| http://www.almartinraw.com/column55.html
And what would constitute standing in a case like this? The People of the United States would have to prove that they were harmed by these actions, that they were harmed as taxpayers, as investors, as savers, and as people in a society expecting an actual defense to be maintained to defend them. That wouldn't be hard. The argument is simple. There have been many citizen grand juries in the past, but most of them haven't amounted too much because they represent such a minority of the people. The reason why this would have a chance is that it would be the People of the United States in its truest form. It's in the law. People have the right to form a Citizens' Grand Jury, so that the plaintiff is no longer the government of the United States, but the People of the United States. This is also better than a class action suit or a RICO suit because it gets around the statutes of limitation. The problem with RICO is that to get around the statutes of limitation, you have to prove OCC (Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy). As any attorney will tell you, this is not an easy thing to prove. The People's Grand Jury is codified in law. It has been used numerous times, and it's as old as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The reason none have ever been successful is because there has never been a suit filed wherein you could say that the plaintiff is the entirety, or nearly the entirety of the nation. The Republican Party used to form these Citizens' Grand Jury suits against the Roosevelt Administration incessantly in the early 1930s to prevent him from coming in with the New Deal and the Raw Deal and so on. The problem was that the Republicans were still only about 40% of the population at the time, and they were looked at as a political animal. You have to keep away from that, since that's been the problem with these things before. You have to also make sure that it's not perceived as a bunch of people acting out of sour grapes. You would have to keep it bi-partisan, and you'd have to have big names involved. You would need to have figureheads from both sides of the aisle -- the Grand Old Men of the moderate wings of both parties. These would be men who are known to be politically moderate and who are respected. It would also be a unique idea to try a civil class action suit. In this case, you'd have a group of lawyers formed to represent the People of the United States, but it's probably not workable because you would have to send out a class action consent form to every person in the United States. As a practical matter, it would become unwieldy. The whole point of this is to show that now we have another Bush Regime that is hell-bent on doing the same thing, except the ruse is different. Instead of Iran-Contra, we are now pummeled with the "war on terrorism" scam, another endless black hole of government expenditures, with the ultimate guarantor of this fraud being the American citizens. Meanwhile there seems to be a significant shift in Bush Administration foreign policy. They are purposely antagonizing as many different nations as possible, particularly the Russians. It seems as though they are going out of their way to antagonize the Russians during the last several weeks. The latest problem was that the Bush Regime announced that they would begin Voice of America broadcasting into Chechnya - without telling the Russians first. The Russians were upset because it will be a lot of anti-Russian rhetoric. The week before, the decision was announced to lift the weapons ban against Azerbaijan - again without informing the Russians first. This means we will be allowing US arms dealers to sell Class One US armaments systems directly to Azerbaijan. This will effectively end the relationship of Azerbaijan being a weapons client of Russia. At some point, this would make Azerbaijan a potential threat to the Russian republic. As you can imagine, Putin was upset about that. The week before, the Bush Administration announced unilaterally that we have come to an agreement to place US troops in Uzbekistan and to upgrade our military links with Uzbekistan -- again without telling the Russians first. It seems that we have purposely gone out of our way to antagonize the Russians. Instead of supporting the Putin Regime as we had been doing, we are effectively beginning to undermine Putin and the moderates in the Duma, the Russian Parliament. What is re-emerging in the Duma is the hard right, or the hawks, in other words. The Putin regime wasn't that strong to begin with, and now, by this constant antagonizing of Russia, Bush is putting Putin in a very bad position. The hawks in the Duma are telling him that you're supposed to be an equal partner with the US. Why is it that you're not being told by the United States of its policy decisions in advance? Doesn't it clearly indicate that Russia is being stepped on and you, Putin, are being sidelined as a nobody? Is this being done on purpose to push Putin and the moderates out? After all we had helped Putin get into power, but now we seem to be reversing that policy. We will then be left with a substantially more hostile Russia. If Putin wants to survive politically, he will be forced to distance himself from the Bush Regime and from their new friends in Europe. In order to stay in office, Putin will have to increase the Russian troop presence in the Trans-Caucasus, to potentially defend their southern borders because Bush Administration has become so chummy with Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Bush is offering to put troops into Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. We have negotiated separately with them, which broke our agreement that we would include the Russians in any deals. What we are doing is militarizing the Russian Republic's Trans-Caucasus by becoming friendly to states, which are hostile to Russia to begin with, and we are placing US troops in those states and arming them with sophisticated weapons. We are purposely creating a threat to the Russian State. The fact that all these states are well-known oil producers comes into the mix. We are trying to potentially guarantee oil supplies. The Azerbaijani Pipeline deal has come back to the fore, but instead of a joint US-Russian project, we're now talking about us, the US taxpayers, funding these weak individual states to build it -- under US control. This would in turn destabilize the strategic situation between the Caucasus states and Russia. The US then has the rationale to put in US troops to defend what would effectively be strategic assets of the United States. Putin will be put in a position where if he backs off, that's the end of him politically and the far right takes over in Russia. Or he's going to have to do what he can militarily - to threaten the United States. That is apparently what the Bush Administration is trying to do. The United States has also recently changed a lot of its positions with China, and we have purposely antagonized Beijing. For example, the Bush Administration never cared about the issue of Tibetan independence. The Bush I regime never cared about it and Republicans in general don't care about that issue. It has only been the Democrats that tried to make an issue out of it. Now all of a sudden the Republicans are playing the "Great Humanitarian." They are beginning to increase pressure on China over the issue of Tibetan independence. Then they tell China they can't put more military forces into their far western regions to "quell rising Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism." Western China has the same problem with Islamic terrorism, but now we will tell the Chinese that they can't use their military within their own borders because the US is linking that to their human rights policy. Suddenly there's also the increase in pressure against China over the religious freedom issue. The Chinese responded to that by invading a few Protestant churches and overrunning them with Chinese troops. The ministers were even beat up. In addition to that, out of the blue, we suddenly announced that we were upgrading military ties to Taiwan. We will begin to sell Taiwan more sophisticated weapons systems than we had originally agreed. And all of these things have antagonized the Chinese, putting the Chinese moderates in Beijing once again in a difficult position because we're strengthening the hand of the Chinese Army (the hawks), which is the other big faction. The hawks have been saying all along that the Chinese should never have entered into negotiations with the United States because it's not in China's best long-term interests. From these actions, it can be determined that some group within the Bush Administration wants a more hostile world. What we're doing is creating a global situation (which the Bush Faction has always wanted) of hard and fast boundaries and borders -- military, psychological and commercial. We are creating the circumstances, wherein we are forcing others to build a new iron curtain. The Pakistani situation has also changed. Suddenly the Bush Administration stopped pressuring Pakistan on the nuclear weapons issue. Now we are offering to re-supply them, while we purposely downgraded our relationship with India. India then immediately responded by increasing its nuclear posture against Pakistan, which then forced the Chinese to increase their nuclear posture against India, which in turn forced Russia to increase its nuclear posture against Pakistan. The United States has been increasing hostilities worldwide. We have created a mess in the Middle East and the West Bank by essentially supporting agreements, which Arafat could not have possibly agreed to. We have threatened the Syrians outright about the 1967 border issue. The Lebanon situation is also becoming unraveled. We are creating tension and hostility everywhere. It has to be a deliberate policy to ratchet up international tension. And I have said this from the beginning - the "War on Terrorism" in itself may be a ruse for something larger. The Bush faction has consistently done this, even during the Reagan-Bush Regime, which as I've said before should be considered the Bush I Regime. One policy then becomes a ruse for a much larger policy. Could it be that this "War on Terrorism" is in fact a ruse to disguise a larger agenda? Simply put - it is to turn back the clock to a New Cold War. As Marlin Fitzwater used to say about the Cold War, " That's something we fat bald old Republicans understand." And it's true. It is something the old Republican Cabal understands- a world which is divided, a world divided by hostility. They understand this because then you just spend endless money on defense in a cold war posture. The old military industrial complex becomes a lot more solidified when there is an enemy. It's a whole new spin on the way of looking at things. Since September 11, we have followed a pattern of Bush lies. Just look at what Bush said on Sept 14, when he gave his first big speech on what was going to happen. He said we're going to go to Afghanistan and we're going to get Osama bin Laden and we're going to smash the al Qaeda. And that was it. Then suddenly that gets expanded to overthrowing the Taliban government, which no matter how you look at it, was a duly constituted government. So then we did that and installed a pro-western secular government at an enormous cost to the American taxpayers. Then we make preparations to get involved in Yemen and Somalia and Sudan. Then suddenly we get more deeply involved in Israeli- Palestinian negotiations. Then suddenly we're involved in the Philippines. We want to become involved in Colombia. We want to get involved in Indonesia. This was not what the American people were told up front. In the end, the Bush Administration may find out it's biting off more than it can chew. What is the rationale of threatening "terrorist" groups, particularly in Colombia for instance, or in the Philippines, which have never threatened the United States? They have never attacked the United States, and they have never attacked US assets abroad. Why do we suddenly encourage new enemies? Why are we going out and making new enemies? The first thing the Bush Administration said was we're going to go out and make new friends in this world. No, we're not. That was a lie. We're going to make new enemies as a precursor to increase global tension, which in turn is a precursor to turn back the clock to a world that we understand, a world where the old cabal works, a world where it is the waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, and malfeasance of yesterday that the Bushonian faction of the military-industrial complex understands. It is a world where things can remain hidden under "National Security." One of the principal reasons why they love a "Cold War" is that so much can be hidden under "National Security"-defense appropriations, the way the money is spent, the way it's accounted for. That can all remain secret. We are using a state of undeclared hostility, namely a "Cold War" to continuously expand the definition of that information which should be classified under "National Security." Now we understand that what was called "National Security" information is really political information about Cabalist activities and frauds and corruption schemes. It's really very simple. In order to hide behind the National Security Act, the United States must have an enemy. When he was three-quarters of the way through a quart of Old Bushmill’s Irish Whiskey at the Turnberry Club in North Miami Beach, former Iran-Contra notable Major General Richard V. Secord used to say, “Son, there’s no more heroes, and nobody makes any money without a bogeyman.” |
