading the truth about 9/11.

The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at 8PM EST (7PM CST) on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the West Coast at 11pm EST (10pm CST).



Peace by paying attention to public broadcasting proof...



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Watch "TerrorStorm" on Google Video!

P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

BONUS: Don't get it twisted, the same people who are selling you "terror", "war" and "security" as an overly complex conversational noose of lies that normalizes fundamentally radical decisions leading to domestic police state measures and World War III... are selling you this.

A friend told me he heard a famous liberal radio host interviewed about "what the Shia would do" in the region, and that he found it quite enlightening.

Well, first of all, if you want to know what "the Shia" would do, ask "the Shia", and don't just be another old white guy talking about the mainstream's rehashed mess of tired old arguments told by tired old white guys.

Second, I already know what they'll do: if they're hit, they'll hit back.

I know what my 5 year old cousin would do: if he's hit, he'll hit back.

I know what the Quebecois, B.C. and Ontario would do: if hit, they'll hit back.

There's no need to anthropologically separate them like discussing primitive tribes, and there's no need to make these conflicts as intransigent as they seem.

This is one big political lie.

Here's the simple truth, when you bomb the hell out of people without even trying to talk to them, and kill thousands of innocent victims: they get very angry.

When you lie and tell your own citizens they're angry because they want to attack "The Homeland" as opposed to because you're bombing the hell out of them without talking to them: they get very angry.

Then you can spin the whole mess in a web of political gobbledygook that justifies some great, big, stupid "Risk" style boardgame theorizing. This completely distracts people from the people who actually benefit from these events and often help engineer them. We avoid talking about major financial beneficiaries and their obvious roles in either allowing stuff like this to happen by assuring shareholders it will improve profits and power, or lobbying effectively to influence the process to ensure they'll benefit.

This is the root of all political decision-making, and all the rhetoric about what the "islamo-fascists" will do is bunk: whoever there will do the same thing humans have done since the dawn of time - fight back. The problem with those of us concerned over here is that we have the wrong discussions about who's responsible since many of us still trust the mainstream media, and thus we get trapped in the same useless conversations as everyone else. The only way to break this cycle is to transcend it with something sexier, more practical, and more tangible.

Basically, the money behind the means.

Basically, the money behind the mean.

Basically, I also think the story below is crap, and I think they found a patsy to carry out the shootings and ramp up the police state by scaring people, and that you won't hear much about him after this. Or you will. But he won't be saying much.

But, it's only 13 minutes old, so we'll see.

Just remember that while the police may or may not be your friends, the police state being built will enslave everybody, so it's best that everybody work together to calm down and figure out why our governments are trying to scare and anger us - and as "corrupt" politicians (naturally) who's pulling their strings...

Yahoo! News

6 shot, 1 fatally at Seattle Jewish center

By TIM BOOTH, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

SEATTLE - A man walked into a Jewish organization Friday afternoon and opened fire, killing one person and injuring at least five others before he was arrested, officials said.

The gunman, who employees said claimed to be a Muslim angry at Israel, forced his way through the security door at the Jewish Federation after an employee had punched in her security code, said Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a co-worker who was not at the building at the time.

Staff members said they overheard him saying "'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone,"
Meislin-Dietrich said. "He was randomly shooting at everyone."

Police would not confirm the account.

David Gomez, an FBI assistant special agent in charge of counterterrorism, said investigators believe the gunman targeted the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

"We believe at this point it's a lone individual acting out antagonism toward this particular organization," Gomez said.

* Email Story
* IM Story
* Discuss
* Printable View



Israeli aggression on Lebanon, July 2006


Do you know what kind of weapons causes this damage?

As-Safir Newspaper

July 21st, 2006

I left the office early last night ; at midnight.

There was only one devastating picture yesterday : that of two people who were killed in air strikes on Akkar,(the poorer area) in the north, late Wednesday night.

Both corps were black, both were dismembered , both were "weird". I don't think it matters anymore to try to prove that Israel is using unconventional , forbidden weapons .. that would only prove that it should have used "allowed" weapons. Who cares, people are dying anyway. And whatever weapons are being used , the pollution they're creating will kill the survivors from cancer later.

The rest of the pictures were less devastating, conventional : demolished houses, wiped out villages and towns, more refugees , some of them starving, lovely babes on board of US marines ships and colored people from poor countries lining up in front of embassies hoping they will get them out of this hell.

The really devastating pictures will came later , much later, some day when all this will stop maybe we'll be able to visit the ruins of whole villages. But even then it might be too late : how long does it take corps buried under rubbles to disintegrate and vanish ?


Thursday, July 27, 2006

See "A Scanner Darkly", and "Crush any plate of food that's bein' eatin' offa beatin'..."

It ain't the Substance D,
It's the D-cups of tea,
Baggin' me like Bilbo be,
Now where that dildo be?
Stuck in the ears,
Of "Tears for Fears" fans,
Big plans for minivans,
And big, cans of SPAM,
Some Nigerianinja's,
Ran a 419 scam,
And the broke-greedy white man,
Came up with a new plan,
Gotta win the lotto,
Who's Bush killin' tomorrow?
Got a dollar I can borrow?
Can ya holler if I swallow?
Feelin' faint and fairly free,
Just me and my TV,
Just me and my hanky,
And Hangelina Jolie,
A box of Kleenex later,
Now I'm sleepy, guess I'm done,
That was fun,
What - you're really coming to take my gun?
New law?
I got this pistol from my Pa,
And he told me why we need it,
To say "Bacdaf--up" y'all!
Wait - am I sleepin',
Are they really creepin and peepin'?
Heard the NSCIA say,
Or, they heard me and some beepin',
Better watch what you say,
I mean, who works there today?
Have they heard of "Long Knives"?
How long lives went away?
Gotta focus,
Through the hocus-pocus,
Green locusts lusting for our focus,
Joke us 'til they choke us,
Prod us, poke us 'til they smoke us,
Toke us?
Hell yeah,
We celebrate,
We know our fate to set it straight,
We know our date to set it straight,
We know our mate to set it straight,
We know our great to set it straight,
Heavyweight Champ with a clean slate,
Title for your recital,
To any mate or date any date,
To flirt with any fate, push any weight,
Dig dirt, at any rate,
Then relate the state of the state,
Like you got something to state,
Crush any plate of food that's bein' eatin' offa beatin',
We ain't retreatin',
We just settin' up a meetin'...

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Watch "TerrorStorm" on Google Video!

P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

Associated Press /

Chicago becomes 'behavior cops'

Don Babwin / AP | July 25 2006

CHICAGO -- If you're a cell phone using, goose liver eating, cigarette smoking, fast food loving person, Chicago might not be your kind of town.

In this city that once winked at Prohibition, members of the City Council are cracking down on behaviors they deem unhealthy, dangerous or just plain annoying. They've taken aim at everything from noisy street musicians to captive elephants to fatty foods like fried chicken and french fries.

A proposal that would restrict fast-food chains from cooking with artery-clogging trans fat oils got a public airing this week, and in the last year alone aldermen have banned smoking in nearly all public places and the use of cell phones while driving. In April, Chicago became the first U.S. city to outlaw the sale of foie gras, a goose liver delicacy.

Critics, including the mayor, wonder if the City Council has suddenly deemed itself the behavior police.

"We have children getting killed by gang leaders and dope dealers," an angry Mayor Richard M. Daley said when the foie gras ordinance passed. "We have real issues here in this city. And we're dealing with foie gras? Let's get some priorities."

Aldermen say they are addressing real problems and protecting their constituents. And they dispute that the proposals are diverting their attention from major issues like a city budget crunch.

"We vote on literally hundreds if not thousands of ordinances in the City Council," said Alderman Joe Moore, who led the effort to ban foie gras after learning about what animal rights activists say is inhumane way geese are treated for their livers. "The fact that there may be greater wrongs to address doesn't mean we cannot also address what we might also view as lesser wrongs."

But some people think the proposals have allowed aldermen to avoid coming up with solutions to the city's bigger problems.

"How about worrying about the price of gas, taxes, helping homeless people?" asked Wayne Johnson, an insurance analyst, who was eating his own fried chicken lunch at a downtown food court recently.

Alderman Burton Natarus, who has sponsored a host of noise ordinances aimed at turning down the volume on street musicians, construction workers, boom boxes and motorcycles, agrees with some critics who argue the council is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

"I think we are trying to control people's behavior too much," said Natarus, who regrets voting for the foie gras ban. "We are trying to itty bitty regulate every facet of somebody's life."

The latest target is trans fat, found in oils used to fry food like chicken. An ordinance discussed this week would limit use of such oils by fast food chains that operate in the city.

Like the foie gras ban, the trans fat proposal has earned Daley's scorn.

"Is the City Council going to plan our menus?" he asked.

When the trans fat idea first came up, the Chicago Sun-Times weighed in with an editorial facetiously referring to the council's "special Committee to rid Chicago of Everything That is Bad for Us," and wondering if it was "only a matter of time before they propose ordinances against certain cell phone ring-tones, secondhand barbecue smoke and bug zappers."

Some observers say aldermen, who have for so long done what Daley wanted them to, are feeling emboldened to act on their own because Daley has been weakened by a City Hall scandal that has snared some of his top aides.

Others wonder if the proposals have more to do with a changing city, one that is no longer the home of blue collar industries like the steel mills and stockyards, but rather of upscale enclaves and trendy businesses.

"This is the legislation of refinement," said Perry Duis, a University of Illinois-Chicago historian who has written extensively on Chicago. "This is a city of Starbucks rather than the steel mill."

Whatever it is, more than a few people around the city want it to stop.

"I'm a big boy," said Kerry Dunaway as he munched on fried chicken downtown recently. "I can take care of myself."



Albany Times Union /

Cheney behind turn toward dictatorship

First published: Friday, July 7, 2006

In the winter of 1933, before Franklin Roosevelt's first inauguration on March 4, there was a clamor in the United States for a military dictatorship. The banks were closing, a quarter of Americans were unemployed, rebellion threatened on the farms.

Only drastic reforms, mandated by the president's power as commander in chief, would save the country. Something like the fascism of Mussolini's Italy, viewed benignly by many Americans in those days because it worked, or so everyone said, would save the country from communist revolution.

As Jonathan Alter reminds us in "The Defining Moment," his brilliant book about FDR's first hundred days, men as different as William Randolph Hearst, financier Bernard Baruch, commentator Lowell Thomas and establishment columnist Walter Lipmann argued for the necessity of dictatorship to reorganize the economy. Both the New Republic and the Commonweal (a Catholic liberal journal) advanced the same thesis.

The call for a military style dictatorship is the ultimate temptation to the greatest treason of a democratic society. Fortunately, FDR resisted the temptation and reformed the American economy by a mix of gradualist changes, like Social Security, and magical fireside chats. Unfortunately, years later he yielded to the temptation to a military dictatorship when he interned Japanese-Americans simply because they were Japanese. In the first case, he resisted the demands of the American people. In the second, he caved into their racist demands, just as Lincoln caved in to such demands and abolished habeas corpus during the Civil War.

The United States is currently caught up in a new campaign for a military dictatorship rule by a military chief with absolute power. The White House, inspired by Vice President Dick Cheney, has argued that in time of great danger, the President has unlimited powers. If he cites national security, he can do whatever he wants -- ignore Congress, disobey laws, disregard the courts, override the Constitution's Bill of Rights, -- without being subject to any review. Separation of powers no longer exists under this view. The President need not consult Congress or the courts, only the vice president, the attorney general and God.

Moreover, the rights of the commander in chief to act as a military dictator lasts as long as the national emergency persists, indefinitely and permanently.

Many, perhaps most Americans, wouldn't mind. The President is tough on terrorists and that's all that matters. What is the Bill of Rights anyway? Mr. Bush, his supporters will argue, is a good man, even a godly man. He won't misuse the powers, even if the power he claims is no less than Hugo Chavez exercises in Venezuela.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling about a Guantanamo detainee last week, was a sharp rebuke to Chenyism (fascism, American style). It dealt with only one case and left the President wiggle room. He could consult with Congress about new legislation that would provide more rights for the detainees in a military trial. But that violates Mr. Cheney's first principle that the commander in chief doesn't have to consult with anyone on matters of national security. If the President was consistent with the Cheney theory and the memos from Alberto Gonzales, first the White House lawyer and now the attorney general, he should defy the Supreme Court and insist that he has the right to establish whatever judicial process he deems proper for these potentially dangerous people without any interference from anyone. He may still do that.

Republicans who will seek re-election in November already suggest that they will run against the Supreme Court decision. The court, they will tell the American people, is soft on terror, just like Democrats in Congress. They could probably get away with this nonsense because fear will cause the voters to forget that this is the Republican court that gave Mr. Bush the Presidency.

Mr. Cheney is a vile, indeed evil, influence in American political life. He is a very dangerous person who would if he could destroy American freedom about which he and his mentor prate hypocritically. His long years in Washington have caused him to lose faith in the legislative and judicial processes of the government. The country, he believes, requires a much stronger executive. Such concentrated power would have been necessary even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred. Mr. Cheney uses the fear of terrorists as a pretext to advance his agenda of an all powerful president, a military dictator.

So long, of course, as he is a Republican.

Andrew Greeley's e-mail address is


Wednesday, July 26, 2006

HezbollAl-Qaedallah? Hmm... I think "Conflation, Inflation, and the Birth of a Nation" sounds about right.

Well, here it is.

World War III.

This sucks.

Anyway, we've got to move fairly quickly on this, and no - not for the millions of innocent victims of random decisions to go to "war" overseas, but for "US", the people who are run by same people who make random decisions to go to "war".

Really, the leaders of North America, Europe, Israel, and the people who control their actions and fortunes which are largely funded by a massive debt that's owed to somebody. Massive. Massive debt. You've heard of "the debt"? It's massive.

I mean c'mon, is this that tough?

These guys are bad.

Really, really bad.

They don't give a fuck about you.

It's like, Hitler had "The Night of the Long Knives" where he killed his own supporters who knew how he'd come up, he had to get rid of them to protect his own God-like stature.

So, how many people still absolutely love Bush?


The worse Bush and his Administration act - and every region a smiling Condoleeza Rice visits soon gets blown up, the fewer hardcore fans they get - and the harder-core his hardcore fans get. The more he escalates the police state tactics domestically with NSA spying and soldiers patrolling American cities, the more the same thing happens: he narrows his base to the scummiest people on the planet.

Sure, first you just want your money, next you're okay with torture and genocide overseas, then you're cool with the police state at home, and then they take your money. In about 5 years. Max.

After that Bush will be irrelevant anyway, and perhaps the puppet-masters will pull back the strings. Now you may have loved Bush, and well, Bush may have even loved you for it. However, Bush's bosses don't give a fuck about you. They're already raping the world and the rights of everyone in it, including Bush's neo-fascist acolytes and other casual neo-con supporters, and when it comes to ethnically cleansing the "dumbass" gene, they'll get theirs too.

How can he get away with this?

It's simple: they did the "purge" beforehand.

As reported in several major papers (Google it - I forget, but I think "The New Yorker" did a piece on it for sure) though perhaps not as the focus of all the stories, the Bush Administration purged the White House of all those who would be potentially disloyal. You could've been there for 25 years, but if you wore your Green Day "American Idiot" shirt (or the equivalent in 2001) you were flagged and then asked to leave.

So, that was simple, you just get rid of any responsible or vocal people in the government and keep a core of quieter, weaker, and more complicit and complacent busy-bodies, and you run whatever plays you want. They've even publicly demoted 4-Star Generals like Shinseki for saying they need 300,000 troops to take Iraq quickly (and apparently half-that to drag it out forever), and Byrnes for stopping a small nuclear weapon from exploding in a harbor in North Carolina (they got him for going out on a "date" after being separate for months from his ex-wife, and she publicly said she didn't mind at all anyway) courtesy of another government sponsored terror attack.

There's a few other factors, but this is about the future.


That's right, they're trying to turn Al-Qaeda into Hezbollah the same way they tried to turn Afghanistan into Iraq - successfully, I assume. Many people realize Al-Qaeda is fake anyway, and that the fact that Bush hasn't found Osama "dead or alive" or really cared to adds to that. However, by conflating "terror" threats all-around, and by binding the "threat" to an older and more established "freedom fighting" organization that actually exists and does some good things like building schools in the region, Bush and Israel and the rest of the world can begin the precedent of destroying at will anyone they oppose. They can also use the permanent threat of "war" to increase "national security" directives that lead to the creation of a fully-functional and technologically advance police state.

There are 4 million cameras on the streets of London: it's not, that, hard.

They'll also beat the hell out of us on social services and the economy, destroying the finances and rights of individuals states and cities, and leading to more dependence on an increasinly centralized and powerful federal government. If you have problems the government can help you, and if you're so poor that your citizens are increasingly turning to crime, then the government can provide soldiers to help you take care of that.

Will Smith was at a stop the violence campaign in Philadelphia where that was discussed recently: it's not, that, hard.

Anyway, from now on check for 5 minutes a day, and see the mainstream media reports they collect that show cracks appearing everywhere. Take it in small doses and wean yourself off the mainstream lies, and stop being confused into hating and fearing the wrong people.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Watch "TerrorStorm" on Google Video!

P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

BONUS: "No news is good news, I guess..."

Editor and Publisher /

Journalism Group Slams Bombing of Lebanese and Hezbollah Media Outlets

Editor And Publisher | July 25 2006

CHICAGO Israeli bombing raids on television transmission stations this weekend "represent an appalling threat to press freedom," the general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said Sunday.

Aidan White said Israel had "once again put media in the front line of the conflict" with the Saturday air raids that hit relay stations used not only by a television channel run by Hezbollah, Al-Manar, but also by the nation's biggest private network, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation.

A media worker was killed as a result of that raid and two others were wounded, according to IFJ.

The strikes are a threat to the safety of media staff "and cannot be justified," White said.

Capt. Jacob Dallal, an Israeli army spokesman, said the target of the strikes was Al-Manar and Al-Nour, Hezbollah's radio station. He told The Associated Press that five of those station's antennas were hit.

"It's important to understand why the attack was carried out. This will disrupt their ability to communicate," he said, adding that cell phones were a "key communication link" for the guerrillas.

An Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Al-Manar and LBC may have been sharing an antenna.

LBC's terrestrial transmission was knocked out to homes in the surrounding portion of north-central Lebanon, though homes with satellite dishes received it without interruption.

By attacking the relay stations, Israel was broadening what the IFJ called its "assault on media."

"The bombarding of media facilities is a deplorable assault on the democratic infrastructure of Lebanon," White said. "It was inevitable that media staff will become the victims when this policy comes into effect."

After White condemned last week's bombing of the Hezbollah-run Al-Manar TV station, several Israeli journalists quit the organization in protest. One Israeli journalist and IFJ member, Yaron Anosh, told White he was not welcome in Israel until he retracted his censure.

The IFJ noted that it has protested targeting of news operations in the past, especially in 1999 when a NATO strike on Radio Television Serbia in Belgrade resulted in the deaths of 16 media workers. Since then, IFJ said, it has condemned raids against media in Palestine, Indonesia, Iraq and Pakistan.

"Once media are attacked with impunity, journalists on all sides are at risk," White said. "We insist that journalists and unarmed media must be regarded at all times as non-combatants and must not be attacked by military forces."





Monday, July 24, 2006

LET'S GET THEM OUT: NOW!!! "...soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents said they were under orders to "kill all military age males." (AP)

Associated Press / Editor & Publisher /

AP: Soldiers in Iraq Say They Were Ordered to Kill All Adult Males

Editor & Publisher | July 21, 2006

EL PASO Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to "kill all military age males," according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

The soldiers first took some of the men into custody because they were using two women and a toddler as human shields. They shot three of the men after the women and child were safe and say the men attacked them.

"The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray," Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.

That target, an island on a canal in the northern Salahuddin province, was believed to be an al-Qaida training camp. The soldiers said officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come under fire from insurgents.

Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are charged with murder and other offenses in the shooting deaths of three of the men during the May 9 raid.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

In sworn statements obtained this week by the AP, Girouard, Hunsaker, Clagett, and a witness, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, told Army investigators they were ordered to attack an island in northern Salahuddin province on May 9 and kill anti-Iraqi fighters with ties to al-Qaida.

All four soldiers charged are members of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. They have been jailed in Kuwait since their June arrests. Their first hearing is Aug. 1 near Tikrit, Iraq.

Michael Waddington, Hunsaker's civilian lawyer, said his client followed orders and killed the detainees in self-defense after he and Clagett were attacked.

"They did (their job) honorably, they did it admirably," said Paul Bergrin, Clagett's civilian attorney. "If they did want to kill these men, they could have and been within the rules of engagement."

Officers from their unit initially cleared the soldiers of wrongdoing. Charges were filed when witnesses changed their testimony after repeated interviews with Army investigators, Bergrin said.

Reached by e-mail in Iraq, Girouard's Army lawyer, Capt. Theodore Miller, declined to comment because the investigation was continuing.

An Army prosecutor, also deployed to Iraq, did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Army spokesman Sheldon Smith asked that a request for comment be e-mailed to him in Virginia. He did not immediately respond.

Military officials have released few details of the case.

But statements from Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett describe a tense early morning scene, with soldiers immediately opening fire on buildings.

Girouard told investigators he expected he and his comrades would immediately be attacked when they landed on the island. Intelligence officials had warned that at least 20 al-Qaida operatives were hiding there.

But it was only once the men moved to the northern half of the island that they found anyone, Girouard said. He said he and others shot and killed a man they spied in a window in one building and then rushed into a house where they found three other men hiding behind two women.

A fifth man, holding a 2-year-old girl in front of him, later came out of another building, Girouard and Hunsaker told investigators.

Girouard said the four surviving men were not immediately killed because of the human shields. Once the women and child were moved to safety, he told investigators, the men did not appear to pose a threat and the soldiers took them into custody.

But Hunsaker said three of the men then attacked him and Clagett as the soldiers were trying to bind the men's hands with heavy-duty plastic ties.

"I had felt this action necessary for they had tried to use deadly force on me and my comrade," Hunsaker wrote about the shooting.

Hunsaker told investigators he was stabbed. Clagett said he was "struck on the face with a fist or something."

Lemus, who only saw the men fall to the ground, told investigators he thought the killings were justified.

"Proper escalation of force was used when the detainee became hostile and armed himself with a weapon and wounded one soldier and struck another," Lemus said. "Our actions ... were in accordance to the ROE (rule of engagement) briefed to us prior to our mission and moments before our air assault was conducted."

Girouard said he did not see the shooting either but was immediately told what happened.

"I think they are telling the truth," Girouard's statement said. "If it would have happened another way they would have told me and the story has been the same the whole time."

Clagett and Hunsaker also told investigators they found AK-47 assault rifles, ammunition and gun parts after the men were killed.

Bergrin said the weapons and other evidence not mentioned in the statements were proof that the Iraqi men were a threat.

Several other service members face similar charges in unrelated cases involving the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maximum penalty for murder is death, but it was unclear if the government will seek the death penalty in any of the pending cases.







Peace by pointing out perversion of pride on purpose...



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Watch "TerrorStorm" on Google Video!

P.P.S. Check this out too while you still can!

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.