"Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst." And his executioners wouldn't give him water either.

Amen. Terri Schiavo is certainly traveling the Via Dolorosa with Christ this passion week.

G.W. Bush has called her situation "complex," and I am reminded of Pilate's question, "quid est veritas?" What is truth? But the truth of this situation is not complex at all and refraining from intervening to save this poor woman for reasons of political cowardice place the brothers Bush would seem to place them in the role of Pilate in this Easter drama (despite their good intentions in the efforts they have made so far).

Pres. Bush could easily execute Congress's subpeona which called for Terri to testify before them by placing her under federal protection.

Gov. Bush (a co-religionist to Terri no less) could also intervene by having the Florida National Guard come to her aid; even Ann Coulter recognizes that his oath to uphold the constitution of his state demands that he intervene to stop this injustice.

Terri's feeding tubes were removed on March 18, the feast day of the Seven Dolors (sorrows) of Mother Mary, a coincidence indicating perfectly that Terri's mom is not alone in her mother's grief this week.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis

"Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

Send in the ATF. Clinton deported an innocent child to a communist country. The least we can do is put that superfluous federal unit to good use: saving an innocent woman's life. Get on the ball, Bush.

What you propose is simply nuts, Brian. There would go the rule of law. The law "fails" indiviudal people all the time. We can make it do better. But you don't sacrifice our constitutional republic all because we get (rightly) emotional about one person. There is a reason the Founder put in place our Federal system of government with its divided powers. The price of following your road would be many more lives in the future under some kleptocratic system. It's a worn-out cliche, but two wrongs do not make a right - esp. when in the big picture the second wrong is worse than the first.

What you propose is simply nuts, Brian. There would go the rule of law. The law "fails" indiviudal people all the time. We can make it do better. But you don't sacrifice our constitutional republic all because we get (rightly) emotional about one person. There is a reason the Founder put in place our Federal system of government with its divided powers. The price of following your road would be many more lives in the future under some kleptocratic system. It's a worn-out cliche, but two wrongs do not make a right - esp. when in the big picture the second wrong is worse than the first.

"Send in the ATF," Ali? Haven't we had enough Waco's?

Eric,

Interpretation of the Constitution is not the sole province of the judiciary. The President and the Congress have a duty to interpret and uphold the law.

Your appeal to federalism is misplaced as well. For better or worse, the 14th amendment makes the lives of individual citizens a federal concern.

Eric,

I'm mostly with you. But Coulter points out a couple cases where the Dems did it. If the republic is still standing, does that mean that repubs always have to take their losses and the dems don't?

So if we ever see something very close to judge-rule, does that mean that in order to maintain a nation of laws we have to accept whatever somebody passes our way through a "civil" process?

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating anything but a discussion of alternatives.

"But you don't sacrifice our constitutional republic all because we get (rightly) emotional about one person."

Exactly. That is how each decision has been made. It has been decided based on the laws of our land. This is a terrible situation and one worth noting is very much partisan politics at its worst. This is a wedge issue... They have exploited the life of someone who is suffering dearly. The courts have made these decisions because exceptions cannot be made in the face of a few unless we make rules for the many. The law must be respected and observed.

The polls have shown time and time again that this is pandering to small ideological base in the face of public scrutiny. At best... I hear some gentleman last night on MSNBC arguing for her life he makes a good argument YET then he says the Dems are against good policy. When did partisan politics and wedge issues become "good policy"?

"Your appeal to federalism is misplaced as well. For better or worse, the 14th amendment makes the lives of individual citizens a federal concern"

If so, then why did the Supreme Court deny them?

I heard an interview with Terri Shaivo's sister via radio yesterday, and was shocked to discover that this "vegetable" is not as dead as her adulturous husband purports.

Terri indeed responds and is aware when people come into her room. She seemingly can make facial expressions, her eyes also brighten when seeing her family, and you can tell when she is happy or sad. Being in a light and fresh oxygen deprived room for years would be enough for me to slip into a very depressing state, I can only imagine what it has done to her condition.

But although she can't verbally respond, it has to be known that she's fighting inside, trying to give anyone she interacts with, the slightest indication that she's still mentally competant, that she wants to live! If she were to undergo rehabilitation, or her environment would change, I believe her condition would improve!

I also am reminded of the nurse who has an affidavit saying that she spoon fed Terri Jello, and that Terri has the ability to swallow. There also are other nurses who are known to have manually fed Terri as well.

If we let this woman die, we are essentially saying that life, regardless of what stage it is in, is not worth saving if "we the people" feel it is not of "good quality."

Now there is another case where a blind, mentally retarded baby with only one arm and one leg, is being kept alive by a feeding tube. The parents want to end the life of this six month old child, because they don't want the baby to live like this.

What ever happened to the belief that God creates all his children for a purpose? Whatever happened to the belief in miracles? Why is it that we as humans can play God? We have sadly forgotten that we are on earth to glorify Him, and not ourselves. If God placed Terri in this awful situation, He did it for a reason. Perhaps our country is going through this controversy because God wants us to see the dignity, humanity, and self worth of every individual He creates, regardless of their "quality of life."

Now, on the day that Christ was betrayed, we have forgotten the purpose of our humanity. We have betrayed ourselves.

I'm struggling to determine which is worse: a d reading of the 14th Amendment that you could drive a Mack truck through and that could give the national government jurisdiciton over practically anything related to "life, liberty, and property" (what doesn't fall under those categories?), or the fact that Congress passed a law that is applicable to ONE person in ONE circumstance. Talk about turning the whole purpose and concept of the rule of law on its head. Why would we invite such tyranny though such arbitrary capriciousness?

And I say all this as one who thinks that what Florida is doing to Terry is an absolute crime, that her husband is a despicable scum bag who has forfeited his legal rights to determining his wife's future, and who is dreadfully worried that the precedent set in calling food and water extreme medicine on par with an articificial respirator or invasive surgery opens the door to a hell-hole of Dutch-style euthanasia.

Spitfly: "They have exploited the life of someone who is suffering dearly."

Excuse me, but doesn't it take "someone" for "someone" to suffer. If what is left of her is all nerve reflex, isn't there nobody there to register the jangling of nerves? Why is it that a syndrome that is like pain enough to "mercifully" end her life, but a syndrom that is like reaction is not enough to save it?

If she is suffering, the man who has refused her, time and time, again therapy is mainly at fault. That is none other than her loving guardian. If she can suffer now, then how was she feeling when Michael was letting an infection grow inside her? (Before he ever petitioned to end her life, btw)

On the politics, are you talking about that ridiculous "memo"? It's organized like a talking points memo, but it's on nobody's letterhead, so it would seem that nobody wants to be associated with it. Which means that people would scarcely talk about all the points on the memo. (With that and the Dan Rather memo, I'm seriously doubting how many critical readers liberals have left.)

As Taranto recently pointed out, it doesn't appear that even the dems believe that poll. Otherwise, they could grandstand against the repubs--which they have avoided doing.

Amen Doyle. Very well put..

You're right it doesn't take "someone" for "someone" to suffer yet you twist my words. I said, "They have exploited the life of someone who is suferring dearly." They(Republicans) believe undermining a states-right is good policy for the sake of one person. Wouldn't this undermine the ideals of federalism and separation of powers? This is an exception they're making at the moment.. not a rule. I feel badly for her life and wish that a long time ago Michael Schiavo had giving up legal guardianship to the parents yet the law is the law and the courts have rendered their decision.

On politics, I am not talking about A memo at all. In fact, I don't even consider it SO we cannot go there. The fact of the matter is that those who support her right-to-life are those who are Christians or Evangelicals who support the Republican Party. Last night, A fellow from some right-wing think tank said that yes this is partisan politics and that this is good policy. I believe its good policy to err on the side of life BUT partisan politics is NEVER good policy. I am torn by this just like MANY others. This is a decision between legal rights and moral rights.

I'm no expert on Mack trucks, but you left out the "due process" clause. Aa a Unionist, I am pretty comfortable with the Feds making sure my life, liberty and property are not taken from me without the due process of law.

Terri Schiavo has not received due process by the federal courts. They have refused to review the case. That is a denial of due process.

As for Congress passing a bill of attainder, I'll have to defer to the more legally minded readers of FlynnFiles. I did not read the language of the bill, so I don't have an opinion.

"We have sadly forgotten that we are on earth to glorify Him, and not ourselves."

But Chris, as a separation issue, you should know that we can make no such civil definition.

Regardless of that, I have thought about the blacker aspect. The spirit of secularism in public law would enshrine the likes of Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins and anti-teleology over those who have an idea of designed creation. Dennett himself says that there is no scientific basis of freedom. Our actions are the dominos of physics and our perceptions that we are free are simple justifications (a parallel domino stream, unless one can choose to justify). Thus, everything that we as a material individual do is just nerve reaction.

Terri is not there because we cannot prove that what is going on is more than simple nerve reaction. However, on a totally material basis, we cannot prove that what we do is more than nerve reaction. Terri's pattern just does not sufficiently fit our pattern, and so Terri can be pronounced not like us and fit to die.

How far do we want to go into the "cannot prove otherwise" materialistic swamp? I think it is telling that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all influenced by "Material Dialecticism" which is what Marx called his philosophy. Until the 20th century, the progressives were all about ready to call "evil" a superstition. Now, they think they are the only ones who can spot it.

After the Overman knocks the acrobat to the ground and he lays there on the ground crumpled in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra councils the dying man to be glad because there is no hell, he has been surpassed by the Overman, who is "earth-centered" and lives his life by ever descending to earth, which I would like to reduction.

So, yeah, let's redefine life, not as potential, but by syndrome and pattern. (In case anybody want to take me to task for "trashing Nietzsche", I think Nietzsche is brilliant; I agree with Hiedegger that Nietzsche is 20th century thought. I have read a lot of his work, but unfortunately he is also great, as he defines Greatness.)

Spitfly: "As for Congress passing a bill of attainder"

Dictionary.com says: "A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder."

In fear of seeming like a Taranto-head: He said something amusing in this regard. "It also bears a striking resemblance to a ham sandwich, just without the bread and ham".

"Send in the ATF," Ali? Haven't we had enough Waco's?
Posted by Eric Langborgh at March 24, 2005 09:06 AM

There hasn't been enough justice.

"Moral duties have no terms." -Robert F. Kennedy

Yay Chris! We are of one mind on this one. Great post.

At the risk of making 3 posts in a row, I have to quote Ann Coulter on "federalism": "I note that whenever liberals talk about 'federalism' or 'states' rights,' they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by 'federalism' is: a state court ruling. Just as 'choice' refers to only one choice, 'the rule of law' refers only to 'the law as determined by a court.'"

As I said, the libs put the judges there to do just what they are doing. They do not want to give the repubs the same power over the "last word", thus they filibuster every judicial appointment. (How "bipartisan" is it to suggest that every justice that a republicans like is "substandard" anyway?) This is a process that cannot go on forever and have a government that equally represents all interests. It's going to get dirty at some point. Either that or we'll have accepted oligarchy just to maintain our clean record on the "rule of law".

It's funny, the federalist papers went so far as even to suggest that congress might need to keep a permanent court of impeachment for appellate court judges. I really can't think that they were talking about a permanent stream of bribed judges.

Eric,

I think you are misunderstanding how the rule of law is jeopardized here.

First, I am not advocating civil disobedience by suggesting the executive branches of the nation or state intervene in this case. Conservatives are rightly trepidatious about claims of "civil disobedience." I am not advocating vigilantism by the Schindler's or anyone else.

Second, advocating that the executive branch of our tri-partite constitutional republic (either of the U.S. as a whole or the state of Florida) exercise the proper police authority invested in them does not undermine the rule of law, it rectifies the rule of law, it guarantees it from the abuse of a judge who is violating justice under the cover of an unjust law.

Possibly you and I differ in our philosophies of law, I am not a strict positivist nor do I think that judgments must be made for the universal rather than the individual. Equity (a key aspect of justice) demands of anyone in a position to judge that justice must always be sought primarily in the specific individual case before them. Contemporary legal theory denies this, instead defining the "rule of law" in a positivist manner which is concerned more for precedent than for deciding the particular case in front of the court justly. An example of a bad result of this theory are the manifestly unjust (and pushed by Republicans) mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Therefore what you are advocating is that even an unjust law must be executed in order to maintain the "rule of law." What I am ascribing to is the view that all positive law must conform to natural law which conforms to divine positive law. Therefore, if a judgment in a particular case, like Greer's, ostensibly accords with Florida law, then that Florida law which allows for the murder of a disabled woman is an unjust positive law, by violating natural law, and as such is NO law at all. To defer to it actually undermines the rule of law by placing the authority of positive law before that of natural.

However, all of this explanation is besides the point in that as I said above I am not advocating civil disobedience by private citizens as a response to a manifestly unjust law (although no individual nurse, doctor, etc., should have carried out the execution order of removing her feeding tube).

Even if Judge Greer and the various courts can hide themselves by cover of Florida's laws, the other 2 branches of government (in the state and nationally) still do have the authority, if they should choose to exercise it, to do what I councilled above in accordance with the rule of law, both positive (given the jealousy in upholding the constitution built into a divided government) and natural.

Unholy week? More like unholy decade. check out http://www.wtc7.net/

The Democrats are attempting to use the Schaivo case for political gain. First they have their media surrogates not present all of the facts. Had all of the facts been presented the polls that show most Americans want the feeding tube disconnected would show something different. Then the media goes out and blames "evangelicals" or the "religous right" for policies of the house, senate, and the administration. The notion that the Bush administration, Senators, or Representatives would pander to evangelicals or the relgious right just is not true. The religous right is the most politically insignificant group in the entire USA. One would not pander to a group that has no influence, however, when the main-stream media mentions "evangelicals" or the "religous right" it gets the base of the Democratic party worked into a frenzy. Attacking the religous right costs nothing and it results in political gain for the Democrats. It is the Democrats and not the Republicans who are trying to use this for politcal gain. If George W Bush or Jeb Bush had real courage they would send in the national guard to save this woman's life.

One more thing. During the last election cycle most of George W. Bush's campaign time was spent with the likes of John Mcain, the governor of California, and the former mayor New York City and not the likes of Pat Robertson, James Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell. This is because one does not waste time pandering to an insignificant group that holds virtually zero influence. A powerful "religous right" only exists only in the fervent imaginations of the main-stream media and other leftists.

A correction: Where I typed James Robertson that should be James Dobson.

Brian,

I am not arguing for an unjust law at all. I am saying that this side of Glory all institutions are imperfect. Bad decisions are made sometimes, even when the law is just. Florida's laws are just. Every level and avenue of appeal, whether judicial or legislative, federal or state, has determined that Terry did indeed receive due process at the appropriate level.

What I am arguing is that the intitial ruling to starve her was made in error, but that it was made through appropriate channels. What was inappropriate and what was in fact unjust was for the US Congress to step in and make a law that applies only to one person in one circumstance, and that also usurps the state's proper jurisdiction.

The nature of the case is eminently local. It is not an issue that can be decided by remote bodies, whether they be in robes or houses of lawmakers. The local judge certainly erred by equating the provision of sustenance with unnaturally prolonging life. But as the appointed finder of fact, it was HIS ruling to make. The proper appeals were made through higher state courts. Tragically, they failed.

Perhaps Jeb Bush should, forcefully intervene, as Bill Bennett persuasively argues at NRO today, and risk facing the music later. As Bennett argues, constitutional amends are in place should it be later determined that Jeb was then in the wrong. But both the rule of law and our concept of federalism were irreparably warped when the United States Congress chose to interfere. Yes, it isn't the first such infraction. But it was one perpetrated by federalism's supposed friends. If successful, it would have spelled our system's deathknell.

I grieve that Terry will soon succumb to her forced starvation. But I can't help but be relieved that the federal appeals courts effectively ruled Congress's unjust law unconstitutional. Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court essentially did the same by refusing to hear the case.

Eric: Have you read the legislation? It's only a few paragraphs. Out of confusion, I read it this morning. It doesn't seem to be an infringement on federalism because it just extends to Schiavo and her parents the right to appeal to a federal court to guarantee Schiavo's constitutional rights. It doesn't give her any new rights, and it doesn't undo Florida law or the Florida court decisions. It just says: federal courts shall review the case to guarantee that federal constitutional rights have been honored.

Congress may have intended more than what the law actually says. Neverthless, the law itself isn't a violation of federalism. Ironically, that's probably why it was unsuccessful at saving her life.

I don't think federalism has many friends. To many nannys and not enough MEN.

Eric,

Terri Schiavo has a federal right to life under the 14th amendment. Any case concerning that right must be tried in a federal court. Therefore, the federal courts have denied her due process by refusing to try her case, and thereby violated her constitutional right to life.

The Congress, as a defender of the Constitution, had every ground to act on her behalf.

Eric,

Thanks for the response it was very helpful in getting into more specific detail about where our opinions differ.

My original comments you objected to as vitiating the rule of law were proposed actions that either of the Bushes could take. The only reference to Congress I made was in Pres. Bush possibly executing a Congressional subpoena, which I am now (after further reading) not sure was ever issued but only discussed. Therefore, Pres. Bush doesn't have the option of executing a subpoena. This does not, however, speak to my entreaty to Gov. Bush (just as that Bennett piece speaks on).

So what has bothered you is only the actions taken by Congress which I didn't address directly. Short indicates that Congress really did nothing unconstitutional, or at least, nothing that would somehow have revolutionary impact as you fear. Be that as it may, I am curious about why you are opposed to legislation that "applies only to one person in one circumstance" so vociferously. I am pleading ignorance here, why does that undermine the rule of law?

As for your states' rights concern my call for intervention by Gov. Bush avoids that problem anyway. Are you only opposed to a federal attempt to save her life (no matter how that was done) or do the other 2 branches of Florida's government have no means to intervene as well? In fact, Bennett's comparison of possible action taken by Gov. Bush to the civil disobedience of MLK is too strong since MLK was a private citizen not sworn by oath of office to uphold the laws and constitution of his state as he saw fit. It isn't civil disobedience, nor does it "spell our systems deathknell" when one branch of a divided state government (in this case 2 out of 3 branches) refuses to acquiesce to the claims of a third branch. That is our system (in its inherent "ugliness" caused by division of powers, and co-equality of branches in subjection to the sovereignty of the peoples of the states) simply working.

Lastly, I may have been unnecessarily misleading in pointing out that natural law is ordered to divine positive law. It is not necessary to trace the law back to God for the purposes of civil governance here (at least argumentatively). Natural law, known by reason, is perfectly good enough.

I mention this since you rightly point out that "this side of Glory all institutions are imperfect." Maybe I am not understanding the consequences of what I am arguing fully but I don't think I am bemoaning the fact of imperfection of institutions, rather, I am proposing a specific remedy of the failure in justice of one institution that can legally be taken by another rival institution equally responsible for maintaining the integrity of the rule of law in Florida.

Are we speaking around each other's concerns here?

Sea King,

I look at this situation the same as Abortion. Terri is not terminally ill, but brain damaged. She is capable of living just as an unborn baby is, with the help of nutrition and hydration.

She is also capable of being manually fed, but cannot under the orders of her adulturous husband who wants her to die.

With rehabilitation and research, her condition would probably improve.

Our tyrannical courts would rather err on the side of death, then err on the side of life. Isn't there something wrong with this mentality? In a court of law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of any crime, including murder, which would sentence them to death.

Who has proven that Terri can't live, or her conditon can't get better? Doctor's opinions? I'd like to see Terri put in a different environment with better care and rehabilitation.

It shocks me to think that liberals would give murderers on death row appeals and have so much compassion for them, but won't intervene for a woman who is innocent of any wrong doing!

I am so enraged and saddened by our country's eroding moral values. I am shocked at the Supreme Court. I'm disgusted at our whole system of law. Federal, State, local jurisdiction you say? WHO CARES! This woman is going to die, and we're fighting about federalism! What's wrong with us?

I would like to ask every single judge on the Supreme Court and say, "What if this was your daughter or wife?"

Their indifference to suffering is equivalent to the indifference of the holocaust. Innocent people were dying, and we debated instead of taking action.

I pray that if anyone of these bright minds reading this are ever in a position of power to save a human being's life, one of God's creations, that you will do it.

Sea King,

I look at this situation the same as Abortion. Terri is not terminally ill, but brain damaged. She is capable of living just as an unborn baby is, with the help of nutrition and hydration.

She is also capable of being manually fed, but cannot under the orders of her adulturous husband who wants her to die.

With rehabilitation and research, her condition would probably improve.

Our tyrannical courts would rather err on the side of death, then err on the side of life. Isn't there something wrong with this mentality? In a court of law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of any crime, including murder, which would sentence them to death.

Who has proven that Terri can't live, or her conditon can't get better? Doctor's opinions? I'd like to see Terri put in a different environment with better care and rehabilitation.

It shocks me to think that liberals would give murderers on death row appeals and have so much compassion for them, but won't intervene for a woman who is innocent of any wrong doing!

I am so enraged and saddened by our country's eroding moral values. I am shocked at the Supreme Court. I'm disgusted at our whole system of law. Federal, State, local jurisdiction you say? WHO CARES! This woman is going to die, and we're fighting about federalism! What's wrong with us?

I would like to ask every single judge on the Supreme Court and say, "What if this was your daughter or wife?"

Their indifference to suffering is equivalent to the indifference of the holocaust. Innocent people were dying, and we debated instead of taking action.

I pray that if anyone of these bright minds reading this are ever in a position of power to save a human being's life, one of God's creations, that you will do it.

Eric: "Every level and avenue of appeal, whether judicial or legislative, federal or state, has determined that Terry did indeed receive due process at the appropriate level."

The state and federal judiciary have held that Terri has received due process. The Florida legislature and governor, the Congress and the President have all engaged on actions counter to the judiciary. I doubt that the actions would have been taken if they felt that due process was rendered sufficiently.

Brad, Brad, Brad. "Terri Schiavo has a federal right to life under the 14th amendment. Any case concerning that right must be tried in a federal court."

Oh my. Not quite. Do you want to apply that rule to capital punishment?! All capital cases must be tried federally? No sir.

No one has a "right to life" under the 14th. (Unless you want to invent a brand new "substantial due process" right which would completely remake all laws about end of life issues.) Rather, read it again: we have a right not to be deprived of life *without due process of law*.

Dan,

Can you take off one of those posts, as well as this one when you see it. I couldn't post due to your note about people abusing the site, and then both appeared when I attempted to post it again.

Thanks

Were I one of Terri's siblings I would have killed Michael, sacrificing my liberty and possibly life to save hers after all legal means had been exhausted. I would have pleaded guilty and accepted my fate.

"Oh my. Not quite. Do you want to apply that rule to capital punishment?! All capital cases must be tried federally? No sir.

No one has a "right to life" under the 14th. (Unless you want to invent a brand new "substantial due process" right which would completely remake all laws about end of life issues.) Rather, read it again: we have a right not to be deprived of life *without due process of law*.
Posted by short at March 24, 2005 04:10 PM"

Those on death row in certain states do get federal judicial review. California is one such state. We should afford a precious, innocent woman those very same rights. In fact, current law DEMANDS that the federal judiciary review the trial de novo. The judiciary, as it is wont to do, has once again legislated from the bench.

CJD,
Nobody knows absolutely Mrs. Schiavo's level of brain function. She may comprehend far more than we suspect, but she may comprehend nothing. All we have is supposition by doctors, parents, and husband. The lack of knowing means we have to rely on best guesses and good faith. The husband is exercising his right under law. Due process has occurred. Asserting that the husband is evil is just silly. You don't know. There is nothing that demonstrates that he is doing anything other than carrying out what he believes his wife wanted. He may be doing just that. He has resisted powerful monetary inducement in maintaining his present course.

That said, were I Mr. Schiavo, I believe I would feed my wife. As I said, her function is unknowable as she cannot communicate now. I would act as though she had understanding. I might be wrong, but if I am going to risk an error it will be on the side of life. Mr. Schiavo may be a complete scoundrel, but that too is unknowable. This is a life and death tragic situation, and it is easy to get caught up in the potential grave injustice. To be in favor of life does not necessitate villainizing Terri's husband.

That this woman is dying is simply INSANE. Where is the documented EVIDENCE? Where is her LIVING WILL? Where do we have anything beside her questionable husband's word to indicate she desired death in this situation!?!

Ali, perhaps you should read Brad's comment again, because you are agreeing with me, I think. Brad claims that "Any case concerning that right [to life given in the 14th amendment] must be tried in a federal court."

Thus your comment about federal review in capital cases is irrelevant. Not all capital crimes are *tried* federally; they are reviewed federally *for due process*. Giving people like Terri Schiavo this same right of due process review would thus be constitutional; federally trying all cases like hers would not be.

Her neo-prefrontal cortex (conscious centers of the brain)are nonfunctional. Her brainstem (autonomal functions) are the only working machinery in her being. From "her" perspective, it doesn't matter what happens to her because she doesn't even know that she exists. One could point a loaded gun at her wide-eyed face and it wouldn't phase her.
In regards to the politics involved??...Its all political theatre, on both ends of the spectrum.

The media is in a feeding frenzy over this and it is most unfortunate. How about getting some "non-packaged" and true news reports of what the hell is going on in the Middle East right now, where thousands lose there lives on a weekly basis? Does anybody else agree?

"Thus your comment about federal review in capital cases is irrelevant. Not all capital crimes are *tried* federally; they are reviewed federally *for due process*. Giving people like Terri Schiavo this same right of due process review would thus be constitutional; federally trying all cases like hers would not be.
Posted by short at March 24, 2005 05:12 PM"

The judiciary does not get to decide that anymore, unless they strike down the law as unconstitutional. The law REQUIRES the federal judiciary to review the trial de novo.

Ali: The new law requires the judiciary to look at the case anew to determine whether any constitutional rights have been violated; it does not, as far as I can tell, require them to try the case anew. Reviewing, not retrying, in required in order to determine the violation of rights. Exact parallel: when federal judges review capital convictions they don't redetermine guilt or innocence; they review the process to determine whether any constitutional rights have been violated. So if we just distinguish "review" from "retry" our problem is solved.

"The media is in a feeding frenzy over this and it is most unfortunate. How about getting some "non-packaged" and true news reports of what the hell is going on in the Middle East right now, where thousands lose there lives on a weekly basis? Does anybody else agree?"
-Joe Dirt

Protesters stormed the presidential palace in Kyrgyzstan, overthrowing it's tyrannical government. the "president" fled earlier today.

Thats the last thing of interest I have heard from the middle east.

[Ali: The new law requires the judiciary to look at the case anew to determine whether any constitutional rights have been violated; it does not, as far as I can tell, require them to try the case anew. Reviewing, not retrying, in required in order to determine the violation of rights. Exact parallel: when federal judges review capital convictions they don't redetermine guilt or innocence; they review the process to determine whether any constitutional rights have been violated. So if we just distinguish "review" from "retry" our problem is solved.
Posted by short at March 24, 2005 07:23 PM ]

I believe the wording of the legislation requires the judiciary to try the case de novo. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said so during a press conference. I'll try and post a link of the actual legislation.

Ben-T... I understand you are a young man and haven't had too much exposure out there on the planet; but I was just wondering what do you value in life?

I read the law today. The court shall investigate "the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution." Here is the 'de novo' quote: "the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo..."

The law just orders the court to determine if any of her constitutional rights have been violated.

Now, honest, if a law said that about a convincted murderer, would it require a retrial? No. Numerous Congressmen have said that this extends to TS merely the rights that convicted killers have.

I have just heard that the Vatican has referred to the US courts as "executioners." I must say they are right on here. I couldn't have said this better myself. Of course do they really mean it? They may simply be playing politics here. After all, for any foreign entity to criticize anything American will generally result in huge political gain for the entity in question and will cost them nothing.

"Nobody knows absolutely Mrs. Schiavo's level of brain function. She may comprehend far more than we suspect, but she may comprehend nothing. All we have is supposition by doctors, parents, and husband. The lack of knowing means we have to rely on best guesses and good faith. The husband is exercising his right under law. Due process has occurred. Asserting that the husband is evil is just silly. You don't know. There is nothing that demonstrates that he is doing anything other than carrying out what he believes his wife wanted. He may be doing just that. He has resisted powerful monetary inducement in maintaining his present course."

Webster,

Let me give you some oral evidence to chew on:

1) A nurse who who cared for Terri has an affidavit that says that following:

a)She spoon fed Terri JELLO, water, and other juice like fluids. It was noticeably apparent that Terri enjoyed this from her facial expressions.
b)During Terri's menstral cycle, there were audible groans that came from her mouth, expressing pain from the cramps. The doctors and nurses, realizing this, gave her medication to ease the pain.
3)In one such examination, a doctor experimented Terri's senses by inflicting a probe like wooden object with sharp ends into Terri's abdominal area. Terri groaned with pain. After doing this to one side, the doctor ordered Terri to be put on her other side, so he could test the sensation on the following side. Before being turned over, Terri again groaned, knowing that more pain was on its way. Not only was Terri mentally competent enough to sense pain, but she also was smart enough to realize that more pain was on its way, and groaned in the hope that the doctor wouldn't inflict more discomfort.
4)Nurses caring for Terri noticed an extreme agitation in Terri's demeanor after her adulturous husband would leave her room during visits; while when members of her family would visit, Terri's demeanor would be happy, calm, and peaceful.

Webster, you assume wrongly. You should assume that Terri wants to live, instead of relying on her husband who has had two children out of wedlock, and left his wife to rot in a hospice, his wife WHOM HE VOWED TO LOVE AND CHERISH, THROUGH SICKNESS AND HEALTH!

It is also very, very suspicious that Michael wants Terri to immediately be creamated after she starves to death (God willing, that won't happen). There is much speculation that Michael abused Terri, but it is impossible to tell since Michale has authority over her body. If you also factor Michael's mental abuse to his rotting wife, his insensitivity to bring in his girlfriend in front of her. Her condition now seems miraculously better than one would expect.

Terri Shaivo is not a vegetable. She has clear mental stimuli and can sense and feel emotion. There are eye witness testimonies to this. I suggest you do your homework before you comment on someone's mental capacity.

Who in the hell cares what the Vatican thinks. Talk about corruption, indoctrinationa nd secrecy! Jesus Christ Mary and Joseph

Well we now know what you value Joe Dirt and hence your moniker as well.

Rob, the Vatican has been saying as much on this case for a while now but has stepped up the entreaties in the past couple of days.

As for the politics of it as a "foreign entity," I doubt that criticizing the U.S. about this case is going to secure any low-interest IMF or World Bank loans for the less than one thousand priests and nuns who make up the citizenry of Vatican City. If you want to spin it in a way that treats the Vatican as "political," rather than speaking moral truths to the world as part of being vocal Christian leaders, then it would be better to look at their protest as motivated by the fact that Terri is a Catholic. So it is much as if the U.S. government spoke out about the treatment of an American abroad.

Christopher

Very well said. I must say you are far more articulate than I am. Suffice it to say the American people who rely on the main stream news media to get the news simply have not been given all the facts of the case. If Americans were aware of the additional facts, I am confident that the polls would say something entirely different.

Joe Dirt

Allot of people care about what the Vatican thinks. The Catholic Church is not perfect but it is one of the most important forces for good on this planet. The United States is the greatest force for good on this planet. The Catholic Church is very near the top.

Brian

I think you are correct that the Vatican has spoken consistently on the side of saving Terri's life. To refer to the American courts as "executioners" is very strong language!! If in fact, the Vatican rally said this. To refer to the Vatican as an overtly political entity may not be correct. Perhaps I got ahead of myself here. While anti-American stances will not help them get IMF loans and such, my point is as follows. The Catholic Church has churches in many countries throughout much of the world, including the middle east. The Catholic Church even has churches in Iraq. To criticize third world leaders, in countries where the the Chruch is located, runs the risk of making trouble for the church and its members. Making pro-American statements can also make trouble for the Church in the countries where we are not liked. Generally an anti-American stance will cost you nothing and may even score points with third world tyrants. On this note, this may explain why the Pope was highly critical of American actions in the run up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" but very little was said concerning Saddam Huessien. To criticize Saddam could have made trouble for the church in Iraq but to criticize GW Bush will cost nothing. Regrettably the forces of good do not always stand together, as they should.

When I wrote to Joe Dirt that the Catholic Church is one of the greatest forces for good on Earth, I meant it. The Catholic Church is not perfect. No entity or country is perfect. For the record, I really do believe the Vatican really and truly cares about Terri's life and really does want to save it.

Best Wishes
Rob

If you think the U.S. is the greatest force of good than I present a Shakespearian quote for ya. "There is no good, and no bad; but thinking makes it so". So if you think global Imperialism and warmongering is good, more power to ya.

"The GOP wins because we didn't f***ing fight back. Now? We fight. And if you don't want to fight to win, we're gonna make you sit the f*** down and shut the f*** up. We won't be asking, either. This isn't the hippie left of peace and love. This is a left with money and balls and we're gonna fight.
T. Paine | Email | Homepage | 03.25.05 - 1:27 am | # "

This is a copy of a post on a liberal blog in reference to the Terri Schiavo case. This is the type of mentality that we're dealing with here. Pure, unadulterated, hatred and rage.

The simple fact is Schiavo won a malpractice suit and gained full custody vowing to the jury that he would spend the rest of his life and the settlement caring after Terri Schiavo. Then within the year, he put a "Do Not Resuscitate" order on her.

He also let an infection fester, although Greer writes that it was an honest mistake because he was following bad medical advice. I don't know. What doctor says "Yeah, but you want that!" about an infection. This part is rumor: but a nurse said that Schiavo's face lit up when they told him about the infection. And he refused to do anything on the spot.

The suit, the DNR order and the infection are all pretty well established.

CJD,
All I assume is that her brain function is unknowable. Your petulant editorial about doing homework before commenting is overheated and misplaced. I have heard your evidence (homework) before. Your evidence is a lot of he said she said. To be worthy, evidence must be presented and tested in a court of law with expert witnesses. I imagine that neurologists exist who would give your evidence a very different reading.

I did not assert that Mr. Schiavo is a good man. I don't know him, and neither do you. His wife has been gravely disabled at a minimum, and he may be carrying out her wishes. You do not know that this is not true. Shame on him for having children out of wedlock and breaking his marital vows. This does create doubt in his suitability as a guardian, but apparently the judge is unmoved. Perhaps his determination to stop feeding predated his relationship with the other woman. Who knows?

Joe Dirt

You accuse the United States of imperialism and warmongering. You must have memorized the talking points of the leftists here. This is nothing new. It simply does not stand up to any test of scrutiny. The United States is in a war for survival against very powerful enemies. The enemies of the United States are the ones who are the warmongering imperialists. It is the stated goals of the Islamic Extremists to "slay all the unbelivers wherever you find them" and to "raise the flag of Islam throughout the universe." It really is in the best interest of freedom loving people all over the world to stand with America in this fight. Its really to bad that more people don't understand this. Right now the United States and its allies are the only things standing in the way of a world being dominated by some sort of Islamic extremists/Marxists alliance. Understand I did not say the United States is perfect but the United States is the greatest force for good on this planet. Americans do need to work to improve their country but we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

Polemical

You raise a very interesting point. I occasionlly visit the leftists blogs myself. You are right they are absolutely full of hate. I think this may be why they keep loosing elections. When one is full of hate, one will not think rationally. This will lead to bad decision making. The right has generally not been filled with this kind of hatred and is thus able to think more clearly which leads to better decision making. This is just a thought in relation to your post.

Best Wishes
Rob

Webster,

Perhaps I could have been a bit more civil in my last post. Forgive me, for it is hard to remove emotion from this situation, as much as I have tried.

I have to disagree with you here. An eye witness account (i.e. caregiver's affidavit) of events is considered evidence in a court of law. Remember, it is not heresay if the person giving the account was a witness. Only if they heard it from someone, or it was not first hand.

The evidence Michael gave the judge about hearing Terri say "I wouldn't want to live like that" after seeing a similar situation in a movie is so far reaching and removed from officially telling her husband this, or constructing a living will. I feel that since Terri's wishes have not been clearly articulated, we must err on the side of life, and not assume that this woman wants to die. Especially considering the affidavits I have listed, the fact that Michael has not been faithful to his wife, and other suspicious facts, such as his wish for Terri to be immediatly incinerated upon death.

If the allegations of abuse are unfounded, why not let yourself totally be cleared and an autopsy be performed (if and when Terri passes)? Why not let Terri's family say goodbye to her in a proper funeral?

Why is Michael in such a hurry to put his wife in the ground?

Rob, if you think that followers of the Muslim religion plan on taking over the world and are in need of termination, You my friend are simply an idiot. We generate 1000x more hatred against the United States by doing what we are doing (waving are patriotic dik) in the faces of other countries, than by minding our own business and taking care of things diplomatically. You seem to have been bought and sold in terms of post 911 mind control. This war is not about terrorism. This is a facade. A dead end and strictly based on fearmongering. This is a war of geopolitical power, status and greed, it is fact speeding kup the progression of WW3. I am not left or right, these are just obvious facts. Its too bad more people don't see this. You will not realize the horrors of war untill it is you, or a close loved one who has shrapnol rip through their spines or get napalm dumped on your skin. You gutless hawk. It takes more courage to spare a life than to take one. All men are created equal. We are the occupiers. Propaganda seems to be working on thick skulls like yourself.

Www.whatreallyhappened.com

Iraq:
The Trail of Disinformation
"Let's start with a simple fact. The United States invaded and conquered Iraq on the basis of lies. Even the official report of the United States Senate admits as much.

So, where did all this bad information come from? While the culprits would like to pin the blame on the Central Intelligence Agency, the facts point in a different direction. To cite just one example, the now-discredited claim that Saddam was trying to buy "Yellow Cake" Uranium from Niger came from the Pentagon, specifically from Paul Wolfowitz, using information the CIA stated was unreliable. Wolfowitz, and his assistant Douglas Feith, set up a special office called the "Office of Special Plans" in 2001, that fed information to the White House to urge the attack on Iraq. Shortly after the invasion, the OSP was disbanded.

So, the trail of the lies that started a war goes from the White House, to the Pentagon, to the Office of Special Plans. But where was the OSP getting their information? Clearly, they were not using information provided by the CIA, or the CIA would not have denounced their cources as "unreliable". According to some reports, the OSP was using "consultants" who came from outside the Pentagon and operated with no oversight or accountability! The Office of Special Plans operated on its own, off the official payroll and away from Congressional oversight. According to several sources, it was the information given out by the Office of Special Plans that Dick Cheney "encouraged" the CIA to adopt! So where does the trail lead from the OSP?

As it turns out, the OSP was getting their information from primarily two sources. The first was Ahmed Chalabi, the bank embezzler who would be king and didn't care how it came about. The second, and more damning source, is the office of the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon! As the Office of Special Plans poured out the lies that led to war, Israeli officers, up to the rank of General, were repeatedly escorted inside the Pentagon to the Office of Special Plans. At no time were they required to sign in!

Douglas Feith would then take this information, despite CIA doubts about the credibility of the claims, into private briefings at the White House that bypassed CIA. In some cases, the CIA was unaware of Feith's private briefings until the OSP information became part of White House public policy.

So, this is the trail of the lies that started a war, beginning at the White House, and via Dick Cheney moving upstream to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, under Wolfowitz and Feith, then from OSP to an parallel group operating out of Ariel Sharon's office in Israel.

That's the trail.

UPDATE: As of this writing, a staffer within the Office of Special Plans has been outed as a spy for Israel. While Israel officially denies spying (as it did for 13 years following the arrest of Jonathan Pollard), and the US Government downplays the importance of this individual, the fact remains that this Israeli spy sat right on the information piepline feeding false claims about Iraq into the White House. The focus on the Iranian documents going TO Israel is the limited hangout concealing the darker secret of bogus Iraqi "Intelligence" flowing FROM Israel into the White House war machine.

UPDATE 2: United States Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered the FBI to halt the investigation and arrests of the Israeli spy ring."

"Www.whatreallyhappened.com

Iraq:
The Trail of Disinformation
"Let's start with a simple fact. The United States invaded and conquered Iraq on the basis of lies. Even the official report of the United States Senate admits as much.

So, where did all this bad information come from? While the culprits would like to pin the blame on the Central Intelligence Agency, the facts point in a different direction. To cite just one example, the now-discredited claim that Saddam was trying to buy "Yellow Cake" Uranium from Niger came from the Pentagon, specifically from Paul Wolfowitz, using information the CIA stated was unreliable. Wolfowitz, and his assistant Douglas Feith, set up a special office called the "Office of Special Plans" in 2001, that fed information to the White House to urge the attack on Iraq. Shortly after the invasion, the OSP was disbanded.

So, the trail of the lies that started a war goes from the White House, to the Pentagon, to the Office of Special Plans. But where was the OSP getting their information? Clearly, they were not using information provided by the CIA, or the CIA would not have denounced their cources as "unreliable". According to some reports, the OSP was using "consultants" who came from outside the Pentagon and operated with no oversight or accountability! The Office of Special Plans operated on its own, off the official payroll and away from Congressional oversight. According to several sources, it was the information given out by the Office of Special Plans that Dick Cheney "encouraged" the CIA to adopt! So where does the trail lead from the OSP?

As it turns out, the OSP was getting their information from primarily two sources. The first was Ahmed Chalabi, the bank embezzler who would be king and didn't care how it came about. The second, and more damning source, is the office of the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon! As the Office of Special Plans poured out the lies that led to war, Israeli officers, up to the rank of General, were repeatedly escorted inside the Pentagon to the Office of Special Plans. At no time were they required to sign in!

Douglas Feith would then take this information, despite CIA doubts about the credibility of the claims, into private briefings at the White House that bypassed CIA. In some cases, the CIA was unaware of Feith's private briefings until the OSP information became part of White House public policy.

So, this is the trail of the lies that started a war, beginning at the White House, and via Dick Cheney moving upstream to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, under Wolfowitz and Feith, then from OSP to an parallel group operating out of Ariel Sharon's office in Israel.

That's the trail.

UPDATE: As of this writing, a staffer within the Office of Special Plans has been outed as a spy for Israel. While Israel officially denies spying (as it did for 13 years following the arrest of Jonathan Pollard), and the US Government downplays the importance of this individual, the fact remains that this Israeli spy sat right on the information piepline feeding false claims about Iraq into the White House. The focus on the Iranian documents going TO Israel is the limited hangout concealing the darker secret of bogus Iraqi "Intelligence" flowing FROM Israel into the White House war machine.

UPDATE 2: United States Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered the FBI to halt the investigation and arrests of the Israeli spy ring."

-Joe Dirt

I'm open to debating all this, but not in this blog. This is a thread about Terry Schiavo, we shouldn't just hijack it for our own purposes. If you would like to chat about this in e-mail send me a message at BushIsAZombieGuy@google.com

"Ben-T... I understand you are a young man and haven't had too much exposure out there on the planet; but I was just wondering what do you value in life?"

-Joe Dirt

This is a wierd response. You asked for what the last thing interesting coming from the middle east was, and I supplied the answer.

What I value in life is pretty basic. I believe life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal rights, not just those belonging to Americans. But you clearly meant what I value politically. I value the continuance of the United States' world hegemony, for it is a global "empire" that has vastly improved both the lives of the American people, and the lives of people all over the world.

Again however, let us not hijack Flynn's blog. If you like you can e-mail me at BushIsAZombieGuy@google.com

JD - Did you steal Truth's computer or something?

And you may be interested in actually reading some of the happier thoughts of the mullahs and Wahabbists - Non-Muslims (the dhimmi) have no natural rights before Islam and are destined to be either willing slaves or food for worms. It is perfectly lawful to kill the infidel and claim his property.

Christianity certainly says that only through Christ is salvation, but unlike Mohammed, whose faith immediately decided to go on the rampage throughout the region, Jesus specifically forbade an uprising, healed the only victim of the only attempt to defend him by force, and chose to die for us. His whole point is to convert the world, not wipe out anyone who refuses, and the reason to do it is to avoid permanent torment after death, and enjoy everlasting life.

Christians fail their own standards, but condemning them for it is de facto admission that the standards themselves are true and ought to be followed - otherwise, there would be no scandal involved in a pedophile priest, embezzling preacher, or suicide cult. And the Church says that its members are failures in need of forgiveness. That is pretty much the whole point.

So, as you say, something is seriously amiss with humanity as a species. But not so many people have correctly identified that flaw, and very few indeed have offered any sort of practical solution for the problem.

PS - not an apt quote for you to use: "Nothing's good or bad but thinking makes it so." If that's true you can't condemn the US any more than Ben-T can praise it. And if you want to know where that sort of thinking leads, read the rest of Hamlet.

Joe Dirt

I'm not sure how to respond here. I will try to take it slowly piece by piece. First of all I did not say that followers of the Muslim religon plan on taking over the world. What I said was the followers of Islamic Extremism plan on taking over the world. We are not at war with Islam itself. We are at war with the Islamic extremists only because they have declared war on us. They have been at war with us for many years now. Remember the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, bombing of our embassies in Africa, and many more. Furthermore, the Islamic Extremists are vast and powerful. They count as their allies countries such as Russia and China. They may not be as powerful as they once were since we have finally gotten the courage, at least to a certain extent, to take the fight to them rather than to sit back and continue to be hit by them. Please re-read my post. If you do so, you will see that I did not say nor did I imply that followers of the Muslim religon are in need of extermination. What I did say is the Islamic Extremists need to be defeated. Not all of those who follow Islam are Islamic Extremists. Countries such as Indoneisa, Oman, and The United Arab Emmirates have managed to get along fairly well with us. It is not "Islam" it is "Islamic Extremists" who are the problem. The US government has made it clear on numerous occasions that we are not at war with Islam. You say you are neither left nor right but it appears you did take the classic leftist position and try to accuse the US of trying to engage in a religous war.

"Waving our patriotic dik." The United States has not waved its patriotic dik at anyone. The United States is the most tolerant country in the world. People come here from all over the world and they are generally welcomed with open arms. I am a patriot and I am proud to say so. Americans are a very patriotic people, as they have much to be thanful for!! If my patriotism offends you, to bad!! We are working to resolve things diplomatically. I'm sure you are following the situations with Iran and North Korea closely. If so, you will see are trying to use diplomacy to resolve these situations. I disagree with many of GW Bush's policies but he has realized quite correctly that the Islamic Extremists cannot be negotiated with. This situation is multi-faceted and complex. The suggestion that we are not trying to use diplomacy to resolve things is incorrect.

"This is a facade." You may be somewhat correct here. I think our biggest enemy is not Islamic Extremists but is actually Russia. Countries such as Iran and Syria support the various terrorist networks and Russia supports Iran and Syria. You can reference my post in the Feb archives under Dan's post entitled "Redstate" for more details on this. I hope my ana-lysis is wrong because if it is correct we have a much greater problem than Islamic Extremists. This leads to the main problem I have with the Iraq war. I hope it has not caused the government to loose sight of bigger threats. The threat posed by Islamic Extremists is no facade and their has been no fear mongering. In actuality the threat posed by Islamic Extremists has been understated. The threat is real and is not something someone made up.

You are correct that the war is about geo-political power. The Islamic Extremists and their Marxists allies want to rule the world. I do not wish to be under their control. The United States and its allies are the only thing standing between them.

My best friend served in the first gulf war. The group he was traveling with came under a chemical gas attack. Some of the people traveling with him died. He still suffers from the effects of this to this day. He was blessed so he is not having as bad of a time as some of the men he served with are. I wanted to join the military myself but due to a congenital condition I could not. Accusing me of being a gutless hawk and an idiot are simply not warranted.

"It takes more courage to spare a life than to take one." This is correct. This precisely what we are trying to do. This is the wisdom behind trying to take out threats before they can fully materialize. If we allow threats to continue to grow more people, on all sides, will die. For example, Hitler could have been stopped prior to 1939 but the allies chose appeasement. This lead to WWII. If the allies had dealt with Hitler sooner, fewer people, on all sides, would have died.

"We are the occupiers." Colin Powell and others have made it clear on numerous occasions that if asked to leave we will do so. The leaders of the Iraqi interim government realize this would be inadvisable, as this would give the terrorists free reign, therefore, there has been no formal request for us to leave. A prediction: If our young men and women are still suffering from terrorist attacks a year or so from now, pressure will grow on the government to bring our troops home regardless of whether it is in our security interests to do so. It seems to me the propaganda opposing the war has been far louder than any propaganda supporting the war.

The threat posed by Islamic Extremists is not something that the Bush administration just made up. The threat is real. Many fine and noble people have tried to warn the American people about this for years. Perhaps if we had listened and taken more decisive action years ago 9/11 could have been prevented.

Best Regards,
Rob

So it all comes back to the likes of 911, eh? How convienent. www.physics911.org

Joe

I am familliar with the site you reference. The site refers to American policies as "repressive." American policies are not repressive. At least not compared to those practiced by the Islamic extremists. Maybe you didn't know that in Iran they hang 16 year old girls for "acts incompatible with chasity." The United States is not perfect but to refer to it as repressive would not seem to be warranted by any objective ana-lysis. To accuse the United States of being repressive stretches one's credibility almost to the breaking point. To accuse the United States of being repressive while excusing the far more hideous actions of the Islamic extremists is to completely destroy one's credibility. In other words if one cannot get the simple things right, I don't think they can be trusted to get the complex things right. The web site you cite does not even get the simple things right.

Given the current political realities, such a conspiracy would be impossible for either political party to carry out. There are to many people in both parties with political agendas who would expose it to make the other side look bad. In other words there is no way they could keep it a secret and there is to much money to be made by those who would expose such an event. If these claims had any merit they would have been all over the New Tork Times, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News etc and the folks who exposed it would be writing books and traveling around the country making millions giving speeches. The reason we don't see more of these conspiracy theories in the main stream news media is because they cannot stand the test of scrutiny. Something else to consider. George W. Bush is hated by much of the main stream news media. Much effort has been spent investigating him and the best they could come up with was "Rathergate" and a DUI when he was a young man or something to this effect. If these claims had any merit, the Democrats would have used them as talking points in the election campaign. Such conspiracies are virtually impossible to maintain in an open society such as ours and they are to risky to the perpatrators. The checks and balances that exist in our society are one of the reasons it has been so successful. These checks and balances are generally absent in many societies. If you lived in some places, criticism of the ruling party will get you killed.

It does come back to 911 in the sense that the events of that fateful day caused many of us to realize that the previous policies simply did not work and that we needed a new approach, furthermore, many people understand that the terror supporting states of Iran, Syria, and the former Iraqi regime, the terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the PLO and other terror groups are all interconnected. Just how deep these connections actually go may be debateable, nevertheless, these groups have all demonstrated a willingness to work together in pursuit of common goals. In other words, it would not be enough to deal only with Al Qaeda. The problem is much bigger than that and had to be addressed as such.

By the way I think this thread was supposed to be about the Terri Schiavo case. Michael Schiavo has a common law wife. This should have removed him from being considered as Terri's husband and should remove him from being considered as a legal guardian to her. Lets hope the courts don't use this case to decide that they should now allow polygamy.

PS - not an apt quote for you to use: "Nothing's good or bad but thinking makes it so." If that's true you can't condemn the US any more than Ben-T can praise it. And if you want to know where that sort of thinking leads, read the rest of Hamlet.

Oh, I think you would be surprised how many problems I have with US policies. I just happened to agree with the Foreign ones.

Rob wrote, "Given the current political realities, such a conspiracy would be impossible for either political party to carry out."

Well dude, no political party had anything to do with it. It is an elite party of its own, which essentially run the gamit in terms of global control. You fool. There was no plane on the lawn of the pentagon. You fool. Wake up. The "Illuminati" is alive and thriving. However, there are ties to certain republicans in office. Ask and you shall receive

Dear Truth,

Your new name much more accurately reflects the reliability of your insights, but your use of epithets and citations of nutty websites give away your old identity. Keep on truckin', baby!

Joe

I have heard about the illuminati. Everyone has by now. Republicans and Democrats hold key positions in the various organizations you are referring to. These organizations have no real power to influence anything. Besides even if they did, Republicans and Democrats are keeping such close tabs on one another at this point that pulling such a thing off would be impossible.
Again there is no way given the current political realities to carry such a thing out. If only Republicans in office held these positions and there were proof of a conspiracy the Democrats would have exposed it to use in their election talking points and vice versa. If as you say, there was no plane on the lawn of the Pentagon or no plane hit the pentagon it would have been expposed in the big media by now. There is just too much money and fame to be made by discrediting government officials. The media especially likes to discredit Republicans. now that we have blogs this has become more difficult for them to do. In other words, the main stream media has not reported it because your theory cannot stand scrutiny any more than things such as "Rathergate" could.

The real conspiracy you need to concern yourself with is the alliance between the Islamic Extremists and the Neo-Marxists/leftisits. Even more disturbing is some in the main stream news media seem to have joined forces with our enemies. Yet another reason your theories don't hold water. The leftists in the media would have exposed it to harm the Bush administration. They can't expose it because it has no credibility. To do so would only damage their credibility further. Personally I would find it entertaining to have your theories on the front page of the major news papers. When the blogosphere gets finished picking them apart, Dan Rather would look like an honest man. They won't publish your theories because, when they are trying to sell newspapers, credibilty matters, especially now that there are alternative media sources to hold the big media accountable.

"essentially run the gamit in terms of global control" The organization you refer to controls no one. The United States does not even excersize this type of control. The United States has substantial global influence but it by no means excersizes global control. Foreign countries would never allow themselves to be ruled by a shadow organization, such as this. If you wish, you can continue blindly following what they spoon feed you. This frees you from having to think for yourself.

At best, your arguments are weak. Calling me a fool does not strengthen weak arguments. You are unable to support your claims on their merits, so in typical leftist fashion, you have resorted to insults and you have done so throughout this thread.

By the way, this thread is supposed to be about the Terry Schaivo case. An observation: I believe President Bush or Jeb Bush could call in the national guard to Save Terri's life. They have not done this due to the political risk. No doubt foreign countries watch what we do closely. Tawian and Israel are very dependent on the United States for their national defense. Sending in the military to assist either of these countries, especially Israel, would be even more politically costly than sending in the national guard to save Terri's life. Placing politics above a precious innocent life is very dispicable behavior no matter which party it comes from. If the leaders of Israel and Tawian are watching this, they should be very concerned. They should hope that Bush is saving any political captial he may have, in case he should need to use it elsewhere.

Sending in the national guard? Where would you henceforth, draw the line? Complete Marshal Law? A complete disregard and abidance of the constitional system?

Ah yes, the biggest government conspiracy of all is the view that there are no government conspiracies. They are numerous indeed and implemented every waking hour. And you say that if these conspiracies were covered in the mainstream media, that they couldn't hold water due to a lack of credibility? May I ask, How and Who would you draw from to provide this credibility when the formal and highest authorities themselves are responsible? Your question renders useless in light of these facts.

And your theory about a conspiratorial connection between leftists and Islamic extremists is inconclusive and groundless. Simply stated, most leftists that I know, who are anti-war etc..., have a principle belief for a more peaceful world. A grander vision where true peace can generate true peace. A faithful and trustworthy goal to achieve a higher global consciousness. War and terror are inextricably linked. Like a stainless steel chain. We ought to be setting messages to tthe rest of the planet. More evolved messages. Someday perhaps

Rob wrote, "Placing politics above a precious innocent life is very dispicable behavior no matter which party it comes from"

Well bud, prescious innocent lives have the plugs pulled on them hundreds of times a year. Why, because these unfortunate individuals lack health insurance. Isn't the right against universal health coverage? An isn't this another example of, what you deem, despicable behavior? Just curious how you view these scenarios?

Joe

I hope we can have peace. We need it and the non-extremists muslims need it. Before peace will be possible the Islamic Extremists will need to be defeated or they will need to abandon their insane desire of world domination. If they abandon their desire to rule the world, we should be able to have peaceful relations with them. I'm not optimistic that they will willingly abandon their insane desire of world domination and I don't care to be ruled by the likes of the Taliban or their Marxists allies so I think the only reasonable course of action is to defeat them. The point I was trying to make is the idea that the government is somehow involved in a cover up regarding 911 just does not add up especially given that Osama Bin Laden has admitted responsibilty for it. Also, Government officials operate under a system of checks and balances that would make something of this magnitude impossible to sustain over the long term. I don't think I will ever convince you, as your position does not seem to be something you reasoned into so I don't think I can reason you out of it. The alliance between leftists and Islamic Extremists is real. On the surface, both groups would seem to have quite different values but they are united by their intense loathing of America. You can compare their talking points. They are almost identical. Many commentators have documented the alliance between the Islamic Extremists and leftists. In his book, "Unholy Alliance" David Horowitz documents this extensively. This is not something I just made up. The alliance is very real. Finally physics911.org forfeits any credibilty when it refers to America as "repressive." America is among the least repressive societies on Earth. The editors of this web site cannot even get the most basic things right. I certainly would not trust them to get more complicated things right.

Leftists are a strange group. It seems they want to commit suicide while taking as many people with them as possible. They support euthanasia, they support abortion, and they vigorously oppose any attempts by America to defend itself from those who are trying to destroy it.

We are sending positive messages to the rest of the planet. We are trying to bring liberty to Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent massive aid to the tsunami victims. The terrorists groups and the states who support them gave virtually nothing to help these people. Some reports suggest that the massive aid we sent to the tsunami victims has helped to change hearts and minds in that part of the world. The United States is the most generous country on earth. Leftists oppose anything good and decent, after all these are same folks who supported the Communists while they killed 100,000,000 people. Finally these people forfeit all credibilty when they viciously assail the United States while ignoring the far more hideous actions of the Islamic Extremists. I have no respect for these people.

Now regarding Terri Schavio, it is moral and proper for government officials to do whatever they can to preserve innocent lives. Marshal law has nothing to do with it. When people are in danger the police are sent to help. This is no different. Doing the right thing needs to take precedence over doing what is politically expedient. The legislative and executive branches of the government operate with checks and balances. Right now the judicial branch is operating with absolutely no accountabilty. If this is allowed to continue, our constitutional system will not last. By intervening, in this case, the Bush administration would have been helping to preserve our constitutional system. Sitting on his hands and does nothing to help our constitutional system.

"Precious innocent lives have the plugs pulled on them hundreds of times a year. Why, because these unfortunate individuals lack health insurance." You may be able to find extremely rare cases where this has happened. Maybe you did not realize it is a violation of federal law for hospitals to not treat someone because they are uninsured. If they "pulled the plug" because the patient did not have insurance, they have violated federal law. Are you going to prosecute or are you going to level vicious and unfounded accusations against people? I know some people in the health care profession who would be deeply offended by the accusations you just leveled.

Obviously President Bush and Governor Jeb Bush are incapable of intervening in every case where there is an injustice. It is my considered opinion that they could have intervened here. Just because you cannot help all innocent people does not mean you don't help the ones you can.

Best Regards,
Rob

Joe

I may have addressed one of your questions. You asked isn't the right against universal health coverage. Yes I believe so. I am against government controlled health cazre myself. I did a presentation on this recently. I will try to briefly explain. I am against government controlled health care because it simply will not work because of basic economics. In a government controlled health care system, it costs the patient nothing to receive medical care. This will lead to more demand and will drive up the costs to the government. At some point the government will have to ration services, cut the quality of treatment, or both. For example, it can take as long as several months before you can get an MRI in Canada. In the USA you can get one within a week. The United States has the best health care system in the world. People come from all over the world to be treated here because the government controlled systems in their coumtries simply don't work as well as the private system we have. In addition, we have the profit motive that leftists love to hate. In America, the doctors and the hospitals get to keep their profits. This increases incentive. This explains why American pharmaceutical companies are among the world's leaders. History indicates that socialist systems don't work. It would be wrong for me to support a universal health care system when such a system would not be as good as the one we currently have. Besides, as I pointed out previously, hospitals are prohibted by federal law from refusing treatment to the uninsured so we really already have a universal health care system.

An “Invisible Army” Fights the Media Lies About 9/11

Christopher Bollyn | March 24 2005

SANTA BARBARA, California - Three thousand miles from New York City and Washington, this idyllic California coastal town is a hotbed of citizen activists fighting to uncover the truth about what really happened on 9/11. A handful of local residents here have spearheaded a nation-wide effort to expose the lies that make up the official version of events of the Pentagon the World Trade Center attacks.

One year after 9/11, Eric Hufschmid, a self-employed computer software developer, published his exposé Painful Questions: An investigation of the September 11th Attack. Hufschmid’s large format book contains many important color photographs of the World Trade Center and Pentagon not seen anywhere else. He spent some $6,000 for the rights to use high-resolution photographs from Reuters, Associated Press, and other sources.

The most significant photos in Painful Questions are of the collapsing towers, which show dust and debris being shot out hundreds of feet. These high-resolution photos reveal that the top 30-floor section of the South Tower broke off and began tipping over, contrary to the commonly accepted fire-induced pancake collapse scenario promoted by government appointed investigators and the controlled press. The photographs reveal huge explosions occurring at the breaking point and in both the upper and lower sections simultaneously.

Rather than falling to the ground, the photographs reveal that the tipping 30-floor section was demolished by explosions that pulverized the concrete. Hufschmid presents this evidence in an important series of 8 high-resolution color photos.

Now in its second printing, Painful Questions, printed on high-quality glossy paper, presents evidence that debunks the government’s conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs with box cutters outsmarted the U.S. military and caused the massive devastation of 9/11.

The Silence of the Media

While Hufschmid’s work is cited in numerous books about 9/11, no mainstream media outlet has ever contacted him. Painful Questions can be obtained directly from the author at www.hugequestions.com

“The mainstream media ignore information they don’t want people to know about,” Hufschmid says. “TV is the modern weapon. It’s better than a bomb. Whoever controls it has the people and the people don’t even realize it. This television fantasy world is what we are fighting against. My book and DVD are weapons for the invisible army in this information war.”

Asked about the media’s avoidance of the unanswered questions of 9/11, Hufschmid said: “My guess is that some are there to cover it up; some are afraid to speak the truth; and some are truly ignorant.”

Asked about the military’s reaction, he said: “I would expect our military to be concerned about how they were beaten by such a small group of primitive people. Football coaches do more of an anaysis of their games to learn from their mistakes.

“If 19 Arabs with no technology could pull off that attack and cause that much destruction, what could 5,000 terrorists with advanced technology do?”

Hufschmid says he cannot believe that the U.S. military would allow the demolition of the WTC to occur. “It caused such extreme suffering and devastation,” he said. “It feels to me that it was done by selfish people whose primary interest is not America.

“Some members of the conspiracy took advantage of the attack and demolished the WTC for their own selfish reasons,” Hufschmid said. “Without the WTC attack, we basically have a symbolic attack on the Pentagon, similar to what we see in the NORTHWOODS plan.”

The most obvious parts of the scam, according to Hufschmid, are the demolition of WTC 7, the explosion of the towers into dust in 10 seconds, and the confiscation of video evidence from private businesses around the Pentagon and the lack of any photographic or seismic evidence that a Boeing 757 even hit the Pentagon.

Regarding the remark in the FEMA building performance report stating that the cause of WTC 7 collapse is unknown, Hufschmid said: “We say we can put a man on the moon but we can’t figure out what happened to building 7?”

Silverstein’s Suspicious Behavior

Asked about Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, who had obtained a 99-year lease for the twin towers only five weeks before 9/11, Hufschmid said: “Silverstein has to know that the towers were brought down with explosives. He even admitted on PBS that the commander of the fire department demolished the building - as Silverstein had suggested - rather than put the fires out.”

Eight thousand copies of Painful Questions have been distributed, primarily through the efforts of an “invisible army” of ordinary citizens who have purchased Hufschmid’s book in bulk and pass it on.

Another local resident, Jimmy Walter, sent Painful Questions and Hufschmid’s two-hour DVD Painful Deceptions to every member of Congress at his own expense. “I was so impressed with this book and the questions it raises,” Walter wrote, “that I will send a free copy to any fire station, police precinct, judge or politician that requests it.”

In September, Walter bought full-page color ads in mainstream magazines and newspapers such as Newsweek, BusinessWeek, and The New York Times, promoting Painful Questions and raising some of the “very troubling” and unanswered questions about 9/11.

Walter’s ad in Reader’s Digest, however, was cancelled by the publishers - without explanation - after having been accepted. American Free Press, which no longer sells Painful Questions, sold hundreds of copies during the brief period when it did.

Hufschmid told AFP that he does not even sell one book a day to individuals. “It’s primarily being bought in quantity by housewives and ordinary citizens who are worried about the future of this country. They are buying the book and DVD and pushing it on their friends. It is often difficult for these people to get their family and friends to look seriously at this issue. It frightens and upsets people.”

Hufschmid said that before he began writing Painful Questions, he was frustrated at the silence of the media, professors, and professionals, who he had expected would provide leadership and raise questions in the public discourse about the events of 9/11. “The silence was shocking,” he said.

Another local resident, David Ray Griffin, recently published his book The New Pearl Harbor. Hufschmid notes that although Griffin lives less than two miles away, “We were unaware of each other’s work until just days before Griffin’s publication deadline.”

On a side note, don't you people think it is somewhat interesting that the CIA discourages any further investigation into 911, which is "supposedly" the biggest security breach in history? Does this not indicate guilt from the start? Doesn't this click???? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Joe

This comes down to two things. The first is credibility. The mainstream news media has largely stayed away from this story because it cannot stand up to scrutiny. It works for Mr. Hufschmid's followers because they will blindly swallow what they are told, as long as it is anti-American. As I explained previously, when selling papers or getting people to watch news shows on tv credibiltiy matters. To air such bogus information would result in a further loss in credibility. They aren't ready for another "rathergate." If Mr. Hufscmid's claims were true he would have best selling books and his material would be front page material for all of the major newspapers and he would have been on all of the media talk shows by now. He hasn't. They don't want him. False claims, such as this, would be exposed and it would ruin their credibility. Remember rathergate. The resulting fall out from something like this would make Dan Rather look like an honest man. The big media largely hates republicans. If these claims had merit, and the republicans were involved the big media would jump at the chance to report this far and wide. If the democrats were involved and the claims had merit, the alternate media would jump at the chance to report this. They have stayed away from them because reporting false information, such as this, would be exposed by their opponents ruining their credibiltiy and resulting in lost income for them.

The next point you need to consider is the United States and its allies are at war with a group of Islamic Extremists and their state supporters, such as Iran, Syria, Russia, and China. How strong these alliances are is a matter of debate, nonetheless, this enemy is vast and powerful. You will need to decide which type of society you want to live under. The Islamic Extremists and their Marxists allies are trying to rule the world. The United States and its allies are the only thing standing in their way. If we loose, the western world will be transformed into the likes of Iran, North Korea, and Russia. The United is not perfect but it offers hope and liberty. Our enemies offer nothing but pain and suffering. I'm not interested in living under Islamic law. At this time, the alternative to America and its allies are a world that is ruled by some sort of Islamic Extremist/Marxist hybrid. All freedom loving people should pray for America's success here.

You may want to look into the Islamic-Extremist concept of the hudna. During a hudna, they agree to peace with their enemy until they are strong enough to defeat this enemy. Then they attack. The hudna is nothing but something they do temporarily for tactical purposes. There religous beliefs allow them to emply deception when dealing with the infidels. This is why negotiations with the Islamic Extremists are unlikely to work. At this time, the only viable option is to defeat them.

If you wish to continue posting, please offer an original thought. So far all you have done is reguritate silly propaganda. Apparently you will believe anything you read, as long is it is anti-American governemnt. These people forfeit all credibilty when they accuse the United States of being repressive. You forfeit all credibilty when you accuse us of waving our patriotic dik. In other words, please learn to think for yourself.

Rob

Joe

Naybe I did not read your "side note." I'm finding no efforts by the CIA or anyone to discourage investigations into 911. There have been numerous articles and documentaries done on this. In fact, there was an article on 911 in the Newspaper where I live just today. The main stream media does lean to the left. This bias is generally reflected in most of what they choose to cover and how they choose to cover it but out and out falsehoods cannot be published in the main stream media. As stated previously, their competitors will expose them. There credibiltiy will be damaged and they will loose readership.

Rob

Eric Hufschmid the author of the book "Painful Questions" that Joe refers to believes the moon landing was a hoax. The best thing I can say about a person who believes the moon landing was a hoax is that they are confused and their ana-lysis on anything should not be taken seriously.

Who is this Law character and who made him a Marshal?

The word you're looking for, Joe "Truth" Dirt, is M-A-R-T-I-A-L. And in a blatantly-biased display, I don't blame Rob Foshee at all since he was just cutting and pasting.

Or is Dan editing your posts to make you look illiterate? Fnord!

Im surprised the Feminazis havent stood up to complain about this. Terri's husband ruling that she doesnt deserve to live. Thats like saying that women are still slaves to the man of the house and are still subject to their rule...Oh wait what am I thinking. Since Terri married a man she is labeled a traitor to the Feminazis, so they have abandoned their fellow woman. Besides its mostly Republicans that are standing up for Terri's rights, and we know how much Feminazis love GW's party.

Yes, martial... my deepest apologies. We already had this discussion about the moon landing. It happened, but only once. Why?? well many mysterious things were encountered up there and are not overtly disclosed. I will leave it up for you to do the research. Armstrong says, "ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies."

About 911, the only "evidence" that we have that indicates those responsible for the attack were 19 arabs yielding boxcutters, is all here-say. Flight 77's passenger list does not even contain 1 of the 5 names contrived and/or utilized by the government in its beginning motives for a false war against Al Queada. The only other shred of evidence that this was conducted by Islamic terrorists is Bin Laden praising the attacks on tape. Mind you, this is a man who worked for the CIA for about a decade and who's family was WATCHING the 911 attacks transpire on TV with Bush Sr. GRRRREEAAAT. I do not have time to get into the details now. Now, I just want to state that there is so much contrary evidence to the government's unprecedented claim that 911 was engineered by Bin Laden, that one could write a book ten times the size of the bogus 911 commision report, which I have read and reads like a truly poor science fiction novel.
For one, and this is documented factual history, the pentagon was conducting a 911-esque false flag operation on this precise day to emulate what might happen if terrorists hit the WTCs with airliners. Great double blind huh? We didn't here about this in the news though huh? What a coincidence. What a coincidence... What a coincidence. Furthermore, initial reports by legitimate journalists and reporters stated that the plains looked modified and did not possess windows. We have remote technologies that can easily control a passenger jet and have for sometime. Evenmore, Jet fuel burns at 1600-1800'F and the steel used in the WTCs has a melting point of something like 2500'. The rubble had debris particulates od less then 10 micrometers or microns in size. Science has shown us that only high-energy explosives generate such destruction. The "pancake" theory does not hold up. The building were brought down by charges. It was simply pre-rigged. Building number 7 even collapsed, give me a break. This didn't even have fire in it. Plus, no fire in HISTORY has ever taken down a steel re-inforced skyscraper. Do the research. You people will never seem to change your mind. I don't expect you too however. Blind patriotism is dangerous. Truth is not. This stuff is nothing but hard evidence. This is not some anti-american fantasy but blatent and factual science. Have you seen the footage? The charges and explosives are evident. The planes have an anomalyous structure underneath there wing which discharge a projectile microseconds before the impact. The rubble pile burned for a long time at temperatures way hotter than jetfuel can manifest. Remember this is hard physical evidence. Shall I go on? Ok, well, the pentagon?? Let's just say that no 757 impacted it. No luggage debris, no human debris, no fuselage debris, no lawn messed up, impact on a newly renovated section that had few personel... etc ctc..
Top Pentagon officials admitting that they were warned not to fly on 911; all on tape. I could go on and on with facts. But there is no need. Unfortunately, people seem to be fixated on the pitch thrown to you by the administration and refuse to open-mindedly review the events. This is most likely a useless endeavor but I just felt that I should toss some info back your way... Rob. It is not anti-american to scrutinize and keep tabs on big-brother. In fact, mindsets like yourselves are exactly what 911 was striving to accomplish. It was "successful" to all but a few who can see what really happened. I could go on with buttloads of more evidence, such as the majority of the 911 "terrorists" still being alive and well (imprisoned) in there home countries. And two flight 11s scheduled out of logan that morning. So many discrepancies, so many loopholes. The government's redition just does not hold and bearing over the still accumulating evidence. Wake up. Snap out of your mass-media, television fed stupors. When media can be marketed it is impossible to really serve democracy.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -FDR

*rendition

"Dare to Know! Have Courage to Use Your Own Reason! "

So according to you Joe"Truth"Dirt is that Bush Sr.and the Bin Laden family had a bowl of popcorn and was sitting around a TV watching 911 happen? Where the hell did you hear that at? Sounds like something Oliver Stone would say. This blog was about Terri Schiavo, and you turned it into another "USA caused 9-11" conspiracy theroy song and dance. You said you dont think you can convince people of otherwise, than leave and stop blogging here. Go to moveon.org

Joe Dirt, Truth, or whoever you are.

Your theories have no merit. If they did, they would be all over the main stream news media by now. They may have started in the alternative media but if they had merit they would have spread to the main stream media by now, as the main stream news media would have been forced to deal with them to maintain credibility. Taking down polititicans or attempting to take down politicians is big business in this country. Think "Watergate, think "Monica Lewinsky." In fact, Popular Science recently did an article refuting the 911 conspiracy theories you cling to. Popular Science is a magazine with world wide readership. To maintain a world-wide audience one must stick to facts to remain credible. The people you cite only need to appeal to folks who will blindly swallow anything that is anti-American government. Such people have no interest in facts. If the information you present had any merit, Popular Science would have needed to cover your theories instead.

These certainly are not "Painful Questions" for the author of the book you cite. His books sell for $10.00 a copy and at 8,000 copies that is $80,000 he has made on this. Promoting crack pot theories to groups who will blindly swallow anything that is anti-American government is easy and it would seem to be very profitable. Unlike your sources, publications that appeal to mass audiences need to maintain some credibility. Lies, such as these, would be quickly exposed by their competitors and their competitors would steal their market share.

Rob

"mindsets like yourself are exactly what 911 was striving to accomplish" I'm not sure what mindset this would be. If it was to prepare the public for endless war, this has not worked. The mass media has sought to undermine the war effort wherever and whenever they can.

Ok, I am only going to say a couple things but I am going to copy and paste a couple articles that in all fairness, I advise you to read. Bush's recently appointed Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, has a cousin. The cousin is Benjamen Chertoff, the 25-year-old "senior researcher" of Popular Mechanics and authority involved in contriving this unprecedented piece of propaganda. A perfect example of mainstream media corruption and a failed system of checks and balances, as you say. I am glad you brought up the popular mechanics nonsense. Have a little read.

Debunking The Debunkers
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief - c. 2005 Joel Skousen
Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as World Affairs Brief
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
2-14-5

In every major conspiracy to cover up government criminal activity, agents of change or naïve "experts" have been hired by the establishment media to debunk conspiracy theories and facts. Walter Cronkite was trotted out of retirement to host a PBS documentary debunking the conspiracy facts surrounding the assassination of JFK (which was hardly convincing). In like manner, other programs have been produced at great expense to discredit the charges of government cover-ups in the Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders, the downing of TWA 800 by a missile, and the OKC bombing of the Murrah building.

The professional debunkers use four primary tactics to accomplish their propaganda feats:

1) They refuse to mention, much less attempt to disprove, the most irrefutable and damaging evidence.

2) They take great delight in debunking only those conspiracy theories that are the weakest or that are planted by other government sympathizers to help discredit the more credible conspiracy facts. This is what is referred to as a "straw man" argument, where a weak or false argument is set up so that it can easily be knocked down.

3) They only select "experts" who agree with the official conclusion.

4) They snicker at or mock anyone who believes that government engages in criminal behavior or covers up crimes in collusion with judges, investigators, prosecutors, media heads, and hand-picked commissions. Worse, they label dissenters as unpatriotic or mentally imbalanced.

So it is with the latest government attempt to debunk the evidence of government collusion in the 9/11 attacks. For over a decade now, the PTB have used an odd vehicle to do their debunking on a variety of issues-Popular Mechanics Magazine (a Hearst publication). I suppose they are targeting the back-yard mechanic and auto-enthusiast crowd, who are often prone to accepting conspiracy facts and theories.

In the March 2005 issue, PM magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments-either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were. PM took a lot of pot shots at conspiracy buffs, saying that those "who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth - and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day."

That would be true only if there was no basis in fact for these controversies. I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story-especially when you don't address the really tough questions in your rebuttal. Here is a quick run down of the claims (some lumped together) and why PM's debunking was superficial and distorted:

1) The bulging projection (pod) visible on the bottom of Flight 175 as it struck the south tower

If the bulge is real, critics claim it means the aircraft was modified for the attack, which could not have been done by hijackers. PM says the anomaly was simply the bulging faring under each wing root which hides the landing gear. This is a possibility since the bulge viewed on all pictures of Flight 175 is in the same location as the landing gear faring. However, the bulge is significantly bigger than the actual faring, and casts a shadow on the bottom of the aircraft. The real landing gear faring is flush with the bottom of the plane and could not cast a shadow on that area.

Besides, I talked to Boeing about the bulge and a woman spokesperson admitted that Boeing had studied the bulge and concluded, "It wasn't modified by Boeing." She didn't deny the bulge wasn't there, nor did she try to persuade me it was the landing gear faring. However, I don't have an answer for what the purpose of the modification might have been.

Later PM turns a related claim by a witness (that there were no windows on this aircraft) into a major issue to debunked. This was a straw man issue that was easily debunked with a photo of the plane's debris, with windows. This was never a credible issue with most conspiracy theorists.

2) The "stand down" order to stop intervention against the hijackers

PM cites the existence of a few scrambled jets as proof there was no "stand down" order given. This is a straw argument because key facts are omitted. There is other evidence to show that these fighters were called out purposely from bases too distant to make the intercepts-and never engaged afterburners for extra speed, indicating no sincere attempt to intercept. I received an email from one of the tower operators at McGuire AFB telling me he had received a call from the base commander ordering him to shut down military flight ops and not let fighter-interceptors take off. This was before the general shut down of the air traffic system by the FAA. This indicates that aircraft closer to the hijacked planes were told to stand down.

There are two witnesses (a general and a Congressman) who said VP Dick Cheney was operating under stand-down orders, except as pertaining to Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. PM tried to make the case that NORAD had never vigorously followed standing orders to intercept hijacked aircraft, and that their high definition radars were all pointed outside the US boundaries (like a doughnut). Neither is true. There were dozens of intercepts in the two years prior to 9/11 (PM said there was only one) and NORAD has complete radar coverage within the US.

PM also presented disinformation when it claimed that if an airliner turns off its transponder, the controller can no longer distinguish the aircraft from thousand of other smaller blips on his screen. Not so. First, there aren't thousands of unlabeled blips on the screen in any given sector, and second, the actual radar return is still on the screen at the same approximate position of the transponder data symbol, making it easier to acquire.

PM neglected to mention the more powerful evidences of cover-up and collusion here, including the FAA's destruction of the tape recording of air traffic controllers' description of the events, the FAA refusing to turn over tape recordings of the ATC controllers talking to the pilots when the hijackings were declared, and the discrepancies between the claims of when the FAA supposedly notified NORAD.

3) Explosives brought down the twin towers (puff of dust, etc.)

This is only a partial straw man argument. There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse, but PM only discussed the fire and explosive claims that were easily explained away. An early claim making the rounds was that the towers couldn't have collapsed since fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. PM correctly pointed out, as I have also in my briefs, that steel trusses supporting the floor system only need be heated to the point of sagging-not melting-in order to give way.

Early conspiracists claimed that the puffs of smoke coming out of the windows as each floor pancaked down on another were evidence of demolition charges. Once again, PM correctly pointed out that the crushing of sheet rock interiors can cause this. I was never convinced of controlled demolition myself, since it would have required months of prep work inside the building, unbeknownst to all the tenants.

But conspicuously absent from the PM arguments was the blockbuster evidence that the 42 main pillars in the central core of the building had been taken down by a combination of explosives and thermite charges-which can melt steel like butter. The head of the company removing the debris from the WTC said in an interview that there were large pools of hot molten steel in the lowest basement where the main support pillars had stood. No expert has claimed that either fuel or burning debris falling into an oxygen starved basement would have been capable of creating the huge quantity of concentrated heat needed to melt 42 huge pillars with two-foot-thick steel walls. Numerous witnesses and fire fighters heard large explosions in the lower section of the building just prior to the collapse. One video shot of the south WTC (whose central core was not even damaged by Flight 175) gives clear evidence of the central core being collapsed prior to the general collapse: the center mounted TV towers started descending downward well prior to the outer section of the building. PM was silent on these major anomalies, and so was the 9/11 Commission, which indicates they were avoiding the tough issues.

PM did attempt some sleight of hand, with some remarks by a paid "expert" trying to explain away the symmetrical and absolutely vertical collapse of WTC building #7 that was only slightly damaged on one side. A video of the collapse does show the telltale signs of explosive demolition on each floor-which would have been impossible if the building was heeling over toward the damaged side.

4) The Pentagon crash

PM discussed the common arguments against the official version: the penetration hole was too small; there was not enough debris outside; windows close to the impact were still intact. The window argument was a straw man with an easy explanation-they were reinforced security glass. The issues of the penetration hole and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white