Cynthia McKinney on 9/11 in The Indpendent

[ian neal]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/cynthia-mckinney-lea ders-lack-of-respect-for-rule-of-law-makes-us-all-victims-of-911-19214 51.html

Cynthia McKinney: Leaders' lack of respect for rule of law makes us all victims of 9/11

The war on terror did not go away with George Bush. When President Barack Obama came to power there was so much hope, but as the US Green Party presidential candidate I did not share it.


I heard candidate Obama's speeches and knew that he would be a War President. What I did not realise was the extent to which the policies of President Obama would mirror those of his predecessor, including the renewal of the Patriot Act and commission of war crimes. Sadly, President Obama's Justice Department is now in US courts defending the criminal acts of the Bush administration.

In his State of the Union address to the nation, President Obama defended war, erosion of civil and human rights, creation of the police state, ignoring the US Constitution and the norms of international law, by invoking the tragedy of 11 September, 2001. Tony Blair also leaps to his own criminal defence by invoking 9/11.

All of us in the peace community, who stand for justice and human dignity, have become victims of 9/11. Those of us who expect our national leaders to promote respect for the environment are now victims of 9/11. Survivors of those who are now dead from the prosecution of these wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere around the world are now victims of 9/11. And the mothers and fathers, siblings and family of the too many dead soldiers are now counted among the victims of 9/11. And sadly, the entire global community that expects national leaders to respect the rule of law and tell them the truth are now victims of 9/11.

Everyone now knows that the Bush administration did not tell the truth about many things, including the Iraq war and 9/11. The leaders of the 9/11 Commission told us that. Why must the world continue to live inside a lie? I remain hopeful that we will learn the truth because more and more people around the world are demanding it.


Cynthia McKinney served in the US Congress for 12 years and was the 2008 Green Party nominee for President of the United States. She now serves as a juror on the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation's Russell Tribunal on Palestine


www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com; more information on 9/11 at www.reinvestigate911.org

[Disco_Destroyer]

Did you know the Russian that owns the Evening Standard bought it for £1 recently? Maybe we'll see some real Independance?

[outsider]

[outsider]

Cindy Sheehan interviews Cynthia McKinney:

http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/corrupt-elections-r-u sa-my-interivew.html

[Disco_Destroyer]

sorry tried posting a link

[outsider]

Cynthia re Pakistan & UAE (and airport bodyscanners):

One day, as usual, I was on my way to another destination that thrust me into the clutches of the Transportation Safety Administration, TSA. I surveyed the landscape and saw an array of the machines that made Michael Chertoff rich, but that could give you cancer. So, I braced myself for the physical assault that was going to take place because I never, never go through those machines. I always exercise my right to opt out. When I have extra time, I'll even demand a private screening. On this particular leg of my journey, the young woman who gave me the private screening was vaguely familiar with Michael Chertoff; she listened attentively to my complaint about the machines and radiation, she vaguely remembered someone else coming through and saying the same thing. But then, she sad, but we have to stop "the enemy" from hurting us "again." I said, "Aha, tell me, my child, who is 'the enemy' and what is this 'again' that you're referring to." Well, she couldn't exactly tell me who the enemy was and so she, reaching for straws, just said, "the people who did 9/11." So, I asked her who these dastardly people were who did 9/11--she didn't exactly know. Therefore she didn't know exactly who "the enemy" was, either. And they didn't tell her that information. So, I told her to do some research on 9/11/01, think about what she just said about our country's "enemies," ponder about who that could possibly be, and seek to better inform herself before she repeats that indoctrination blather that she's taught at TSA. She promised that she would. I gathered my things from my private screening room, warned her about being around those Chertoff machines, and left her. I felt good about that encounter because at the end, she thanked me.

One thing is clear: whether in Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela, bombing people and saber rattling certainly don't win us any friends.

Read these and lament just how far our country has descended. Then, pledge to do something about it. On 9 July, ANSWER is having an anti-war protest in front of the White House. Join them or support them. Only we can stop this madness that is being done in our names.

1. UAE not only cooperates with the killing of Libyans, but the UAE also cooperates with the U.S. in killing Pakistanis. Our country secretly enlists others in its immoral, illegal, and deadly enterprise:


The curious case of the Shamsi airbase

By Ejaz Haider

Published: July 4, 2011

The writer was a Ford Scholar at the Programme in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security at UIUC (1997) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Studies Programme

Shamsi airbase: A Reuters story calls it a mystery wrapped in a riddle. Is it?

There are three state actors involved in the issue — Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. One can be sure that none is likely to tell the truth. But, as Bacon said, if something “be thought secret, it inviteth discovery; as the more close air sucketh in the more open”. So, let’s begin with what is known.

In his book In the Line of Fire, this is what former general-president Pervez Musharraf wrote in detailing the US demands after 9/11:

“How could we allow the US ‘blanket overflight and landing rights’ without jeopardising our strategic assets? I offered only a narrow flight corridor that was far from any sensitive areas. Neither could we give the US ‘use of Pakistan’s naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders.’ We refused to give any naval ports or fighter aircraft bases. We allowed the US only two bases — Shamsi in Balochistan and Jacobabad in Sindh — and only for logistics and aircraft recovery. No attack could be launched from there. We gave no ‘blanket permission’ for anything.”

We gave permission? Fast forward to now. The prime minister and the defence minister say that we can’t throw out the US equipment and personnel because the Shamsi base does not belong to Pakistan, having been leased out to the UAE in 1992. According to this version, the operational control of the base was handed over to the US by the UAE, not Pakistan.

This is corroborated apparently by what the Pakistan Air Force representative told parliament in the in-camera session following the May 2 Abbottabad raid.

Then we have a 2005 US diplomatic cable which says the UAE government is displeased “at leak of reports about its military cooperation with the United States inside Pakistan” contained in American Soldier, a book by General Tommy Franks, former commander of US central command. Franks had written about the use by the US of Sheikh Zayed’s private airstrip in Balochistan.

The cable read: “UAE government desires to keep details of the UAE cooperation with the US military in Afghanistan and Pakistan confidential, because the government is concerned that public acknowledgement of this assistance could pose risks to the UAE security within the UAE or to UAE officials in Pakistan.”

Is Musharraf lying about having permitted the US the use of Shamsi and Jacobabad? Perhaps not. But let’s first raise a few more questions.

What is the nature of this lease? Is it a private international law agreement (PILA) or in the nature of a treaty? If it’s the former, which means an agreement between a government and a private party, then the government of the state to which the private party belongs can intervene and cancel the agreement. This happened in the F-16 case in which the government of Pakistan had entered into an agreement with the manufacturer of the aircraft. The US government, when it slapped sanctions on Pakistan, intervened in that agreement. Reko Diq in Balochistan is another case in point.

Even if the PILA is between the UAE government and the Balochistan government, the federal government can override it because Balochistan is a federating unit. We also don’t know whether the private party, if any, is on the Pakistani side or whether, in this case, the UAE’s royal family has entered as a private party into a lease agreement with Pakistan.

If, on the other hand, the lease is governed by a treaty, then it becomes a sovereign agreement and the nature of the debate changes. It would still be necessary to see whether such an agreement allows the UAE to sub-lease the use of the base to a third party. And if that be the case, whether a sub-lease would also require that the government of Pakistan agree to such arrangement. Nor do we know what constraints the third party will have to work with and who would monitor such compliance.

In the absence of any documents, one can only conjecture. But chances are that any sub-lease by the UAE would need the government of Pakistan’s permission. This is the only way we can square the contents of the US government diplomatic cable with the account given by Musharraf in his book.

This still leaves out the issue of whether the use of the base was confined to recovery of aircraft and logistics. We are now told the US could only mount surveillance flights but there is much evidence that the US also mounted attack flights from the base of MQ1-A Predators. Since when is the question.

The Predator drones had become weapons-capable before 9/11 happened. The first successful test was conducted in February 2001 at Nellis Air Force base. That the US had already begun planning taking out Osama bin Laden is proved by reports that in June 2001 a Hellfire AGM-114C missile was launched on a replica of bin Laden’s Afghanistan residence built at a Nevada test site. Flying from a base in Uzbekistan, it was in February 2002 that an MQ1-A was used to attack a convoy of SUVs inside Afghanistan.

It seems that this is where both the UAEG and the government of Pakistan have been dissembling. The base was handed over to the Americans and everyone was looking the other way over its use. One can’t be sure of when exactly the USG deployed the Predators at Shamsi but it is safe to assume that the base was primarily used for Predator flights. The story was first broken by Zahid Hussain in February 2009 for The Times of London.

It may be noted that when these birds were flying from Uzbekistan, even after the Predators had become weapons-capable, the USG could not operate armed flights until Uzbekistan permitted such flights. So, we can be sure that in this ménage à trois, all three parties were of age and consenting.

Except that now the situation has changed and the government of Pakistan wants an end to this arrangement. That is where the nature of the agreement with UAEG and its politics comes in. There is, of course, the overhang also of Pakistan-US relations, already at their lowest. It is, therefore, not just a matter of evicting the Americans but also dealing with the consequences of doing so vis-a-vis both the USG and the UAEG. Since no course of action is without its costs, it all depends on what it is that the actors consider their optimal and suboptimal choices and whether they are playing a nested game.

Finally, even if we consider Shamsi to be sovereign UAE territory which it could sub-lease to a third party, does a bird flying from Shamsi enter UAE airspace or Pakistan’s?

Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2011.
2. So, are these the young people that the U.S. is fighting in Pakistan, the ones being trained by U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and the UAE? So, innocent Pakistanis die as a result of some game played by the U.S. to justify its military presence inside a country that doesn't want it; who exactly is the enemy anyway? These poor children and their parents? Shame on the politicians from all sides who go along with this.

















Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia, UAE funded extremist networks in Pakistan

By Reuters

Published: May 22, 2011

WikiLeaks said $100 million a year was making its way from those Gulf Arab states to a recruitment network in Punjab.

Charities from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates financed a network in Pakistan that recruited children as young as eight to wage “holy war”, a local newspaper reported on Sunday, citing Wikileaks.

A US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks said financial support estimated at $100 million a year was making its way from those Gulf Arab states to an extremist recruitment network in Pakistan’s Punjab province, Dawn newspaper reported.

Asked to respond to the report, Saudi foreign ministry spokesman Osama Nugali said: “Saudi Arabia issued a statement from day one that we are not going to comment on any WikiLeaks reports because Saudi Arabia is not responsible for these reports and we are not sure about their authenticity.”

The November 2008 dispatch by Bryan Hunt, the then principal officer at the US consulate in Lahore, was based on discussions with local government and non-governmental sources during trips to Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province.

It said those sources claimed that financial aid from Saudi and United Arab Emirates was coming from “missionary” and”Islamic charitable” organisations ostensibly with the direct support of those countries’ governments.

Saudi Arabia, the United States and Pakistan heavily supported the Afghan mujahideen against Soviet occupation troops in the 1980s. Militancy subsequently mushroomed in the region and militants moved to Pakistan’s northwest tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, seen as a global hub for militants.

Since then there has been a growing nexus between militant groups there and in Punjab. In recent years militants have been carrying out suicide bombings seemingly at will in Pakistan, despite military offensives against their strongholds.

Children sent to training camps

But militancy is deeply rooted in Pakistan. In order to eradicate it, analysts say, the government must improve economic conditions to prevent militants from recruiting young men disillusioned with the state.

The network in Punjab reportedly exploited worsening poverty to indoctrinate children and ultimately send them to training camps, said the cable.

Saudi Arabia is seen as funding some of Pakistan’s hardline religious seminaries, or madrassas, which churn out young men eager for “holy war”, posing a threat to the stability of the region.

“At these madrassas, children are denied contact with the outside world and taught sectarian extremism, hatred for non-Muslims, and anti-Western/anti-Pakistan government philosophy,” said the cable.

It described how “families with multiple children” and”severe financial difficulties” were being exploited and recruited, Dawn reported.

“The path following recruitment depends upon the age of the child involved. Younger children (between 8 and 12) seem to be favoured,” said the cable.

Teachers in seminaries would assess the inclination of children “to engage in violence and acceptance of jihadi culture”.

“The initial success of establishing madrassas and mosques in these areas led to subsequent annual “donations” to these same clerics, originating in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” the cable stated.

For more on this issue follow: pakwikileaks

3. And for those who still cling to the chimera that President Obama is a man of peace deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, or that he is a Constitutional attorney, or for that matter, just a man of the law, read this (thanks Chuck):


Obama Administration Shuts Down Investigations Into Bush-era Torture

By Tom Carter


Global Research, July 5, 2011

As part of its cover-up of Bush administration war crimes, the Obama administration announced June 30 that it would shut down 99 investigations into deaths of prisoners in US custody during the so-called “war on terror,” leaving only two investigations with the potential to develop into criminal prosecutions.
The announcement underscores the fact that the anti-democratic policies developed during the presidency of George W. Bush continue unchallenged under President Barack Obama, who is doing everything in his power to keep the lid on the crimes of his predecessor.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration quickly and quietly erected a network of secret prisons and “black sites,” where opponents of US imperialism in the Middle East—as well as, in many cases, their friends, relatives and acquaintances—were jailed, tortured and murdered.

The Obama administration has continued and expanded the anti-democratic methods of the Bush administration, including the use of presidential assassination orders, indefinite detention without trial or charges, blocking court cases that threaten to reveal torture, domestic spying, prosecution of whistle-blowers, “rendition” of alleged terrorists to countries that practice torture, open violations of US and international law, including the War Powers Act in the case of Libya and the Geneva Conventions more generally, and the maintenance of illegal torture camps such as the infamous facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The administration’s 101 investigations into torture deaths were a token measure to begin with. The investigations were initiated in 2009 and were designed to placate popular disgust with torture and other crimes carried out under Bush.

The 101 cases by no means include every death in US custody, and rather conveniently, no case in which the torture victim survived was selected for investigation. The investigations proceeded on the explicit basis that the infamous Bush Justice Department torture memos would not be challenged. Neither would the Bush-era policy of “enhanced interrogation” (a euphemism for torture). The only question that was to be pursued in the investigations was whether the Central Intelligence Agency operatives in the 101 selected death cases had violated Bush administration guidelines. Saddled with such limitations from the outset, the investigations could barely scratch the surface of government-sanctioned war crimes.

Echoing Obama’s mantra of “looking forward, not backward,” Attorney General Holder announced June 30 that 99 of the 101 cases did not warrant further investigation.

“I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” remarked Leon Panetta, who left his post as CIA director July 1 to become secretary of defense. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our agency’s history,” he added. Panetta was referring not to closing the chapter in which torture took place, but closing the chapter in which the agency’s practices were subjected to any form of official scrutiny.

While the two ongoing investigations remain officially secret, some details have been leaked to the press. One case involves the murder of a prisoner at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; the other case involves a murder at the secret CIA “Salt Pit” prison in Afghanistan. These two cases are remarkable both for the shocking brutality of the murders themselves as well as for the cold-blooded “business as usual” attitude of the CIA operatives involved.

Only the most depraved intellect could have designed the nightmarish “Salt Pit,” located northeast of the Kabul, Afghanistan airport, in which a young Afghan man named Gul Rahman was murdered on November 20, 2002.

Ghairat Baheer, a physician and son-in-law of an Afghan political figure associated with opposition to the US occupation, survived the Salt Pit and gave a chilling account to the press of the conditions surrounding Rahman’s death. Baheer and Rahman were old friends, and they were abducted by CIA operatives at around the same time in October, 2002. They were taken together to the Salt Pit for “enhanced interrogation.”

The CIA chose an abandoned brick factory for the installation. According to Baheer, an unimaginable stench permeated the Salt Pit, where prisoners were kept in windowless cells with metal buckets for latrines. Prisoners called it the “dark prison” because there were no windows and no electric lights.

Prisoners spent much of their time in total darkness. The CIA operatives running the prison wore full face masks and used medieval-type torches to make their way through the blackness. In many cells, prisoners were shackled naked to the rough walls with metal chains. No expense was spared to ensure maximum ghoulish terror.

Baheer said he was forced to sleep naked on a rough concrete floor next to his latrine bucket, when he was not chained to the wall of his cell. The cell was perpetually dark.

CIA operatives took turns repeatedly torturing the two men. Among the countless horrors, the two men would be tied to chairs, their torturers would sit on their stomachs, threaten to kill them, stage mock executions, beat them, or douse them with water and leave them to freeze naked in the unheated cells.

According to Baheer, Rahman was stubborn and defiant during the interrogations. The details of the events of the morning of November 20, 2002 are still unclear, but it is known that at some point Rahman’s captors stripped him naked below the waist, shackled his hands over his head, brutally beat him, and then doused him with water. Within hours, Rahman had died of hypothermia.

The Salt Pit prison was closed last year after it became the subject of international scrutiny and survivors began to describe to the press the hideous terrors that took place inside. In closing the prison, the CIA no doubt also had in mind the destruction of any physical evidence of the crimes that had been committed there.

The CIA appears overall to have regarded the Salt Pit as a successful operation. According to information leaked to the Associated Press, the CIA Kabul station chief has been promoted at least three times since Rahman’s death.

The second of the two ongoing investigations involves the murder of Manadel al-Jamadi at the hands of CIA operatives in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq on November 4, 2003.

Jamadi, an alleged insurgent, was abducted violently from his house outside Baghdad in 2003 by Navy SEALs—the same feared and secretive military force that has been lauded in the bourgeois media for the murder of Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, Navy SEALs pursued Jamadi into his kitchen, where he made a ferocious last stand, toppling his stove onto one of the SEALs. In retaliation, the SEALs beat him savagely before turning him over to the CIA for interrogation at Abu Ghraib. Naturally, no trial or legal process of any kind was involved in this operation.

Forty-five minutes after he walked into Abu Ghraib, Jamadi was dead. It appears that once he arrived, Jamadi was subjected to further beatings and was chained to the wall, after which he lost consciousness and asphyxiated. Jamadi’s bruised and bloodstained corpse is featured in a number of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos, with grinning US military personnel standing over him and giving the “thumbs up.”

For as yet unexplained reasons, Jamadi’s corpse was packed in ice and stored in a shower in an attempt to prevent decomposition (military officials jokingly referred to him as “the Iceman”), and CIA officials mysteriously attached an intravenous tube to one of his arms before whisking the corpse out of the facility the following day. It appears that not long after Jamadi’s death a heated dispute broke out between the CIA and the Navy SEALs over which organization would take the blame. CIA operatives at Abu Ghraib rapidly moved to destroy all of the evidence of Jamadi’s death, including a bloodstained hood, and they scrubbed clean the death chamber.

While the Rahman and Jamadi murders constitute only the tip of the iceberg, they expose the day-to-day reality of CIA operations in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA, tasked with discovering and silently “taking out” opponents of the occupations, operates outside the bounds of US and international law. When a federal court ordered the CIA to release 92 video tapes of “enhanced interrogations” in 2005, the CIA responded by destroying the tapes, a brazenly criminal maneuver for which no official to this day has been prosecuted.

The decision by the Obama administration to shut down virtually all of its investigations is a clear signal that the war crimes will continue. Indeed, in the bourgeois press, Holder’s announcement last Thursday was generally interpreted as a green light from the Obama administration to resume and escalate the practice of torture and murder of political opponents in the Middle East. The headline of an article in the Washington Post read, “Could Torture Make a Comeback?”

A deeply reactionary and chilling editorial in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Vindicating the CIA: Ending a Disgraceful Investigation,” went further. Gloating over Holder’s announcement, the editors declared, “The disgrace is that this probe was ever undertaken.”

The editors continued, “The probe has still done considerable harm by creating a culture of second-guessing and political retribution that CIA operatives must now consider as they try to protect against terror threats.” Translated from the euphemistic language of the so-called “war on terror” into plain English, this means that the intelligence agencies should be permitted to go about the grisly work of torturing and murdering their enemies in secret without any restrictions or oversight whatsoever.

The fact that this view enjoys wide support within the ruling class should be taken as a dire warning. How will this same ruling class respond to the development of a popular movement within the US that directly challenges its interests?



4. Now that you know the truth, that it's even worse than you feared, please let your elected representatives know that you've had enough and just like the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently voted, you want all those war dollars to come home to improve our neighborhoods, schools, and infrastructure, and to improve our well being. The violence that starts at home we now export to every corner of this planet. I will be in Houston, TX on 7 July to talk about this violence, perpetrated against innocents at home and abroad. If you are in the Houston area on July 7, please come.

On Thursday, July 7th, at 7:00 p.m., in room 114 at the Public Affairs Building on the Texas Southern University Campus, Congresswoman Cynthia McKiney, just back from war-torn Libya, will speak of her experiences and observations there. The former member of the House of Representatives will relate her experiences to local brutality and violence issues and the struggle for meaningful civilian oversight of the Houston Police Department.

Sponsored by the Black Justice Coalition, the Harris County Green Party, and the Houston 2011 Peace Camp.

Now, on 9 July, anti-war people will peacefully meet in front of the White House. Please participate in or support this effort by ANSWER. And there are more such peaceful meetings being planned all over our country for the remainder of this year. After the information on the July 9 action, I have included a very important, inspirational piece from Mario Savio. Take a moment, review the flier., then read and listen to Mario Savio's words. How sad that our country has come to this again.



Donate to help send anti-war activists to the July 9 protest in Washington, D.C.


This Saturday, July 9, there will be a mass protest at the White House in Washington, D.C. to demand: Stop Bombing Libya.

Buses, vans, carpools and more are coming to D.C. from cities and towns across the East Coast and the Midwest. It will be the most important action agains the U.S./NATO war on Libya yet.

The July 9 protest is the next step of opposition following the hugely successful Cynthia McKinney Eyewitness Libya nationwide speaking tour.

Although D.C. is thousands of miles from Los Angeles, you can support this anti-war initiative and hep send organizers and volunteers to participate in this event.

Click here to donate to help young activists get to the July 9 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. Your donation will help build the struggle to stop the latest U.S. war of aggression, this time targeting Libya in Africa.

Another war for oil

This is an illegal war. The United States and other NATO powers are dropping massive bombs and missiles in an effort to carry out regime change in the country that possesses the largest oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest in the world.

The people of the United States oppose the bombing of Libya by a 2-to-1 margin. But we must act now to show this opposition

At the moment, the government tells us the country is so broke that tens of thousands of teachers and nurses have to be fired, yet there is again limitless funds for another war.

The civil war that commenced in February in Libya provided a perfect pretext for the United States, Britain and France to use overwhelming military power to overthrow the government. Their goal is not more democracy and freedom, or to “protect civilians.” These powers have predatory commercial and military interests in the region that contains two thirds of the world’s known oil reserves.

Humanitarian intervention is just an empty slogan masking the imperial character of the war.

Civilians are being killed by the U.S./NATO bombing. The country’s infrastructure is being destroyed and will undoubtedly be source of lucrative reconstruction contracts for Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, and other western corporations and banks.

Join us on July 9 to say Stop Bombing Libya, End the Occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq!
•Please donate today. We can build the anti-war struggle with your support.
•Click here to find the transportation center nearest you.
•Download the flyer for the July 9 "Stop the Bombing of Libya" demonstration.
•Endorse the July 9 “Stop the Bombing of Libya!” action.
5. And finally, remember Mario Savio. It seems that we have to do it again. Mario said:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

Gain inspiration from him by watching him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JFVIPrhqWk&feature=related


--
http://dignity.ning.com/
http://www.enduswars.org
http://www.livestream.com/dignity
http://www.twitter.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/runcynthiarun
http://www.twitter.com/cynthiamckinney
http://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinney
http://www.youtube.com/runcynthiarun

Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

_______________________________________________ Updates mailing list Updates@lists.allthingscynthiamckinney.com http://lists.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/listinfo.cgi/updates-allthin gscynthiamckinney.com

[fish5133]

blessed are the peacemakers

[outsider]

Cynthia McKinney on Haaretz 'cartoon' referring to 9/11!!!!

'From Cynthia McKinney: Trick or Treat! Interesting Halloween!‏:

'What could ever have prompted this cartoon from Haaretz's Amos Biderman? Why did Haaretz disappear the cartoon as well as the story!': http://news.yahoo.com/outrage-over-israeli-newspaper-s-cartoon-depicti ng-9-11-230612840.html

[outsider]

Link seems to be corrupted. Sus?

Still works for me; but try just putting 'Israeli newspaper’s political cartoon sparks outrage over 9/11 imagery' in search box.

Whoops, sorry, redadare, I accidentally erased your post when answering it.