Bush funds nuclear program in Iran?!? Throw out the bath water, there is no baby!?!

RE: CNN: US has been supporting Iran and Russia Nuclear...!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Josey Wales
Date: Nov 3, 2008 9:16 AM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Waker - Voting 3rd Party!!
Date: Nov 3, 2008 7:56 AM


RE: CNN: US has been supporting Iran and Russia Nuclear Program

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: TATØNKA™ (Native American Bullet)
Date: Nov 3, 2008 6:20 AM


TATØNKA™ (Native American Bullet)

Thanks to the following news hounds:

THINK PEACE WORLD

ॐ omote manji∞
and my long time friends think I'm crazy....Its all a big show, just wait the main event is just ahead...

jane

Third Estate, Second Estate. No, United...States
Thats what I have been saying, they are all in on this, Iran included.
Speaking the key phrases they are told to speak to create the US Vs THEM bit, never assuming he might actually be attacked, or, not minding so much as he was promised a position-
Chavez as well......



CNN: US has been supporting Iran and Russia Nuclear Program

RE: remember this face when you vote......ahahahaha!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Anunnaki
Date: Oct 24, 2008 11:22 AM


good thing i don't vote...

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: crissy
Date: Oct 24, 2008 9:47 AM


don't get it twisted.
:)

RE: JibJab.com It's Time for Some Campaignin' (Funny & True)

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Leo Krayola
Date: Jul 18, 2008 4:08 AM



http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=adc3MSS5Ydc

RE: War Made Easy is the Great Truth Video on the Real War!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: Jul 18, 2008 6:15 AM


The real war which we must always confront is the war of information and propaganda conducted by the government with the full complicity of mass media to propel the national mind set to accept war and to beat the drums for the deaths of people in the hundreds of thousands or millions who they will never know and from whom they have nothing to fear or hate. War is by its very nature so cruel, unacceptable and incomprehensible that it must always be conducted on the basis of lies and the perpetration of massive fraud by those few evil and corrupt men who profit from it politically or financially.




Watch this 70 minute long video and you will finally understand.

It is WAR MADE EASY!







----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: king idiot ©
Date: Jul 18, 2008 3:45 AM

king idiot © says:

ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN !

Peaceful r3Λ07ution ?

KI )O(

view my latest bulletins

Great 60 Minutes interview that was banned because of the O.I.L.

RE: Guilty .. THE LOT OF THEM!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Freeagle
Date: Jul 16, 2008 3:15 AM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ThISForbiddenMedia
Date: Jul 16, 2008 2:58 AM


RE: Morning Joe SUCKS !

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Last Baboon
Date: Jul 16, 2008 1:51 AM





A BURIED 60 Minutes INTERVIEW / INDICTMENT

RE: Red Cross finds Bush administration guilty of war crimes

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: My Hate Speech3
Date: Jul 14, 2008 11:29 PM

In a secret report last year, the Red Cross found evidence of the CIA using torture on prisoners that would make the Bush administration guilty of war crimes, The New York Times reported Friday.

The Red Cross determined the culpability of the Bush administration after interviewing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, according to the article.

Prisoner Abu Zubaydahwho said he had been waterboarded, "slammed against the walls" and confined in boxes "so small he said he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position.

"

The information comes from a new book written by Jane Meyer, who has frequently published articles concerning counter-terrorism in The New Yorker.

The book is titled "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," and will be released next week.

Mayer cited "sources familiar with the report" to explain the confidential document as a warning "that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.

"

The report was submitted to CIA last year and concluded that American interrogation methods are "categorically" torture that violates both domestic and international law, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported Friday.

Although the CIA had already admitted to the use of waterboarding, Meyer says in the book that several CIA officers confirm the findings of the Red Cross, including the other forms of torture mentioned.

Maddow called George W.

Bush a "torture-approver-in-chief who has yet to be held to account for anything" and said that congressman Dennis Kucinich had reintroduced his articles of impeachment against the president.

Maddow questioned constitutional law expert Johnathan Turley about the development.

"The problem for the bush admin is that they perfected plausible deniability techniques," Turley said. "They bring out one or two people that are willing to debate on cable shows whether waterboarding is torture and it leaves the impression that its a closed question.

"It's not. It's just like the domestic surveillance program that the federal court said just a week ago was also not just a closed question.

"

When asked by Maddow if the chances are now greater that Bush will be prosecuted now or after leaving office by the international community, Turley compared the situation to Serbia in the early 90s.

"I'd never thought I would say this, but I think it might in fact be time for the United States to be held internationally to a tribunal. I never thought in my lifetime I would say that.

"

RE: Donald Trump On President George W. Bush good video

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Lori
Date: Jul 4, 2008 1:01 AM


From: Chris
Date: Jul 3, 2008 11:08 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Thanks to Rusty 4 RON PAUL
Date: Jul 3, 2008 11:48 PM

RE: 2008 Bohemian Grove started last night, Obama could not

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Lori
Date: Jul 13, 2008 12:49 AM


From: Bryan
Date: Jul 12, 2008 11:03 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Max Shadow Lifer
Date: Jul 12, 2008 9:16 PM


Obama could not turn down chance to engage in homosexual orgiy, lol.






What a freak.






-max

From: psychic outlaw™ (Omi Oshun) the Vibration
Date: Jul 12, 2008 1:52 AM


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 11, 2008

Outgoing President George W. Bush and both of his presumptive replacements John McCain and Barack Obama are rumored to be in attendance at this year’s Bohemian Grove gathering, an annual get-together of the global elite staged inside a sprawling forest encampment which kicks off tonight and runs until July 27...

Bohemian Grove is a 136-year-old all-male encampment complete with restaurants, bars, stages and lodges, which caters to around 2,000 members of the global elite along with Californian hoi polloi on a yearly basis in July. The camp is set within a 2,700 acre secluded forest replete with giant redwood trees.









,,

Former attendees include Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, who both went on to become President, as well as regulars like Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, David Rockefeller, Colin Powell, as well as George W. Bush and his father...

In 2000 radio host and film maker Alex Jones infiltrated the gathering and caught exclusive video footage of a bizarre mock human sacrifice ritual, known as “the cremation of care”, under a 40 foot stone owl that the members refer to as Molech...

Attendees dress up like Klan members in hooded robes and perform druidic pagan ceremonies to mark the spectacular finale of the event...

In 2004, The New York Post reported that top gay porn star Chad Savage was hired by the Grove to “service” its members during the event and “attend to their every need”...

“When they’re not listening to policy speeches, “Bohos” are known to urinate freely in the redwoods and perform mock-druidic rituals that revolve around a 40-foot-tall stone owl. In one ritual, called “Cremation of Care,” members wearing red-hooded robes cremate a coffin effigy of “Dull Care” at the base of the owl altar,” the report stated...


Alex Jones discusses the shocking footage he obtained during his 2000 infiltration of the Grove. ..

Homosexual orgies are known to be part of the festivities enjoyed by the predominately “Christian conservative” leaders who go there. Former attendee Richard Nixon once referred to the Grove as, “the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine.”..

A reader who got a summer job working at the Grove in 2005, Chris Jones, told us that he was regularly propositioned for sex by the old men attending the encampment and asked if he “slept around” and wanted to have some fun...

Jones was later sentenced to three years in jail by California authorities for simply showing a tape of his visit to minors...

However, the media’s attitude to hundreds of powerbrokers attending an event at which the Manhattan Project was known to have been born, while frolicking around dressed up as women pissing up trees and having gay sex, has been sophomoric to say the least...

One such hit piece in the Sacramento News & Review, which ties the Grove as well as public organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission with shape-shifting reptoid conspiracies, is useful for only one piece of information - the claim that Presidential hopeful John McCain may be attending this year’s gathering...

In addition, according to an Arizona Daily Star report about a different subject, President Bush’s schedule for next week has not been released, meaning Bush, a regular attendee with his father to Bohemian Grove in past years, could be set to make a visit at some point to mark the last year of his presidency...

Tellingly, both McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama will be in California from Saturday to Tuesday, during which time both candidates are scheduled to speak at the National Council of La Raza, a racist Mexican separatist group that advocates a violent overthrow of the southwestern U.S. states...

Their schedule puts them in the perfect location to enjoy a night at the Grove this weekend...

Two years ago we were able to accurately surmise then British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to the Grove, which coincided with a visit to San Francisco where he met with powerbrokers...

Thus far, there has only been one other mainstream report concerning the event, an article entitled Power brokers due at Bohemian Grove, appearing in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, a local paper that routinely covers the gathering...

“Critics, who until recent years mounted protests outside its gates, say the gatherings serve as strategy sessions for a New World Order operating outside democratic institutions,” states the article...

“Most critics raise the specter of national policy with global implications coming from behind the gates of an exclusive, closed-door gathering of largely conservative, wealthy white men.”..

http://www. prisonplanet. com/bush-mccain-obama-to-visit-bohemian-grove. html

Have it Bush's way or the HIGH way

RE: WARNING: ILLEGAL PLANT MAY BE BENEFICIAL

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: jerm: rant in j-minor
Date: Jul 10, 2008 12:41 AM




It's NOT prescribed by your Doctor

-therefore you could be arrested

and do hard time

for tampering with this illicit substance.....

that grows naturally in the earth......

What you do to yourself

in your own privacy

without a prescription

may land you in prison.




(and you thought I was talkin about pot.

haha)

You've been warned.



http://blogs. discovermagazine. com/80beats/2008/07/02/psychedelic-mushrooms-can-boost-mental-health-researchers-say/


http://www. sciam. com/article. cfm?id=long-trip-magic-mushrooms



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanx: Pep's

RE: The U.S. Corporation ~ Welcome to your slavery

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Lori
Date: Jun 24, 2008 11:13 PM


From: D'Stallion
Date: Jun 25, 2008 12:51 AM


From: RO@D Skuul (D* Jure Mag*strate)
Date: Jun 24, 2008 9:16 PM


Truth,isn’t in accordance of the majority



John Marshall, a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and as such he also served in the Circuit Courts of the United States, in a Circuit Court of the United States decision recorded in 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181 clearly states in this important decision, that "The United States of America" is a corporation. The United States of America was first formally created in the Articles of Confederation.







Also notice in the Articles of Confederation that "The United States of America" is in large and small capitals. I have always wondered what this meant with the style of capitals and evidently this identifies a corporation.









The two volume set of the circuit court decisions are not available in West Law and it seems that many of the circuit court decisions are missing from the internet - very suspicious. This was the first level of appeal from the district courts of the United States and original jurisdiction for other specific cases.









This definition of "The United States of America" is also found in Bouvier's law dictionaries. See Bouviers 1843 under United States of America definition.









The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is not the correct real party
of interest.







I did search and found the cases that used this heading
as a plaintiff or defendant in the Supreme Court of the United States
from 1700 to 1915.. See for your self.









I then did a search in all cases - lower and upper courts
[states and fed] and see again for yourself from 1700 to 1900.







There
are very few before the civil war and then they start to multiply.









Later on the 1900's you will also see a change from the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to UNITED STATES of America. Hmmmmm.










All of the Supreme Court cases prior 1900 ere only THE UNITED
STATES or UNITED STATES save two and if you look at the headings this
was different.







Think we had a change in the government during the
civil war and after?
http://www. jusbelli. com/usofa_is_corp. html

Thankslaura
Date: June 24, 2008 8:12 PM

RE: THE CAPSTONE THAT KILLED JFK

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: gwap
Date: Jun 23, 2008 2:54 AM


AND

THE SPEECH THAT SEALED HIS FATE

I’d like to talk a little bit about the secret societies which have become a fan of this whole topic–this conspiracy theory which is pushed out there by the top to make it almost like a sideline hobby, which discredits the truth because history is in fact full of one conspiracy after another done by one or other groups all down through the ages.



Oliver Stone shows you in the movie JFK the group that killed the President and it’s when they meet in the park by the Washington Memorial and when they ask, “who could have had the power to do all of this,” and it pans back and the two men become minute dots on the little park bench and from the top to the bottom of the screen on the left hand side you see the whole monument, the symbol, the obelisk of the real secret society above all the little freemasonic institutions' outer portico at the bottom. The real boys. The real boys that are the establishment you see. That’s who killed him.



This will be followed by a speech given by JFK at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on April 27, 1961. He gave this speech to the National News Publishers Association. It lasts about 19 minutes or so.

This audio clip which will be played and in the speech you’ll hear JFK talk about the need to have no secret societies in government because he was well aware that that’s what you have. You’ve always had it. They’re still here today and that speech was the one that sealed his fate.

That was the real reason – the REAL REASON THAT HE WAS KILLED PUBLICLY.

Publicly executed with craftiness as the High Masons say. It was done craftily out in the open as he drove into the sun and his head was right there.



So here’s a clip from Oliver Stone first of all.



Oliver Stone: “It’s a real question isn’t it? Why. The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia keeps them guessing like some kind of parlor game prevents them from asking the most important question.

Why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?”


Alan: So there you are. There’s the actual tongue-in-cheek proof in front of your face, you see, what you do get in movies shown to you right in the open and people cannot come to a conclusion unless it’s told to them basically as Mr. Brzezinski said. So following right now is the actual speech by JFK April 27, 1961 at the National News Publishers Association in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York where he sealed his fate by being the first president really to come out publicly and talk about the need to get rid of secret societies, not only in government, but right through the whole society which rules us basically.




JOHN F.

KENNEDY APRIL 27, 1961 SPEECH

The President and the Press: American Newspaper Publishers Association

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York

Mr.

Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:



I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.





You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.





You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.





We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.

"



But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.





If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.





I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.





It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.





Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.





Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.





If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.





On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.





It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.





My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.





I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.





This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.





The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.





But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.





Today no war has been declared and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.





If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.





It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.





Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.





Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.





For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.





The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.





That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.





On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.





I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.





Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.





And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.





Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.





It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.





No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.





I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.





Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.





This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.





It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.





And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan: So there you are. Telling the truth can be extremely hazardous to your health. Not just in this age but in all ages. It’s interesting to note that in Dallas near Dealey Plaza where all this took place with the three intersections of the bypass forming a form of a triad – the trident, a pyramid you might say. Right near there the local freemasons have erected a monument to Kennedy’s death really and it’s up to you to decide if that was in memory of him or a boast to the high capstone boys you see to their total dominance because they built an obelisk inside a Rotunda and on top of the obelisk they have a stone form of the fire coming out of the end of the obelisk the fire and down below it there’s a pool, just like at Washington’s Memorial, there’s always the fire symbol–the phallic symbol. You see it’s fire, spirit, energy, the driving force and it’s reflected in the water, the female, the feminine and so they put the pool there too at Dallas to commemorate their victory, I suppose, showing their total domination of heaven and earth. That’s quite a boast for them to make but that is the meaning behind the phallic symbol towering over its reflection in the water. The spirit and the earth, you see, heaven and earth.



It’s up to you to decide whether you can continue pretending to live under an elected government that’s supposed to serve you, or if you demand total openness as Kennedy was stating there from the news publishers association; because if you cannot have openness you’ll be run by secrecy and secrecy never changes its direction. It never changes it grasp for power. It’s totalitarian instinct. We cannot live under secrecy any longer. If we think we can go along to get along, we’re goners.





We’ve got to come out now and demand to know all those officials who belong to "societies with secrets" as they will phrase it themselves and to know what they’ve sworn oaths to and we’ve got to find out whose being tapped out of those lower associations brought into the side lodges and brought up to the higher groups, because those that join the club to run the whole world for their own offspring forever as far as they’re concerned, they have to be exposed.





We have no choice in this matter. You can see how the world is going. We’re going into a scientific dictatorship and the science departments. All these huge international organizations are part of the control system. They’re not separate. They’re all one and we don’t have long to do this. We have to get it all out and demand openness now.



..WE CANNOT LIVE UNDER SECRECY.

..

Secrecy by its very nature bodes ill to those who are out of the know

Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt

RE: Brasscheck TV: White House Coup‏

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Lori
Date: Jun 22, 2008 12:28 PM


From: Nierika
Date: Jun 22, 2008 10:39 AM


Brasscheck TV: White House Coup‏

There was almost an armed coup in the US.





A Marine General was lined up to lead it...

Over 500,000 men were identified as potential
members of a private corporate army...

and the right wing press provided the propaganda
to cover it.





The year was 1934...

http://www. brasschecktv. com/page/346. html

- Brasscheck

P.S.



Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.





That's how we grow. Thanks.





==============================

Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.




San Francisco, CA 94115
==============================
White House Coup

1934







Fascist America...almost
You probably didn't learn this in school.





In 1934, a group of wealthy individuals and corporate leaders decided to force Roosevelt out of the White House - with violence if necessary.





A retired Marine General was recruited, half a million men were identified as potential members of a private army to carry out the coup, and the right wing press was on board to provide propaganda.





One of the conspirators: Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather.





How little things have changed.

Truth on the War on Drugs

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Excellent New Documentary About The War On Drugs



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Lullaby Academy
Date: Apr 9, 2008 8:08 PM



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
thanks: Dylan
Date: Apr 9, 2008 9:18 PM




There is a WAR Being Waged in the Streets of America

35 years after Nixon started the war on drugs, we have over one million non-violent drug offenders living behind bars.




The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country endure? Inspired by the death of four family members from "legal drugs" Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth sets out to discover why the Drug War has become such a big failure. Three and a half years in the making, the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA.




AMERICAN DRUG WAR shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just drug pushers and dope fiends, but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ’pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.




After 4 years of production including several sold out test screenings in New York, Austin & Los Angeles, the final version of American Drug War "the last white hope" is locked and loaded.

RE: So this is a George Bush Christmas? You can keep it, Dub!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: Dec 23, 2007 4:04 PM


George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condolizzard Rice all deserve a bag of sticks for Christmas. Really, what do you get for the Reptiles who have everything?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Nibiru
Date: Dec 23, 2007 2:56 PM


G.W. Bush covers John Lennon's Christmas classic: Happy Xmas / War is over.

RE: ~~~Mega Post #4~~~

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Brian CNN SUCKS!!! [RONPAUL2008.COM]
Date: Dec 9, 2007 10:39 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: SafetyJoe [Ron Paul 2008]
Date: Dec 9, 2007 10:20 PM


Ron Paul supporters, please repost!


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Donate at ronpaul2008 on December 16th.
Date: Dec 9, 2007 10:03 PM


Overseas Americans can now donate on the main website. But they aren't even aware of it yet.

This comes just in time for overseas donations to come in for December 16th money bomb.

Make sure they hear about it!


www.ronpaul2008.com



Ron Paul Group Alliance~~~~ Please Repost


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Flo
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:22 PM


Ron Paul Group Alliance

http://www.meetupalliance.com:80/ronpaul2008



Ron Paul Tea Party December 16th



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: CARLOS (RON PAUL 08!!)
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:20 PM








Ron Paul hits bump in the road with Hispanics



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Flo
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:00 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Hispanics 4 Ron Paul 2008 (La Nueva Revolución)
Date: Dec 9, 2007 8:44 PM


For those of you who were in tune to the debate, you may have noticed that Dr. Paul got a ROUSING BOO from the audience when he spoke of engaging in free trade with Venezuela and Cuba.

It speaks mainly to the level of hatred that most south americans and cubans feel towards their respective dictators, and a Paul administration would not be condusive of a change in any of these countries.

Those of us who know Dr. Paul's foreign policy well will know why: Non intervention. Considering that these 2 countries pose absolutely no threat to the United States, there is no reason why we should be interfering (as we have and currently still do) with these countries' leaders.

McCain and Giulliani, laughing all the way, jumped at the occasion to strike back at Dr. Paul for his sudden unpopularity and lashed back by not stating what they would do, but simply condemning the leaders of these countries, hence getting a rousing applause.

Giulliani's response "oh, I agree with Huck" (he didn't get booed.) heh, (wiping sweat off brow.)

In the end, I truly think that some people simply want to be entertained, and clowns do have the greatest entertainment value. It was sad to see that the truth - and that is the possibility of the US ceasing to destabilize countries like Guatemala, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc... would not have elicited a greater response. I'm frankly quite shocked, and hope that something was lost in translation.

Trust me, this will be all over the news tomorrow. Be forewarned.

I read that Ron Paul got booed at this debate tonight


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Darla 4 RON PAUL
Date: Dec 9, 2007 10:09 PM


December 09, 2007 09:17 PM Eastern Time
Univision’s Historic Republican Presidential Forum Creates Unprecedented Connection with Vital Hispanic Electorate

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Univision Communications Inc., the nation’s leading Spanish-language media company, together with the University of Miami, made history this evening with the broadcast of the first ever Republican Presidential Candidate Forum in Spanish. Univision’s Forum provided a landmark opportunity for the Republican candidates to speak directly to the growing Hispanic electorate whose votes will play an important role in the next presidential election.

The 90-minute forum, moderated by Univision’s award-winning network news anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, took place at the University of Miami’s BankUnited Center in Coral Gables, Florida. Republican candidates Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Senator John McCain, Congressman Ron Paul, Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Fred Thompson addressed issues of particular interest to the Hispanic community, including immigration, Latin American foreign policy, the war in Iraq, healthcare and education.

“Univision is proud of the history we made tonight: as of this evening, the 2008 presidential elections are the very first in which Spanish-speaking voters have heard directly from the candidates of both major political parties in their own language,” said Joe Uva, CEO of Univision Communications Inc. “These candidate forums are a recognition of the increasingly important role Hispanic Americans play in our national politics and a product of Univision’s commitment to bring the voices of our audiences into the American political dialogue.”

“The University of Miami is proud to once again have been part of such an important event for the Hispanic community in this country, and we thank Univision for making this historic moment possible,” said Donna E. Shalala, President of the University of Miami. “Hosting both the majority of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates on campus has provided our students with the opportunity to experience the vital role that free and open expression and exchange of ideas plays in our democracy.”

Ramos commented: “I am honored to participate in the first ever Republican Presidential Candidate Forum in Spanish. I see it as my duty to inform and make sure that every member of the Hispanic community is educated about the electoral process and the candidates in this crucial Presidential election.”

“It’s especially rewarding to be a part of a discussion in which our audience can hear directly from the candidates themselves, in their own words, about their positions on the issues that most directly affect their daily lives,” commented Salinas.

Utilizing the company’s multi-platform capabilities, the forum was also broadcast live on their AM radio network, RadioCadena Univision, and streamed on their popular website, Univision.com.

Both Univision.com and Univision Móvil featured extensive coverage of the Republican Presidential Candidate Forum. For the first time, users submitted questions to Republican candidates and posted opinions on Univision.com (Keyword: Elecciones). The candidate forum was streamed live on Univision.com, and exclusive clips can now be accessed via Univision Móvil. Online and mobile coverage of the forum is yet another source for Hispanic participation in the upcoming elections.

A full transcript, in English and Spanish, as well as photos of the event are available for download at ftp.univision.net Username: republicanforum2007 Password: univision.

Univision Communications Inc.

Univision Communications Inc. is the premier Spanish-language media company in the United States. Its operations include Univision Network, the most-watched Spanish-language broadcast television network in the U.S. reaching 99% of U.S. Hispanic Households; TeleFutura Network, a general-interest Spanish-language broadcast television network, which was launched in 2002 and now reaches 89% of U.S. Hispanic Households; Galavisión, the country’s leading Spanish-language cable network; Univision Television Group, which owns and operates 64 television stations in major U.S. Hispanic markets and Puerto Rico; Univision Radio, the leading Spanish-language radio group which owns and/or operates 70 radio stations in 16 of the top 25 U.S. Hispanic markets and 5 stations in Puerto Rico; Univision Music Group, which includes Univision Records, Fonovisa Records, La Calle Records and Mexico-based Disa Records as well as Fonomusic and America Musical Publishing companies; and Univision Online, the premier Spanish-language Internet destination in the U.S. located at www.univision.com. Univision Communications also has a 50% interest in TuTv, a joint venture formed to broadcast Televisa’s pay television channels in the U.S., and a non-voting 14.9% interest in Entravision Communications Corporation, a public Spanish-language media company. Univision Communications has television network operations in Miami and television and radio stations and sales offices in major cities throughout the United States.

For more information, please visit www.univision.net.

University of Miami

The University of Miami is one of the nation's leading research universities with more than 15,600 undergraduate and graduate students from around the world. Founded in 1925, UM has grown from its main campus in the city of Coral Gables to include the Miller School of Medicine campus located near downtown Miami, the internationally renowned Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science campus on Virginia Key, and the South and Richmond campuses in southwest Miami-Dade County. The University’s vast and energetic research enterprise attracted more than $274 million in external funding in FY 2007. Its top-ranked medical school, which has internationally renowned programs in several specialties, is a key local health care resource, with its 800 faculty physicians handling 1 million patient visits annually. Led by President Donna E. Shalala, UM is accelerating its progress in all key areas, including fundraising: in 2006 the Momentum campaign reached its initial $1 billion goal 18 months ahead of schedule, and the campaign recently surpassed its subsequent $1.25 billion goal, hitting $1.31 billion. Over the past 5 years, UM’s selectivity in undergraduate admissions has increased dramatically, as have the undergraduate programs, with a multitude of opportunities for undergraduates to engage in research. In addition, the University is committed to strengthening its graduate programs by increasing the number of Ph.D. candidates across the disciplines and schools. UM played host to the first-ever Presidential Debate in the State of Florida in 2004. For more information on the University of Miami, visit www.miami.edu.
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/topix/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071209005069&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1000639&vnsId=41



illegal alien camp exposed in San Diego, CA



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Operation: Generation
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:31 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jojo/Proud Infidel
Date: Dec 9, 2007 6:15 PM




Buck Fush And His Shock And Awe



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jerry
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:46 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Toxic Daïsïes
Date: Dec 9, 2007 8:36 PM




Why Bush Invaded Iraq



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jerry
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:32 PM




Richard Dreyfuss on Liberty



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jerry
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:26 PM




ISRAEL WANTS WAR WITH IRAN.....Here's Proof



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jerry
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:02 PM




Inside the Iran Bamboozle



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: shalin [ron paul 2008]
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:46 PM


these wars for israel need to end..

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Compañero
Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:38 PM






###

RE: Keith Olbermann, this is the doozie to watch..

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Shane (Infoseekr)
Date: Dec 7, 2007 8:20 AM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Last Baboon
Date: Dec 7, 2007 5:02 AM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Joe
Date: Dec 7, 2007 12:22 PM


If you watch only ONE Keith Olbermann segment, this is the doozie to watch.. Not only does Keith get fumed up over the latest lies that our fearless leader is telling us, he mentions the fact that some of our presidents have been facades, with others calling the shots.. He even mentions Reagan.. FINALLY.. Now hopefully Keith can put some more of the dots together and see the big picture..

Unfortunately most Americans are too distracted or lazy to realize what is going on and don't see this recent outing of this lying administration and the lack of action by congress as a threat to our constitution. Where are all the patriots?

Nathan Hale is rolling in his grave right now.

RE: Rudy Giuliani Benefits From NAFTA Superhighway

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Ignorance Isn't Bliss
Date: Nov 30, 2007 8:17 PM

Rudy Giuliani Benefits From Sale Of U.S. Highways To Foreign Companies; Q&A With Pat Choate On Privatizing U.S. Highways & The NAFTA Superhighway

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/07/0615/art2.html

The sell-off of American highways to private companies coupled with the controversial plan to build the "NAFTA Superhighway" has become an explosive political subject in many states. The influx of foreign companies involved in becoming owners of public assets has further enraged the public, as have details about their financial ties with some of the country's most well-known politicians.

One of the biggest whoppers in the whole debate about political patronage and the sell-off of public infrastructure concerns the $100-million buyout of the firm owned by Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani by Macquarie, the big Australian investment banking firm.

CONTINUE READING ARTICLE

ALSO:

http://www.truthbetolled/trailer-TTC.php
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/07/0615/art2.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53378
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3nM4A_dyqv8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT-ouQPgMmI
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8138/building_a_north_american_community.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8173/north_american_community_approach_to_security.html
www.SPP.gov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Li0Wa5rc0

<DIV align=center>
</DIV>

RE: I just became a Pete Stark fan..tellin Congress how it is

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Florida 9/11 Truth/WeAreCHANGEFL.ORG/Ron Paul 08
Date: Oct 19, 2007 12:19 AM


Thanks: Corporations_Ate_My_BABY!
Date: Oct 19, 2007 12:04 AM


Olbermann: Pete Stark DONT APOLOGIZE!!


From:Guinea: The 1930's Smut Peddler Keith Olbermann: S-Chip Jerry
Date: Oct 19, 2007 1:45 AM

RE: It appear that Blackwater is working with the executive branch

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: Oct 7, 2007 2:06 PM


Does Anyone beside me see this as Extra- Constitutional?
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Douglas Truth Seeker
Date: Oct 7, 2007 10:54 AM


Does Anyone beside me see this as Extra- Constitutional?
Body: ----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: § Lori §
Date: Oct 7, 2007 12:33 PM


From: Wayne
Date: Oct 7, 2007 12:27 PM


Thanks, Virginia Brooks:

Blackwater Air Force

In the July edition of The Idaho Observer, we ran an extensive story by Jeremy Scahill exposing the underlying purpose of armed and perpetual military conflict: It’s immensely profitable for those who have corporate interests in war. The private security company Blackwater U.S.A., run by former Navy Seals and other highly-trained special forces types, is growing exponentially at this time, reaping the rewards to be gleaned from war and "reconstruction." As its influence grows during this time of deepening and expanding conflict, so do the number of specialized services Blackwater is able to offer.

Blackwater U.S.A. is reportedly buying Super Tucano light combat aircraft from the Brazilian manufacturer Embraer. "These five ton, single engine, single seat aircraft are built for pilot training, but also perform quite well for counter-insurgency work.... The bubble canopy provides excellent visibility. This, coupled with its slow speed (versus jets), makes it an excellent ground attack aircraft," Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army" (2006).

The Super Tucano "can carry up to 1.5 tons of weapons, including 12.7mm machine-guns, bombs and missiles."

Since the U.S. military has enjoyed complete air dominance over Iraq since 1990, and Iraq is currently Blackwater’s main area of operations, one has to wonder why Blackwater is beginning to assemble an air force.

According to Scahill, "Blackwater’s been in negotiations with several state governments in the United States. Blackwater met recently with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about doing disaster response in California. They’re opening up a new private military base in San Diego and another one in Mount Carroll, Illinois. Blackwater has applied for operating licenses in every coastal U.S. state."

What Scahill has uncovered is that Blackwater is establishing, in cooperation with state governments with the apparent approval of the Bush administration, what is tantamount to private military bases inside the U.S.

Per National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-51, the plans by which the executive branch would run the entire government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency," which could be anything from a terrorist attack, a disease outbreak or a natural disaster. "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

It would appear that Blackwater is working with the executive branch to lay the groundwork for an eventual catastrophic emergency. For years now public servants and emergency medical personnel have been planning and preparing to do their parts in a declared state of emergency and even the clergy is being enlisted by the Department of Homeland Security to keep citizens in line in the event of a declaration of martial law. It is disconcerting that a private company with close ties to the GOP is arming itself with attack planes just at the moment when the President is laying the groundwork to exercise extraordinary martial authority during a state of emergency.

RE: Secret US Endorsement of Severe Interrogations

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Elsewhere's Daughter
Date: Oct 6, 2007 5:37 AM

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that he would not comment on any legal opinion related to interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, “We have gone to great lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and our practices fall within U.S. law” and international agreements.

More than two dozen current and former officials involved in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three months about the opinions and the deliberations on interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern.

When he stepped down as attorney general in September after widespread criticism of the firing of federal prosecutors and withering attacks on his credibility, Mr. Gonzales talked proudly in a farewell speech of how his department was “a place of inspiration” that had balanced the necessary flexibility to conduct the war on terrorism with the need to uphold the law.

Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s counsel, to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence.

The interrogation opinions were signed by Steven G. Bradbury, who since 2005 has headed the elite Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. He has become a frequent public defender of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and detention policies at Congressional hearings and press briefings, a role that some legal scholars say is at odds with the office’s tradition of avoiding political advocacy.

Mr. Bradbury defended the work of his office as the government’s most authoritative interpreter of the law. “In my experience, the White House has not told me how an opinion should come out,” he said in an interview. “The White House has accepted and respected our opinions, even when they didn’t like the advice being given.”

The debate over how terrorism suspects should be held and questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote, choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of a handful of appointees.

The policies set off bruising internal battles, pitting administration moderates against hard-liners, military lawyers against Pentagon chiefs and, most surprising, a handful of conservative lawyers at the Justice Department against the White House in the stunning mutiny of 2004. But under Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Bradbury, the Justice Department was wrenched back into line with the White House.

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda, President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.’s secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or pouring water over a bound prisoner’s cloth-covered face to induce fear of suffocation.

But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the administration, President Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques - the details remain secret - and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas. The executive order was reviewed and approved by Mr. Bradbury and the Office of Legal Counsel.

Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed that office under President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush and wrote a book about it, said he believed the intense pressures of the campaign against terrorism have warped the office’s proper role.

“The office was designed to insulate against any need to be an advocate,” said Mr. Kmiec, now a conservative scholar at Pepperdine University law school. But at times in recent years, Mr. Kmiec said, the office, headed by William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia before they served on the Supreme Court, “lost its ability to say no.”

“The approach changed dramatically with opinions on the war on terror,” Mr. Kmiec said. “The office became an advocate for the president’s policies.”

From the secret sites in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe where C.I.A. teams held Qaeda terrorists, questions for the lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters arrived daily. Nervous interrogators wanted to know: Are we breaking the laws against torture?

The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.

“We were getting asked about combinations - ‘Can we do this and this at the same time?’” recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.

Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He recalled agency officers asking: “These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature - can they be combined?” Or “Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?”

The questions came more frequently, Mr. Kelbaugh said, as word spread about a C.I.A. inspector general inquiry unrelated to the war on terrorism. Some veteran C.I.A. officers came under scrutiny because they were advisers to Peruvian officers who in early 2001 shot down a missionary flight they had mistaken for a drug-running aircraft. The Americans were not charged with crimes, but they endured three years of investigation, saw their careers derailed and ran up big legal bills.

That experience shook the Qaeda interrogation team, Mr. Kelbaugh said. “You think you’re making a difference and maybe saving 3,000 American lives from the next attack. And someone tells you, ‘Well, that guidance was a little vague, and the inspector general wants to talk to you,’” he recalled. “We couldn’t tell them, ‘Do the best you can,’ because the people who did the best they could in Peru were looking at a grand jury.”

Mr. Kelbaugh said the questions were sometimes close calls that required consultation with the Justice Department. But in August 2002, the department provided a sweeping legal justification for even the harshest tactics.

That opinion, which would become infamous as “the torture memo” after it was leaked, was written largely by John Yoo, a young Berkeley law professor serving in the Office of Legal Counsel. His broad views of presidential power were shared by Mr. Addington, the vice president’s adviser. Their close alliance provoked John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to refer privately to Mr. Yoo as Dr. Yes for his seeming eagerness to give the White House whatever legal justifications it desired, a Justice Department official recalled.

Mr. Yoo’s memorandum said no interrogation practices were illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or “even death.” A second memo produced at the same time spelled out the approved practices and how often or how long they could be used.

Despite that guidance, in March 2003, when the C.I.A. caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, interrogators were again haunted by uncertainty. Former intelligence officials, for the first time, disclosed that a variety of tough interrogation tactics were used about 100 times over two weeks on Mr. Mohammed. Agency officials then ordered a halt, fearing the combined assault might have amounted to illegal torture. A C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, declined to discuss the handling of Mr. Mohammed. Mr. Little said the program “has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review” and “has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives.”

“The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists,” Mr. Little added.

Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed’s statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.’s initial interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed’s background or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert to the secret prison. The former official said many C.I.A. professionals now believe patient, repeated questioning by well-informed experts is more effective than harsh physical pressure.

Other intelligence officers, including Mr. Kelbaugh, insist that the harsh treatment produced invaluable insights into Al Qaeda’s structure and plans.

“We leaned in pretty hard on K.S.M.,” Mr. Kelbaugh said, referring to Mr. Mohammed. “We were getting good information, and then they were told: ‘Slow it down. It may not be correct. Wait for some legal clarification.’”

The doubts at the C.I.A. proved prophetic. In late 2003, after Mr. Yoo left the Justice Department, the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, began reviewing his work, which he found deeply flawed. Mr. Goldsmith infuriated White House officials, first by rejecting part of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program, prompting the threat of mass resignations by top Justice Department officials, including Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Comey, and a showdown at the attorney general’s hospital bedside.

Then, in June 2004, Mr. Goldsmith formally withdrew the August 2002 Yoo memorandum on interrogation, which he found overreaching and poorly reasoned. Mr. Goldsmith left the Justice Department soon afterward. He first spoke at length about his dissenting views to The New York Times last month, and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Six months later, the Justice Department quietly posted on its Web site a new legal opinion that appeared to end any flirtation with torture, starting with its clarionlike opening: “Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.”

A single footnote - added to reassure the C.I.A. - suggested that the Justice Department was not declaring the agency’s previous actions illegal. But the opinion was unmistakably a retreat. Some White House officials had opposed publicizing the document, but acquiesced to Justice Department officials who argued that doing so would help clear the way for Mr. Gonzales’s confirmation as attorney general.

If President Bush wanted to make sure the Justice Department did not rebel again, Mr. Gonzales was the ideal choice. As White House counsel, he had been a fierce protector of the president’s prerogatives. Deeply loyal to Mr. Bush for championing his career from their days in Texas, Mr. Gonzales would sometimes tell colleagues that he had just one regret about becoming attorney general: He did not see nearly as much of the president as he had in his previous post.

Among his first tasks at the Justice Department was to find a trusted chief for the Office of Legal Counsel. First he informed Daniel Levin, the acting head who had backed Mr. Goldsmith’s dissents and signed the new opinion renouncing torture, that he would not get the job. He encouraged Mr. Levin to take a position at the National Security Council, in effect sidelining him.

Mr. Bradbury soon emerged as the presumed favorite. But White House officials, still smarting from Mr. Goldsmith’s rebuffs, chose to delay his nomination. Harriet E. Miers, the new White House counsel, “decided to watch Bradbury for a month or two. He was sort of on trial,” one Justice Department official recalled.

Mr. Bradbury’s biography had a Horatio Alger element that appealed to a succession of bosses, including Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and Mr. Gonzales, the son of poor immigrants. Mr. Bradbury’s father had died when he was an infant, and his mother took in laundry to support her children. The first in his family to go to college, he attended Stanford and the University of Michigan Law School. He joined the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he came under the tutelage of Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater independent prosecutor.

Mr. Bradbury belonged to the same circle as his predecessors: young, conservative lawyers with sterling credentials, often with clerkships for prominent conservative judges and ties to the Federalist Society, a powerhouse of the legal right. Mr. Yoo, in fact, had proposed his old friend Mr. Goldsmith for the Office of Legal Counsel job; Mr. Goldsmith had hired Mr. Bradbury as his top deputy.

“We all grew up together,” said Viet D. Dinh, an assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and very much a member of the club. “You start with a small universe of Supreme Court clerks, and you narrow it down from there.”

But what might have been subtle differences in quieter times now cleaved them into warring camps.

Justice Department colleagues say Mr. Gonzales was soon meeting frequently with Mr. Bradbury on national security issues, a White House priority. Admirers describe Mr. Bradbury as low-key but highly skilled, a conciliator who brought from 10 years of corporate practice a more pragmatic approach to the job than Mr. Yoo and Mr. Goldsmith, both from the academic world.

“As a practicing lawyer, you know how to address real problems,” said Noel J. Francisco, who worked at the Justice Department from 2003 to 2005. “At O.L.C., you’re not writing law review articles and you’re not theorizing. You’re giving a client practical advice on a real problem.”

As he had at the White House, Mr. Gonzales usually said little in meetings with other officials, often deferring to the hard-driving Mr. Addington. Mr. Bradbury also often appeared in accord with the vice president’s lawyer.

Mr. Bradbury appeared to be “fundamentally sympathetic to what the White House and the C.I.A. wanted to do,” recalled Philip Zelikow, a former top State Department official. At interagency meetings on detention and interrogation, Mr. Addington was at times “vituperative,” said Mr. Zelikow, but Mr. Bradbury, while taking similar positions, was “professional and collegial.”

While waiting to learn whether he would be nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Bradbury was in an awkward position, knowing that a decision contrary to White House wishes could kill his chances.

Charles J. Cooper, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan, said he was “very troubled” at the notion of a probationary period.

“If the purpose of the delay was a tryout, I think they should have avoided it,” Mr. Cooper said. “You’re implying that the acting official is molding his or her legal analysis to win the job.”

Mr. Bradbury said he made no such concessions. “No one ever suggested to me that my nomination depended on how I ruled on any opinion,” he said. “Every opinion I’ve signed at the Office of Legal Counsel represents my best judgment of what the law requires.”

Scott Horton, an attorney affiliated with Human Rights First who has closely followed the interrogation debate, said any official offering legal advice on the campaign against terror was on treacherous ground.

“For government lawyers, the national security issues they were deciding were like working with nuclear waste - extremely hazardous to their health,” Mr. Horton said.

“If you give the administration what it wants, you’ll lose credibility in the academic community,” he said. “But if you hold back, you’ll be vilified by conservatives and the administration.”

In any case, the White House grew comfortable with Mr. Bradbury’s approach. He helped block the appointment of a liberal Ivy League law professor to a career post in the Office of Legal Counsel. And he signed the opinion approving combined interrogation techniques.

Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.

Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey’s opposition might have killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare administration official who was willing to confront Mr. Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr. Comey stated that “no lawyer” would endorse Mr. Yoo’s justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred, saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey shot back: “No good lawyer,” according to someone present.

But under Mr. Gonzales, and after the departure of Mr. Goldsmith and other allies, the deputy attorney general found himself isolated. His troublemaking on N.S.A. and on interrogation, and in appointing his friend Patrick J. Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, which would lead to the perjury conviction of I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, had irreparably offended the White House.

“On national security matters generally, there was a sense that Comey was a wimp and that Comey was disloyal,” said one Justice Department official who heard the White House talk, expressed with particular force by Mr. Addington.

Mr. Comey provided some hints of his thinking about interrogation and related issues in a speech that spring. Speaking at the N.S.A.’s Fort Meade campus on Law Day - a noteworthy setting for the man who had helped lead the dissent a year earlier that forced some changes in the N.S.A. program - Mr. Comey spoke of the “agonizing collisions” of the law and the desire to protect Americans.

“We are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die,’” Mr. Comey said. But he argued that government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions.

“It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most,” he said. “It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.”

Mr. Gonzales’s aides were happy to see Mr. Comey depart in the summer of 2005. That June, President Bush nominated Mr. Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel, which some colleagues viewed as a sign that he had passed a loyalty test.

Soon Mr. Bradbury applied his practical approach to a new challenge to the C.I.A.’s methods.

The administration had always asserted that the C.I.A.’s pressure tactics did not amount to torture, which is banned by federal law and international treaty. But officials had privately decided the agency did not have to comply with another provision in the Convention Against Torture - the prohibition on “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment.

Now that loophole was about to be closed. First Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and then Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who had been tortured as a prisoner in North Vietnam, proposed legislation to ban such treatment.

At the administration’s request, Mr. Bradbury assessed whether the proposed legislation would outlaw any C.I.A. methods, a legal question that had never before been answered by the Justice Department.

At least a few administration officials argued that no reasonable interpretation of “cruel, inhuman or degrading” would permit the most extreme C.I.A. methods, like waterboarding. Mr. Bradbury was placed in a tough spot, said Mr. Zelikow, the State Department counselor, who was working at the time to rein in interrogation policy.

“If Justice says some practices are in violation of the C.I.D. standard,” Mr. Zelikow said, referring to cruel, inhuman or degrading, “then they are now saying that officials broke current law.”

In the end, Mr. Bradbury’s opinion delivered what the White House wanted: a statement that the standard imposed by Mr. McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act would not force any change in the C.I.A.’s practices, according to officials familiar with the memo.

Relying on a Supreme Court finding that only conduct that “shocks the conscience” was unconstitutional, the opinion found that in some circumstances not even waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading, if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials familiar with the legal finding said.

In a frequent practice, Mr. Bush attached a statement to the new law when he signed it, declaring his authority to set aside the restrictions if they interfered with his constitutional powers. At the same time, though, the administration responded to pressure from Mr. McCain and other lawmakers by reviewing interrogation policy and giving up several C.I.A. techniques.

Since late 2005, Mr. Bradbury has become a linchpin of the administration’s defense of counterterrorism programs, helping to negotiate the Military Commissions Act last year and frequently testifying about the N.S.A. surveillance program. Once he answered questions about administration detention policies for an “Ask the White House” feature on a Web site.

Mr. Kmiec, the former Office of Legal Counsel head now at Pepperdine, called Mr. Bradbury’s public activities a departure for an office that traditionally has shunned any advocacy role.

A senior administration official called Mr. Bradbury’s active role in shaping legislation and speaking to Congress and the press “entirely appropriate” and consistent with past practice. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bradbury “has played a critical role in achieving greater transparency” on the legal basis for detention and surveillance programs.

Though President Bush repeatedly nominated Mr. Bradbury as the Office of Legal Counsel’s assistant attorney general, Democratic senators have blocked the nomination. Senator Durbin said the Justice Department would not turn over copies of his opinions or other evidence of Mr. Bradbury’s role in interrogation policy.

“There are fundamental questions about whether Mr. Bradbury approved interrogation methods that are clearly unacceptable,” Mr. Durbin said.

John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy’s top lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious, potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling prisoners.

“I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country’s good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better,” Mr. Hutson said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger Americans in the future.

“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.