DIRTY POLITICS

There is a popular belief that once you decide to run for public office, your life becomes an open book. Look at Jack Ryan of Illinois. In his bid to fill a seat left vacant by Peter G. Fitzgerald, a republican who is retiring this year, Mr. Ryan was asked to unseal the records of his divorce from Actress Jeri Ryan.



According to Stephen Kinzer of the NY Times (June 23, 2004), Jack Ryan took his wife Jeri to sex clubs in New York, New, Orleans, and Paris. Some of these clubs were S and M clubs and clubs where couples had sex in front of others. When she refused, he would become angry, yelling at her for not wanting to participate. It was these events that lead to their divorce and now that its public knowledge Jack Ryan is dropping out of the race.



Now if he had never decided to run for office, his deviant lifestyle would never have come to light. And even if he did have this kind of lifestyle, it doesn�t say what kind of senator he would have been.



Talk show host Jerry Springer, ran for city counsel of Cincinnati

back in 1974 and in 1977 was arrested on a vice charges. He had paid a prostitute with a check. So he resigned from city counsel. But in 1977, he ran for and won the Mayoral election.



And as for scandals, let's not forget Marion Berry. He was elected Mayor of Washington DC in 1978 and held that job until his drug bust in 1990. He served a 6 month sentence and was reelected to the mayor�s office in 1994. In 1995, congress stripped Berry of most of his power. So, even though he had been convicted on drug charges, he was still able to get reelected as mayor.



Instead of worrying about a person�s personal life, they should evaluate a man�s job performance.



Which makes me think of Clinton but that�s another article.

OOPS WE DID IT AGAIN

It has been 13 years since the L.A.P.D. was video taped beating Rodney King after a chase. After all the riots, trails, and suffering that took place afterwards, you would think that the police would be more careful on how they treated suspects, especially those that are African-American. But, just like Brittany Spears sang,. �Opps I did it again�, the same can be said for the LAPD.



On Wednesday, June 23, the LAPD was once again video taped beating and kicking a suspect after he appeared to have surrendered. The whole series of events started when Officer John J. Hatfield and his partner, Michael O'Connor spotted 36-year-old Stanley Miller running a stop sign. After running the license plate and finding out that the car was stolen, the pursuit began. Miller took them on a 28 minute pursuit that ended with him on foot and surrendering to Officer Phillip Watson, with his hands in the air. Officer Watson re-holstered his weapon and tackles Miller. Officer David Hale joins in and tries to handcuff Miller. Almost immediately, officer Hatfield joins the other two in trying to handcuff Miller.



During the struggle, Officer Hale claims he felt a metal object in Miller�s pocket and thinking he has a gun, gives what police call "distraction blows� (L.A. Times : June 26, 2004) These blows are supposed to prevent the suspect from pulling a weapon. At the same time, Officer Hatfield is seen striking Miller at least 11 times with a flashlight. The object turned out to be wire cutters.



The officers were put on administrative leave with pay while the investigation takes place. My question is, how can you tell metal through pant material, especially if its jean material? You would be able to tell if it was something hard, and very possibly its shape. And if he could feel it enough to know it was metal, why didn�t he notice the shape? Wire Cutters don�t have the same shape as a gun.



Benjamin Franklin once said, �Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.� Seems like the LAPD needs to take a course in their own history and learn from it.

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

As anyone who grew up watching cop shows know that when they arrest you, they are required to read you your Miranda Rights. These rights are:



!) You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this right to remain silent, anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

2) You have the right to speak to an attorney and have him present during questioning.

3) If you can not afford one, an attorney will be appointed to you without any charge.



Well, these rights are being challenged. Today, it was reported by the Associated Press that the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, stated that the police can arrest and punish those who do not cooperate with the police in identifying themselves.



This ruling is from a case in Nevada when a farmer, Larry ''Dudley'' Hiibel, was arrested in 2000. The police were called when someone saw Mr. Hiibel and his daughter arguing loudly in his truck on a rural road. When the police approached the truck they asked several times for Mr. Hiibel to identify himself. Finally, after 11 times of his refusing to answer, the police arrested him. Mr. Hiibel believed, like many of us, that we have the right to remain silent if we choose to do so. Now the Supreme Court says that�s no longer true. This ruling is similar to an earlier ruling from back in 1968 that gave police the authority to stop and search anyone they believe is acting in a suspicious manner. Officer McFadden watched three men acting suspicious in front of a store. Believing that these men were casing the store for a robbery, so he approaqched and �frisked� them and found weapons on them. The Court held that the cop had enough experience and knowledge to make him suspicious of these men's behavior and therefor was probable cause to search them.



The Miranda Rights as we know them originated from a case that started on March 2, 1963, in Phoenix, Arizona. An eighteen year old woman had left her job at the ticket booth of the Paramount movie theater to go home at 11pm that night. She took the bus home like always and after one transfer, her bus stopped a few blocks from her home. As she was walking down the street a car pulled up ahead of her and a man got out and started walking toward her. When he got with in reach, he grabbed her and dragged her to his car. He then drove her out to the desert where he raped her, put her back in the car and dropped her off a block from her house. (Court TV Library)



Traumatized, this young woman could only say that the man was Mexican, 5�7�, approximately 175 lbs, with a mustache. She was so traumatized that she couldn�t remember details of the rape, or what he was wearing. She did remember that he drove a green car and that it smelled like paint or turpentine. The police were becoming frustrated with her vague answers until one of her brothers-in-law told the police that she had the mind of a 13 yr old.



Another said she was very shy, that in the three years he had been a part of the family, she had only talked to him once. But the one piece of information the police got from her family was from another member who had started picking her up at the bus stop because she was afraid to walk home. On one of those trips home, they saw the green car that the man had driven the night of the rape. He saw it on another occasion and managed to get the license plate number. He turned the information over to the police and because of it, they found Ernest Miranda.



Once arrested and at the police station, they began questioning Miranda, telling him that he flunked the lineup and that if he confessed they would get him counseling. Then they handed him a paper. At the top was a statement that the person understood their rights and was making a statement, even though no one ever told Miranda his right against self incrimination, and the right to an attorney. The cops believed that since Miranda had an extensive criminal record he was familiar with his rights.



When Miranda went to trial, his attorney was a 75 yr old, semi-retired lawyer who was the only one who would take the case for the $100 fee. Their soul defense was that the confession was coerced. Miranda was convicted of the rape and sentenced to 20-30 yrs in prison.



After his conviction, the Arizona�s ACLU took up Miranda�s cause to have his conviction overturned. In 1965, the Supreme Court heard arguments to over turn Miranda�s conviction. On June 13, 1966, the Courts decision was handed down. From that point on, all police departments have to inform arrestee�s of their 5th and 14th amendment rights.



Even since then, the courts have been picking away at this decision. Such as in the case mentioned above. Hiibel was exercising his right to remain silent, but the courts say that police can now arrest and punish those who fell to identify them selves.



But then there are times that it appears that the police have clearly overstepped their bounds but the High Court doesn�t agree. In 2002, a case was in front of the Court in which a farmer, Oliverio Martinez was questioned in the back of an ambulance and in the emergency room after being shot 5 times by the police. In a magazine titled COUNTER PUNCH, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Joanne Mariner writes that what started this case was Mr. Martinez; a 34 yr old farm worker was riding his bike home when he came across two cops questioning another man. When the cops saw Mr. Martinez, they asked him to get off his bike. In doing so, the cops caught a glimpse of the knife that Mr. Martinez had in his belt, that he used while working. One cop yelled knife and tried to take it from him. Not knowing why the cops were attacking him, Mr. Martinez fought back. Thinking that he was going for one of the cop�s gun, the other cop shot him 5 times. While he lay in the ambulance bleeding, the police sergeant on the scene continued questioning him. Mr. Martinez asked, �Ay, I am dying, what are you doing to me?� (Mariner, page 2) Latching on to his statement that he was going to die, the sergeant said, �If you are going to die, tell me what happened?� (Mariner) The sergeant was hoping he could have Mr. Martinez make a �dying declaration�, which is a statement that a person can make if they feel they are going to die and it is exempt from the hear say rule of law.



Mr. Martinez did live, although now he is a paraplegic and is blind. Even though he sued the Oxnard Police Department and the three cops involved, he has not been compensated for his injuries and the cops were never disciplined. The basis of Mr. Martinez lawsuit was that his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated, to be free of �coercive interrogation.� The federal court dismissed the case stating that Mr. Martinez was never in custody; therefore his rights were never violated.



So, then next time you are watching a cop show and you hear them read the perp his Miranda rights, just remember, those rights were never carved in stone.

TOO LATE

Its been reported on all news outlets that the Saudi security forces had found and attempted to capture Abdelaziz al-Muqrin, the man who appeared in the video tape with Paul M. Johnson Jr., they had kidnapped and later beheaded. This took place hours after word that al-Muqrin had carried out his threat of beheading Johnson.



My question is, if they found him within hours of Johnson's execution, why couldn't they find al_Muqrin in the 72 hour period to Johnson's death? I have found several articles asking the same question, is Saudi Arabia a friend or foe?



In one Article in the Cato Institute (August 13, 2202), it states that some members of the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's own staff feel that Saudi Arabia is an enemy.

They feel that American's involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq and establishing relations with Iraq, would threaten Saudi Arabia's control over the oil market. With Sadam Hussein gone, America would no longer be dependent on Saudi's oil and they would lose power.



But because right now we need their oil, we look the other way when Saudi Arabia supports and finances terrorism. After all, Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. And not long ago, one if his brothers was financing OBL.



So, yes they killed the supposed leader of a branch of al-Qaeda., that had captured and beheaded an American contractor, but why not simply take him in as they did 12 other members of that group?

Responding to Dennis

In response to Dennis, I agree. Even back in World War II, the Japanese tortured POW. There was the Bataan Death March. Bataan Death March



Over 100,000 troops were taken prisoner at Bataan, these prisoners were forced to march. The march started on April 10, 1942, at Mariveles, on the island of Luzon in the Philippines and ended at Camp O'Donnell, 100 miles away. In the process, over 70,000 prisoners were starved, beaten, or bayoneted to death.



Japan also conducted experiments on prisoners of war, including chemical and germ warfare, and even dissection.

Unit 731 by David Guyatt



Although I can't confirm it from the Internet, I heard from several sources when I was in school, that thanks to Japan, our knowledge of embryology was due to the fact that the Japanese conducted experiments where they dissected pregnant women at different stages of pregnancy. And as the above article states, they even experimented on live subjects to study frostbite but subjecting prisoners to sub zero temperatures. Then dissecting limbs to see the effects.



While the Germans were condemned for their death camps and Dr. Josef Mengele and his twins studies, the Japanese were given a silent nod for their advancement of medical science.



Then came the Korean and Vietnam wars, or police actions, as they were called. The North Koreans sent prisoners of war to China and Russia to be beaten and experimented on.

In Vietnam, they would be tied with their arms behind them and then had the raised until their sockets popped. Even put in what they called a tiger cage and put in the middle of a village for people to throw things at them, or poke at them with sharp sticks



And now we have Iraqi's. And even the Saudi's, who as of today, have beheaded two Americans. So, why should we take the moral high ground at the expense of American lives?

GHOST PRISONER

Well, Donald Rumsfeld may not have known about the torture of prisons at Abu Grhaib, but he cannot deny knowledge that an Iraqi prisoner was kept off all prisons list, eventhough he has been held since November of last year.

The New York Time>Rumsfeld Issued Order to Hide Iraq Detainee - Report



According to today's New York Times, orders were written to hold an officer of Ansar al-Islam at Camp Cooper, a detention center near the Baghdad International Airport. And that his name not appear on any prisoners list given to the International Red Cross or anyone else. According the article these orders originated with George Tenet, The CIA Director who resigned last month



This prisoner is supposed to be a top officer of Ansar al-Islam, a group that reportedly has strong ties with al-Qaeda. and have been responsible for attacks on American interests in and around Iraq. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the officer who investigated Abu Ghraib, says that the practice of ghost prisoners is against Army Doctrine and is a violation of International law.



What is unclear is that while they've had this Ansar al-Islam officer in custody since November, he has only been questioned once and that was shortaly after he was brought to Camp Cooper. If he has valuable knowledge, why isn't anyone trying to get it out of him?

Flight KAL-007

Out of all the stories and accomplishments of Ronald W. Reagan, one story wasn't talked about much and is one of the biggest mysteries surrounding his administration, Korean Flight 007, that was reportedly shot down over Soviet air space. We know from previous actions from President Reagan that he didn't not tolerate the loss of American lives, especially those not involved in military action. So, why was he so accepting of Gorbachev's explanation of the events that occurred, that the plane had crossed into Soviet air space and after several attempts to communicate with the pilot, the plane was shot down. According to the October 1993 issue of The American Spector, the crew had neglected to reset their automatic pilot after leaving Alaskan airspace, and few a direct heading which took it over Kamchatka, near the time of a scheduled test of a new ICBM.

Now, as flight 007 was nearing Soviet air space, a RC-135 spy plane, which hand been circling outside Soviet air space, headed home to refuel. Now, this is my opinion, but I grew up in the Air Force, and usually a plane on recon duty doesn't leave its station until another one replaces it.

Now I know I can't document this either but when I was in the hospital in Lackland AFB, I met a man there as a patent. We got to talking about military service and he showed me his ID card and asked if I noticed anything different about it. It had a DC stamp on it. He was Naval Intelligence. After the plane was shot down, he said he couldn't say where, but that the US has listening stations outside the Soviet Union and that the US knew exactly what transpired but they couldn't say because by doing so would give away their secret. He knew about these stations because he worked at them. They listen to all military communications. These are different than the wire taps the US had done on the communications cable under the sea.

So, if it was just pilot error, why was Lawrence P. McDonald D. GA. a staunch anti communist on that flight. According to Insight magazine (June 15, 2204) the amount of debris and body parts isn't consistent with an airliner with over 200 passengers on board. Inconsistent with debris from other airlines that had hit the water.



Adding fuel to the mystery, another author trying to get and the truth has uncovered reports that Flight 007 was flying without its exterior lights on.

(Mystery of flight KAL-007: Izvestia investigation, Andrej Illesh, 1191)



Also according to that article, flight KAL-007 continued for 30 minutes after being hit with a missile. The pilot claimed it was a RC-135 he shot at, not a Boeing 474.



Twenty one years later, no one still knows why a plane that flys mostly by computer could have been so off course and the crew not know that it got shot down for flying over Soviet air space and why Reagan, who thought of the Soviet Union as "the evil Empire" didn't do more to find out the truth.

To respond to Dennis

You have a point, but my point was, if he did it or not, it can never be proven because the LAPD miss handled the case, one of many high profile cases that they have mishandled.

Now that Scott Peterson's trial is underway in CA. we shall see if this case can be won.

O. J. SIMPSON

I'm sorry I haven't posted lately. I've been watching the memorials for Ronald Reagan all last week. I feel like we've lost one of the best presidents we've had in a very long time. But I'll write more about him later.



This last weekend was an anniversary of sorts. Its been 10 years since the murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Although 2 years later O.J.Simpson was tried and acquitted for those murders, no one is satisfied with the outcome.



I was an undergraduate when the murders took place and I took can class in "Investigative Methods" with a professor that Dennis is Familar with, Dr. Lyle Shook, a retired cop, former history teacher, turned professor of Justice and Public Safety. In this class, we learned methods police use in their investigations of different types of crimes.



As in the case of murders, we were taught that once a body is found, the coroner's office is called and the crime scene is secured. Nothing it supposed to be touched or moved until the coroner arrives and takes possession of the crime scene. Then all evidence is photographed in place, the crime scene is sketched, evidence is dusted in place if possible then collected to be taken to the crime lab.



According to the Transcripts of the trial, the first officer, answering a burglary call, arrived on the scene at 12:09am on June 12, 1994. There, with the help of the neighbors, they found the bodies of Nichole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Officer Riske testified that he found Nichole's body, checked the inside for any intruders, found Ron Goldmans body before calling his station.



By this time, Officer Riske stated to his watch commander that they have two bodies and that OJ Simpson may be involved. He made this assumption based on an envelope found on the counter and a lithograph of OJ Simpson on the wall of the condo. After checking for possible perpetrators still at the scene, Officer Riske and his partner secured the crime scene and waited for the detectives.



During his testimony Officer Riske was shown several crime scene photos in which it was obvious that evidence had been moved, although he claimed not to knowing who might have moved the evidence, but agreed it appeared evidence had been moved.



In Mark Furman's testimony, he describes a scene not fully secured when he arrives. He testified that he arrived at the scene at 2:10am



Now Criminalist Dennis Fong, whose job is it is to collect and process evidence didn't get the call of the murders until 5:30 am more than 3 hours after Mark Furman arrived at the scene at the Rockinham location, where he collected bloodstain evidence and a glove pointed out to him by Mark Furman. Fong then proceeded to SouthBundy, where the bodies were, at 10:15am and the coroners office was there processing the bodies. At least 8 hrs from the time the bodies were discovered.



My point is, if the handbook for police investigations say that the crime scene is supposed to be secured and the coroners office called in before anything is disturbed, why is Furman showing evidence to Fong at 9:10 am and the coroner doesn't get there until after 10am?



Whether Simpson is guilty or not, the evidence was so badly handled, that there wasn't anyway to get a conviction.



Which shows how LA handles cases. They let the Hillside Stranglers get away, they let the cops how beat Rodney King get away Scott free, their conviction rate on high profile cases hasn't been good. and had they handled the evidence in the Simpson case, it may have been air tight, but it wasn't.So, we may never know who killed Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman

Response to Jennifer

To reply to Jennifer's comment, that was Stanley Milligram's experiment about obedience.



In the experiment, "the learner" (a part of the research team of the experiment) was in another room, supposedly hooked up to electrodes. The subjects, those who volunteered to participate in the experiment, were told to shock the "learners" if they gave wrong answers to a series of questions. The test subjects were told that the experiment was to show how punishment improved learning.

On the panel of switches that "turned on and off" the electrodes, was a dial that supposedly "Increased" the level of shock.

Every time the "learner" gave the wrong answer, not only was he "shocked," but Milligram told the test subject to turn up the electricity.

The only clue that there was a "learner" being shocked was a recording of the "learner's" screams from being shocked. A surprising number of subjects took the dial all the way up to the supposedly highest level at Milligram's request.

Next, Milligram put the learner behind a screen, where his silhouette could be seen by the test subjects. Now, when the test subjects shocked the learner, they could see him "writhing in pain" from the shock. Although seeing this caused the subjects some stress, still a high number of them complied with Milligram's orders.

Then the Leaner was put in the same room with the subjects, with all the buzz and sounds of electricity and the sound effects, including the "real screams" of the Learner. Even with the Learner in the room, where the subjects could see the effects, A high percentage still complied with Milligram's orders.

The last test was where the subjects were still in the room with the Learner, but Milligram was in another room, communicating by speaker. Although not as many complied as before, there was still a higher percentage of compliance than noncompliance.

Milligram concluded that people comply with authority, even at the expense of another person.

Another factor into Abu Ghraib. These guards were following orders, even if they may have been unlawful orders. But again, these guards were "weekend warriors" not career soldiers. They are not totally immersed in the Codes of Military Justice as are the career soldiers. Theses guard were in a hostile situation and looked for the officers to give them guidance. Unfortunately it was those officers that gave them the unlawful orders. They should be held accountable, not the enlisted.

Abu Grhaib

I didn't want to write about Abu Grhaib because I thought it had been talked about to death. But Dennis persuaded me to because I reminded him of the "Stanford Prison Experiment" of 1971.

In the summer of 1971, a psychologist at Stanford University, Philip G. Zimbardo, wanted to know the answer to three questions:

What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? (The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment)



To answer these questions, Zimbardo decided to conduct an experiment. He would create a makeshift prison and have volunteers to be the "guards" and the "prisoners". To accomplish this, Zimbardo placed an ad in the school news paper advertising his prison experiment and asking for volunteers. The students would be paid $15 a day for the duration of the experiment. He had 72 students to sign up. From these, he selected 24 and gave them all a battery of tests to weed out those with physical or psychological disabilities. They were also all given the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. This test has proven to be effective in detecting both socio-paths and psycho-paths.

All the students were cleared to participate in the experiment.

Now, to make their "prison," the basement of the Psychology dept. was converted into this prison. Doors were taken off storage rooms and replaced with bars. These rooms were 9' by 9,' big enough for three cots. A janitors closet was converted into solitary confinement. The hallway was the "prison yard"

As for other staff, a former inmate was to play technical advisor and parole officer. Limbardo was the superintendent.

With the staff assembled, it was time for the experiment to begin. It started on a Sunday morning when a squad car rounded up the soon to be prisoners. These "subjects" were arrested on "armed robbery," violation 211 of the California Penal Code, and "burglary," a 459 violation of the penal code. They were thrown up against the car, frisked, read their Miranda rights, put in handcuffs and put into the back of the squad car to be taken to the Palo Alto jail to await "classification." Before being transported to their "Prison" the prisoners were blindfolded. This served two purposes, one to disorient the prisoners and give them the feeling of the unknown future and to hide the fact that it was a make shift prison that could easily be escaped. Once at the prison, the prisoners were strip searched, deloused and made to put on their prison uniform. This uniform was just a smock, but it had an emasculating effect of the prisoners. Something that the advisor said real prisoners feel.

As for the treatment of the prisoners, they were only told to use their best judgment, within limits.

At first neither "guards" or "prisoners" treated the situation like it was real and it was thought it would be a loss. But it didn't take long for the guards started acting like guards and prisoners start acting like prisoners.

Head counts were done frequently, around the clock. At night, prisoners had to wake up and stand at the bars to be counted. It didn't take long for the prisoners started misbehaving. At first the guards used minor punishment, such as push-ups, which the researchers thought was being too lenient until it was pointed out to them that even in Nazi concentration camps, guards routinely used push-ups for small infractions. As with the Nazis prison guards, the Stanford guards routinely put a foot on the back of the prisoner while doing push-ups, or had another prisoner sit on their backs.

When the prisoners, fed up with the head counts, started putting their mattresses in front of the bars. the guards called in reinforcements to help put down the rebellion. The guards went in and removed the unruly prisoners and put them in what they called the bad cell. Those in the bad cell weren't allowed bathroom privileges or bathing privileges, or even food, while the other prisoners, the good ones, kept their privileges. Because of the rebellion, the "re-inforcements" that were called in decided to stay, increasing the guard to prisoner ratio. And the guards worked in shifts.

After a day or two separated like that, the guards took the bad prisoners and put them in with the good prisoners. The advisor said this is often done in prisons to establish mistrust among the prisoners. The good prisoners thinking the bad ones must have done something to get back their privileges. Soon, the prisoners were turning on each other instead of the guards. They were given a visiting day, for their families to come and visit. By this time the prisoners were so institutionalized that even when the family members suggested that the "Prisoners" just quit, they said that they couldn't.

Even Limbardo got in on the act by suggesting some of the boys just couldn't "take it," to which the fathers said that their boys could take anything. One parent even suggested getting a lawyer.

Some of the prisoners, from lack of sleep and the psychological games the guards played on them, began to break down and sob uncontrollably. One prisoner was eventually released when he had a complete breakdown. After 6 days, the situation broke down to the point that the experiment was called to a halt. the prisoners were taken in front of a "parole board" some even willing to give up the money due them, just to get out. The head of the parole board, the ex-con/technical advisor, was going to refuse parole to these prisoners, until it was pointed out to him that it was all an experiment, it wasn't real. He got so lost into the situation that he lost touch with reality. At one point even Limbardo himself got lost in his role. Half way through their experiment, they had to release one prisoner because of a mental breakdown. Well, it was rumored that that prisoner that was let go, would come back and break the others out. Limbardo became so involved in protecting his prison that when one coworker came by and asked him what the independent variable was in the experiment, Limbardo got angry. How could he come ask such a question when they were waiting for a prison break?

This experiment, which showed how ordinary people can become so enthralled in their roles they lose perspective. Incidentally, this experiment took place in August 1971. In September, Attica State Prison, in New York, was over ran by prisoners, in protest of their conditions, took over yard D and held 43 prison personal as hostages. Four days later, when the National Guard attacked the prison, 10 hostages and 29 inmates were killed.



Its no wonder Abu Grhaib happened. You had inexperienced personnel in a wartime situation, guarding detainees that they were told may have information that could stop the attacks on American soldiers. The situation was ripe for problems. And Limbardo proved it 30 yrs previously.

Another missed opportunity

On June 3rd. 2004, Lisa Myers, NBC Niglty News investigative reporter, had an interview with a man who claims that a whole year prior to the 9/11 attacks, he went to the FBI headquarters in Newwark, NJ, and told them about a plan by al-Qaida to hijack airliners and blow them up. For weeks the FBI interviewed Niaz Khan, even giving him two polygraph tests when he clearly passed, but he was ultimately turned over to British intelligence, who also questioned and released him.

Niaz Khan was living in London, waiting tables to support his gambling habit, for which he was greatly in debt, when two mean approached him and offered him a better life fighting for the jihad. They flew him to Lahore, Pakistan and gave him several thousand dollars. He waited in a hotel room awaiting further instructions when he was taken blindfolded to a safe house where 30 other men waited. While at this safe house the men were taught how to get weapons passed airport security, how to over power the crew and how to get into the cockpit.

After given this training, he was put on airlines flying from Pakistan to Qatar, to London, to Switzerland then back to London then on to New York. All this to observe how the crew of the airlines operated. When he got to New York, Niaz Khan got cold feet and instead of meeting his contact, went to Alantic City and gambled away all the money. Knowing that al-Qaida had his passport information and they could easily track him down, he went to the FBI headquarters in Newwark to turn himself in.

Although since the attacks hes been in hiding, he came forward after a London reporter published his name and picture, and wants to the world to know that he tried to stop the attacks, but no one would believe him. Now he is hoping someone will offer him asylum or maybe he can go back into hiding. Either way he felt that he did what he had to do.

Possible Terrorist?

According to CBS news. the FBI had arrested and detained the #27th man in the must capture list. but the man, Nabil al-Marabh, was recently released and deported, even though he claimed to have been train by al-Qaeda in rifles and RPGs. He also claimed that he was sent here with plans to hijack an fuel truck and drive it "into a New York City tunnel, turning it sideways, opening its fuel valves and having an al Qaeda operative shoot a flare to ignite a massive explosion." CBSnew.com June 3. 2004

The FBI and the prosecutors in Chicago and Detroit tried to stop the release by trying to indict al-Marabh, but the Justice Department refused claiming it was protecting intelligence. Eventhough al-Marabh said he had desires to die a martyr.



According to the FBI. he was connected to a Boston cab driver, Raed Hijazi, who was convicted in Jordan for planing to bomb a hotel frequented by Americans in Amman in 1999 during milenium celebrations. The FBI later learned that Nabil al-Marabh had been roommates with Raed Hijazi, in the training camps in Afganistan and in the United states and that al-Marabh had sent Hijazi money.

In 1998 and again in 2000, large sums of money was transfers between al-Marabh and Hijazi.

When 4 men were arrested in a Detroit aparment, it was al-Marabh's name on the lease. these 4 men were the first tried in the terroist conspiracy cases.

So, if this man was such a threat, why did the justice department release him for deportation?

PROPANE TRUCKS

Over the weekend, two propane trucks were stolen in San Antonio, TX, one carrying 3,000 gallons and the other 2,600 gallons. Also, in a maybe unrelated incident, canisters containing Nitrous Oxide, Co2 and Oxygen were also stolen. Now the people suspect that the trucks were stolen and taken to Mexico where there is a short supply of propane. But since Sept 11. no one is taking any chances. and we all remember what Timothy McVey did with a truck of fertilizer and diseasel fuel





Well, to update this story, the trucks were found in Laredo, TX which lends credance that the trucks were stolen in an attempt to take them to Mexico, where Propane is in great demand and low availabilty