Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

September 12, 2001 - New York

The newly formed Commission on Civil Rights Crimes chaired by Senators Edward Kennedy (D -MA) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D- CA), after five weeks of hearings, issued a scathing report condemning President Bush and his administration for "gross abuse of power" and "trampling civil rights".

At a press conference held at the World Trade Center, members of the commission took turns in citing what they called unspeakable acts of racism on the part of the Bush Whitehouse. Former President Clinton also received words of severe reprimand in the wake of the scandal dubbed "Arab-gate".

The 1200 page report points to numerous cases of racial profiling, particularly in the area of air travel. Beginning in late 2000, former President Clinton, after a national security briefing, issued a memo calling for the FBI to begin carefully scrutinizing men of middle eastern decent, particulalr Muslim Arabs, to determine if they posed a terrorist threat to the United States. in January 2001 President Bush after conferring with Former President Clinton and members of the intelligence community. issued an order to the FAA to begin screening and conducting background checks on all Arabs seeking to board domestic of flights. Some thirty individuals were arrested and charged with plotting attacks on such flights and are currently facing trial.

The ACLU, on behalf of Mohammad Atta, one of the defendants, demanded an investigation into the methods used by the FBI, FAA, and and the actions of Presidents Clinton and Bush.

The report recommends impeachment of President Bush and his prosecution on civil rights crimes, as well as the prosecution of both Clinton and Bush in the illegal plotting of the assanination of a foreign national, one Saudi-born Arab named Ossama Bin Laden, who currently resides in Afghanistan.

A full copy of the report will be made available to the press some time tomorrow. Members of the Bush and former Clinton administrations have declined to comment.



Far fetched? Hardly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

amazing how what is effectively the same thing manages to get posted three times to one forum in about as many weeks.
here's one: http://www.asylumnation.com/asylum/...7&s=#post592637

Last edited by zim on 04-28-2004 at 03:22 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

Um...great minds think alike?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

What is this supposed to accomplish? Yeah, its a plausible idea of something that could have come about, but its is just as plausible, even arguably more so, that arrests could have been made legally and legitimately. Some of the terrorsists had overstayed visas and could have been expelled. There were/are standing orders permitting the assassination of OBL that are legal and non-controversial.

I'm not attacking you or defending any administration here. I just don't see the point of something like this, or of GFY's "what if we'd attacked on 9.10". Are the author's of such pieces suggesting that we shouldn't have tried to inderdict them?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

no, they're suggesting that the administration was damned if it did, damned if it didnt, so that excuses them for the obvious failure.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

A. I am the author of this particular piece.

B. I wrote it simply to point out what Zim suggests. And yes, there were clear failures, but everything is clear when looking back. The bottom line is to fix the problem rather than to afix the blame, because there is plenty of that to go around. Period.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged