Liberty Just in Case

A Dialogue for the September 12th World

Archive for June, 2005

Required Reading: Andrew McCarthy

Posted by Mark on June 30, 2005

The Democrats are outraged. The President of the United States referred to 9/11 last night in his speech! How dare he do that! And, he linked the battle in Iraq to the wider World War. And they used the famous line, now so ingrained that it falls from the Left’s tounge without concious thought: “There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, none whatsoever.” They are OFFENDED that he link anything to 9/11. Well, let’s see:

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam’s intelligence agency’s efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990’s?

Mohammed Atta’s unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission’s dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department’s allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam’s henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam’s hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi’s choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam’s Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There’s more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president’s reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren’t you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

I would add one more peice to this puzzle. Iraqi links to The Oklahoma Bombing. Jayna Davis chronicled compelling evidence to just such a connection. Before you roll your eyes, read the book. Then comment to your heart’s content.

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »

Stop The ACLU Blogburst – Selective Civil Rights

Posted by zaphriel on June 30, 2005

Originally Posted At “Stop The ACLU” by Jay777 on May 25th 2005

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”-Voltaire

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.

The ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctant to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union’s most devoted activist for abortion rights…..she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for “pro-choice” activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard.Twilight of Liberty

To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.

Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the exercise of First Amendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real fascists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had their rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty

Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60’s, and even today in the “pro-choice” demonstrators. Every movement has it’s fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.

Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.

The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU’s record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty

It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, “Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics.” The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissidents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women’s Center.

The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.

The police used “come-a-long” holds, or “pain compliance holds”, with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.

When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.

“Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?” commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can’t get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed to the side of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, “Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?” the Harvard Law professor replied, “Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, “Get us in right away, “thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union’s attitude: “Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit.” “In other words,” as John Leo puts it, “RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful.”Twilight of Liberty,

It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and fascists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says “sign up now”, and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there…you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!
A Warning To Liberals:

Freedom of speech is one of our greatest rights, there is a reason why it is the First Amendment, it is that important. The ACLU feigns being the fighter for everybody’s rights, but when it comes down to it, they only care about those peoples rights that match their communist agenda. Time and time again they have proven by their actions that they only care about those Americans that can advance their goals. They are not the fighters for freedom the pretend to be, if you disagree with their platforms of socialism and eventual communism, they will not defend you. Just because you may agree with them now, doesn’t mean they won’t turn on you too, when it no longer suits them to help you.

We are trying to raise money for full page ads and eventually commercials exposing the ACLU’s radical agenda.
Help us out! Buy a bumper sticker!

Click Below To See Our Store!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Required Reading: Andrew McCarthy

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

The Democrats are outraged. The President of the United States referred to 9/11 last night in his speech! How dare he do that! And, he linked the battle in Iraq to the wider World War. And they used the famous line, now so ingrained that it falls from the Left’s tounge without concious thought: “There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, none whatsoever.” They are OFFENDED that he link anything to 9/11. Well, let’s see:

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the �nothing whatsoever� crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir � the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam�s regime?

Saddam’s intelligence agency’s efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990’s?

Mohammed Atta’s unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which � notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission’s dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) � the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department’s allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam’s henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam’s hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990�s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam�s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden�s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam�s official press lionizing bin Laden as �an Arab and Islamic hero� following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke�s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke�s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and �[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad�? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi’s choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam’s Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet�s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There’s more. Stephen Hayes�s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers � if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there�s �nothing whatsoever� there � will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are �offended� at the president’s reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the �nothing whatsoever� crowd�s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren’t you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

I would add one more peice to this puzzle. Iraqi links to The Oklahoma Bombing. Jayna Davis chronicled compelling evidence to just such a connection. Before you roll your eyes, read the book. Then comment to your heart’s content.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Make a bad idea worse.

Posted by zaphriel on June 29, 2005


Oh yes, I am actually all for keeping it legal, or at least out of the U.S. Constitution. If you do it near me you may have a fight on your hands, but this is still one of those issues that has no place in the Constitution. The Constitution is too important to mess with for such drival. Truth be told, this issue and the Gay Marriage issue are beneath the sanctity of this document and have no good reason to be in it.
Oh I think I have covered this about as much as I am going to. If you want to hear more on Gitmo, go to Tran Sient’s Watch, he has allot to say on the issue.


Like I said this is beneath the level of the constitution, and trying to use this issue for political gain is too. Nuff said.

Last Point, I hold the U.S. Constitution in high regard, after all of the last 13 years or so I have sworn an oath to it (Being in the Armed Forces and all, You know the whole “I do solemnly swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”) and I take it very seriously. Consequently, I will always defend your rights, even if I don’t agree with your actions. So all you moonbats out there, please, go ahead and protest all you want. Just remember, there are ramifications to all you do, so be prepared for the consequences to your actions (It’s sort of a be careful what you wish situation.)

So I ask all of you, Don’t make a bad situation worse, tell your Senators that this is a bad idea. And for everyone’s sake, Treat the flag with respect, before your right to do otherwise is taken away.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

I’m Thinking the Tilt Will Be To The Extreme Left

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

Oh no!!! The Earth is tilting! Woe is me! Here’s my favorite part of the story:

The idea runs counter to a study earlier this year that found glaciers in part of Antarctica are melting rapidly.

“We used computer-generated simulations to get this research result,” Powell cautioned. “I hope that in the future we’ll be able to verify this result with real data through a long-term ice thickness measurement campaign.”

Yep. Real data would be nice. In fact, real data on any part of environmentalist claims would be a great thing, now wouldn’t it?

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »

A Prime Site for a New Hotel: David Souter’s Home

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

I’m okay with this. It’s a logical conclusion to the Supreme’s silly decision of last week.

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »

What Is Wrong With These People? Peggy Noonan

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

A profound question from Peggy Noonan, and one both left and right has been asking alot lately. She takes a poke at everybody in Washington, so there’s plenty for both sides to groan, and smile, about.

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »

I’m Thinking the Tilt Will Be To The Extreme Left

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

Oh no!!! The Earth is tilting! Woe is me! Here’s my favorite part of the story:

The idea runs counter to a study earlier this year that found glaciers in part of Antarctica are melting rapidly.

“We used computer-generated simulations to get this research result,” Powell cautioned. “I hope that in the future we’ll be able to verify this result with real data through a long-term ice thickness measurement campaign.”

Yep. Real data would be nice. In fact, real data on any part of environmentalist claims would be a great thing, now wouldn’t it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Prime Site for a New Hotel: David Souter’s Home

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

I’m okay with this. It’s a logical conclusion to the Supreme’s silly decision of last week.

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Health Update: Blogging at a Standstill for awhile

Posted by Mark on June 29, 2005

Still fighting a bronchitis, and now an eye infection, due to a lowered immune system. Will be back as soon as I can. Sigh
Update: 6/29/05

Thanks to everyone who left comments, or sent an email. I’m doing better, though still not completely over either the eye problems or the bronchitis. It continues to limit my ability to stare at a computer screen, or be up long enough to do any serious writing.

For those who don’t know, I’ve been battling severe breathing problems since being hospitalized last August. I am alot better, but still having bouts of severe bronchitis every month. The tracheal problems that seemed to be the root cause of my problems are much improved, thanks to a wonderful speech pathologist named Cathy. Thanks to her work, I’ve been Unfortunately, the coughing from the bronchitis really screws up my back. I had surgery on my back in February after shattering a disc after a bout of bronchitis turned in to pneumonia in January.

I don’t post stuff like the above very often. Unlike politicians, I’m quite sure the world, and this blog, does NOT revolve around me. But I’ve got so many new patrons to Liberty that I felt it important for folks to understand why the bar is closed sometimes. I hope you still come back for the Muir Cartoon, even on days when the “Gone Fishing” sign is on the door though.

Posted in War and Terror | Leave a Comment »