How do you avert a nuclear Holocaust of the Planet
Posted on | July 7, 2009 | 14 Comments
From:
“Stan Greene”
Stan
Stan
Bibi’s Choice
Israel approaches a moment of decision on Iran’s nuclear threat.
by Peter Berkowitz
07/13/2009, Volume 014, Issue 40
|
Tel Aviv
Don’t be misled by how little was said about Iran in the major speeches recently delivered by President Barack Obama at Cairo University and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan University. And don’t suppose, either, that the popular upheaval precipitated by Iran’s rigged presidential election, assuming it falls short of ending the mullahs’ 30-year tyranny, will fundamentally alter regional politics. The central question for Middle East politics is still what to do about Iran’s illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Nor is this a regional matter only. Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the better to spread Islamic revolution, affects the vital national security interests not only of Israel, Arab states in and beyond the Gulf, and Turkey, but also of the United States, Europe, Russia, and indeed countries around the world that depend on stability in the international political and economic order, which is to say virtually all.
In his address to the Muslim world, President Obama identified six sources of tension between the United States and Islam. Number three was “our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.” On the campaign trail and in the presidential debates, Obama unequivocally opposed Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. But in Cairo in late May, on his carefully constructed global stage, Obama hedged.
On the one hand, he maintained that it was crucial to begin talks with Iran without preconditions because of the importance of “preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.” He “strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.” And he expressed the hope that nations that were pursuing their “right to access to peaceful nuclear power” would not abuse it by violating their “responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” On the other hand, and watering down candidate Obama’s promise to “keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” he opined that “no single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” And he offered no reason to believe that the United States had any levers at its disposal other than talk to influence Iran’s decision. All in all, it would have been hard to project to a rapt world greater equivocation concerning Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons if the president had deliberately concentrated his vaunted rhetorical gifts on the task.
To be sure, in his own speech in mid-June, Prime Minister Netanyahu also trod lightly on the subject of Iran. But that was because he needed to respond to Obama’s flawed Cairo statement that Israel’s legitimacy flows from the suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust and the president’s erroneous suggestion that the key to peace in the Middle East is Israel’s cessation of building in existing Israeli communities beyond the Green Line. Without mentioning the president or his speech, Netanyahu stressed that the Jewish people’s historic connection to the land of Israel extends back 3,500 years. And by affirming that Palestinians should have a state of their own, Netanyahu took another step on the path he himself blazed in 1998 by signing the Wye Accords and turning over Hebron to the Palestinians, a path on which he was subsequently joined by Prime Ministers Sharon and Olmert and which has led significant segments of the Israeli right away from the commitment to ruling over the West Bank forever. The settlements certainly are an issue. But from Netanyahu’s point of view–and that of a majority of Israelis–the chief obstacles to peace are Hamas’s Iran-sponsored terrorism, Palestinian Authority political dysfunction, and the refusal of Arab rulers around the region to provide the Palestinians financial support and political leadership.
Though devoting only one paragraph to it at Bar-Ilan, Netanyahu declared that “the Iranian threat still is before us in full force.” And he proclaimed that “the greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons.” Although he did not elaborate Israel’s plan of action, he said nothing to retreat from his well-known position that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, stated that he had discussed Iran with Obama, would take it up the following week with Europeans, and had been “working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.”
Meanwhile, for many onlookers in the United States and elsewhere, the popular uprising in Iran has encouraged the hope that internal reform might dispose of the menace posed by the mullahs. Unfortunately, as much as the leader of the Iranian opposition, former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mousavi, may have been radicalized by Tehran’s election fraud, the people’s protests, and the government’s violent crackdown, and as much as these dramatic events may have opened up a rift not merely between the people and the regime but within the regime, Mousavi is still a child of the Islamic Revolution and a creature of the establishment and remains unlikely anytime soon to lead a revolutionary overthrow of either. Yet with thousands of centrifuges spinning away to produce highly enriched uranium, and, on an entirely separate track, its development of technology for the production of plutonium proceeding apace, Iran gets closer with every day to owning nuclear weapons.
Given the dangerousness of the neighborhood in which they live and the immediacy of the threat, it is no surprise that for Israelis Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remains front and center. Ordinary citizens regard a nuclear-armed Iran as a game changer, the greatest threat they have ever faced. In previous decades, no matter how grim their circumstances, Israelis could console themselves that they had an ace in the hole. They counted on their sizable stockpile of nuclear weapons–never officially declared though never officially denied and not subject to the slightest doubt among Israelis–to create a line in the sand beyond which no enemy would dare venture. A nuclear Iran, they now reasonably fear, would nullify this enormous technological advantage and would embolden Hezbollah, Hamas, and the array of other transnational Islamist terrorist networks beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad that proliferate in the Middle East.
Conversations over the last few weeks with more than a dozen members of Israel’s larger national security community–right and left, scholars and military men and women, some coming out of the army and others the air force, some with decades of experience in military intelligence and others in clandestine operations, some former Knesset members and others former, current, and soon-to-be advisers to prime ministers–suggest it is fair to conclude that the professionals agree with the public that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is a game changer. Among them, there is a consensus that Israel has the technological capacity to undertake a military strike that would inflict heavy damage on Iran’s nuclear program. Such a strike, they also believe, would involve unprecedented challenges and risks, including the likelihood of a significant military response by Iran and its allies. Accordingly, an urgent internal debate is well underway in Israel concerning the circumstances in which the country should strike, alternative options, and, in the event that Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, the structure of an effective containment regime.
Israel being Israel, for every three experts you talk to on any particular issue you will hear at least four aggressively argued opinions. Nevertheless, a fairly consistent picture emerges, if not of a single proper Iran policy, then of the constellation of factors that Israel must consider in forming one.
Most countries are reluctant to discuss the details of their offensive capabilities because they don’t want to provide useful information to their enemies. Israel is no different. Nonetheless, the experts with whom I spoke were willing to discuss in broad outline Israel’s capacity to destroy or substantially degrade Iran’s nuclear facilities. All would be delighted to see engagement, diplomacy, or sanctions succeed. All emphasized that a military strike must be the last resort, chosen only after every other option has been fully exploited. All believe that a green light from the United States, or at least a yellow light, would be indispensable. And they seem convinced that Israel has good intelligence about vital Iranian targets and could, if necessary, with a combination of aircraft and ballistic missiles, bring enough firepower to bear to set the Iranian program back far enough to justify the substantial risks.
Certainly this is the view, in broad outline, of Isaac Ben-Israel, and he should know. After graduating from high school in 1967, he joined the Israeli Air Force and served for more than 35 years. Now a Tel Aviv University professor teaching strategic studies and the history and philosophy of science, Ben-Israel helped plan the attack in 1981 on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, rose to the rank of major general, holding positions as head of the operations research branch of the air force and as head of research and development in the Israel Defense Forces and the ministry of defense, and served in the Knesset as a member of the centrist Kadima party. He continues to advise defense industries in Israel and abroad about technological and strategic issues.
Ben-Israel went so far as to characterize as “very reasonable” Center for Strategic and International Studies scholars Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman’s “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities” published in March. Relying on open source intelligence, Toukan and Cordesman analyze in formidable technical detail Iranian nuclear targets, Israeli mission capabilities, Iranian defenses, Israeli defenses, and the military and political consequences of an Israeli attack. They conclude that an Israeli strike force would involve about 80 F-15s and F-16s (almost a fifth of their fighter aircraft); all 9 Israeli aerial tankers to refuel the fighters on their way to and from Iran; a likely flight route north over the Mediterranean, then east along the Syria-Turkey border, crossing briefly over Iraq, before heading into Iran. The strike would probably concentrate on three “critical nodes in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure”: the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, the Esfahan nuclear research center and uranium conversion facility, and the Arak heavy water plant and future plutonium production reactors. The authors stress that the mission would be complex, high-risk, and without solid assurance of success.
Another possibility is that Israel could attack Natanz, Esfahan, and Arak with approximately 50 Jericho III land-based long range ballistic missiles. This option has received relatively little attention even though, as Toukan and Cordesman point out, it may be “much more feasible than using combat aircraft” and certainly poses less risk to Israeli pilots and hardware. Still another possibility for attacking Iranian nuclear targets, though not discussed by Toukan and Cordesman, is some combination of combat aircraft and Jericho III missiles.
Even on the heroic assumption that the attack went exactly as planned, Israelis evaded Iranian air defenses and kept their losses to a minimum, and Iran’s nuclear program was set back substantially, Israel would face considerable costs, both military and political.
The military costs might be serious but would be manageable, Israeli experts believe. They envisage six possible responses to an Israeli attack.
First, Iran, lacking a capable air force, might launch Shahab-3 long range ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and probably at Dimona, Israel’s nuclear facility in the Negev. Israeli experts are confident that their Arrow anti-ballistic missile defense system, which has performed superbly in tests, would destroy most incoming Iranian missiles. Those that got through would have no more explosive power than Iraq’s 1991 Scud missiles, which killed only one Israeli and did little damage to infrastructure. Missiles tipped with biological or chemical weapons are a different story and would provoke a massive and remorseless Israeli response.
At the same time, it is by no means certain that Iran would launch a retaliatory missile strike. Some Israeli experts believe that Israel’s capacity to attack decisively nonnuclear Iranian targets, including the power grid and oil refineries, might deter Iran.
Second, Iran might order Hezbollah into action. Since the 2006 Lebanon war, in which Israel killed one third of Hezbollah’s fighters, that group has rearmed and upgraded. It has enlarged its arsenal of rockets and missiles from about 12,000 at the outset of hostilities in July 2006 (4,000 of which Hezbollah fired at Israel that summer) to roughly 40,000. In sufficient quantities, these can cause suffering in Israel. But in determining whether to attack, Hezbollah might take into account that Israel learned lessons from 2006 and that, in anticipation of another round of fighting, it has prepared to deliver a knockout blow.
Third, Iran might demand that Syria attack Israel. But given that Syria’s conventional forces are no match for Israel’s and that it did not respond militarily when Israel destroyed its partly constructed nuclear facility at Deir al-Zour in 2007, there is a good chance that Syria will decline to get involved.
Fourth, Iran might order terrorist cells around the world to attack synagogues, Israeli embassies, and similar targets. This would have the disadvantage for Iran of shifting the focus of
international attention from Israel’s preemptive air strike to Iran’s criminality.
Fifth, Iran might attack American targets in Iraq and foment unrest among Iraqi Shia. This too might backfire, both because it would bring America into the fight and because the community of interests between Arab Iraqi Shia and Persian Iranian Shia is limited.
Sixth, Iran might attack Persian Gulf shipping. But the fragile Iranian economy is at least as reliant as that of any Gulf country on the free flow of oil. And American firepower would end Iran’s ability to threaten shipping within days.
The political costs could prove greater for Israel. Whether an Israeli military attack failed or succeeded, and particularly if it succeeded, Iran and the forces of radical Islam around the world would vehemently argue that Israel’s unprovoked aggression provided irrefutable proof that nuclear weapons are critical for Iran and for radical Islam, if only for purely defensive purposes. Europeans, moreover, would ramp up their condemnatory rhetoric, proclaiming Israel the paramount threat to international order and demanding that Israel, which took it upon itself to disarm Iran, itself submit to international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Toukan and Cordesman stumble in asserting that Israel would pay a heavy cost among Arab states. It’s true, as they write, that Arab states “will not condone any attack on Iran.” Indeed, the Gulf Arabs would probably condemn Israel harshly. Egypt might mobilize troops and send some into the Sinai. And all Arab states would join the rest of the world in calling for the imposition of international sanctions. But that would be for popular consumption. Israeli experts are as convinced as they are of anything that behind closed doors, Sunni Arab rulers would breathe a huge sigh of relief at the destruction of what they regard as the principal strategic threat to their security, a nuclear armed Shiite Iran seeking hegemony in the Gulf and exporting Shiite-style Islamic revolution around the world.
Still, after the costs and benefits are weighed and the enigmas and imponderables are given their due, the Israeli experts come back to where they begin: Only after every other option has been exhausted should a military strike be launched. No one else went as far as former Mossad head Efraim Halevy, who warned that an Israeli attack would “change the whole configuration of the Middle East,” producing “a chasm between Israel and the rest of the region” that would have “effects that would last 100 years.” By far the dominant view in Israel is the view espoused by John McCain: The only thing worse than the consequences of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be the consequences of a nuclear Iran.
Short of a full-scale military strike, Israel also has a clandestine option involving the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, sabotage of Iranian facilities, and targeted killings. Nor would this represent a new policy. As Ben-Israel, choosing his words carefully, pointed out, Israeli national security experts have been warning that Iran was 5 years away from producing a nuclear weapon for the last 20. Why do you suppose, he asked, it has taken Iran so long? After all, he observed, 60 years ago in the middle of World War II, it took the United States only a few years to produce the first atomic bomb, and no country that has set its mind to it has taken more than 5 to 10 years. Leaving me to draw the proper inference, Ben-Israel emphasized that clandestine operations can delay but will not destroy Iran’s nuclear program. And the experts agree that time is running out: Absent dramatic action–by the United States, the international community, Israel, or some combination–Iran is on track to join the nuclear club sometime between 2011 and 2014.
For a variety of reasons–President Obama’s attempt to engage Iran may prove futile, the international community may be unable to maintain effective sanctions, the mullahs may hang on to power, an Israeli attack might fail, Israel might elect not to attack Iran–Israelis are compelled to contemplate the structure of an effective containment regime. The challenges are immense. Realists argue that containment based upon the doctrine of mutual assured destruction worked for the 40-year Cold War and will work in the Middle East. But they overlook that in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 it almost failed.
The realists also rely on a facile analogy. The distinctive variables that Iran and the Middle East add to the mix cast grave doubts on any easy application of Cold War logic. Iran speaks explicitly about wiping out Israel; the Soviet Union never so spoke about the United States. Iran is inspired by a religious faith that celebrates martyrdom and contemplates apocalypse; the Soviet Union was driven by a secular ideology that sought satisfaction in this world. And Iran has no dialogue with Israel; the Soviet Union maintained constant communication with the United States.
These complicating factors make it all the more imperative for Israel, if it wants to construct a successful containment regime, to convey to Iran that it has a devastating second strike capability and is prepared to use it. In addition, it would be useful from the Israeli point of view if the United States were to make Iran understand that America would treat an attack on Israel as an attack on it. And it would provide greater assurance still if Russia were to deliver a similar message.
But because, as Ben-Israel observed, “a guarantee from another nation is not a reliable deterrence policy,” the critical element in a successful containment regime would be Israel’s own unambiguous and compelling promise of swift and devastating retaliation. The mullahs may reasonably think that if they detonate a bomb over Tel Aviv while possessing nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach London, the Americans might hesitate to attack Iran on Israel’s behalf. Therefore, should Iran obtain the bomb, an effective Israeli deterrent, according to Ben-Israel, would require Israel to demonstrate publicly its ability to inflict catastrophic damage on Iran and at the same time remove any doubt about Israel’s willingness, in the event of a first strike by Iran, to do so.
But deterring an attack by nuclear-tipped Iranian missiles is only the beginning of the challenges that a containment regime would face. What would be a proportional response if the Iranians or their Hezbollah fighters slipped a small boat within a mile of Haifa and detonated a small nuclear device killing 10,000 Israelis?
And how ought Israel respond to–and containment work against–the myriad other dangers spawned by a nuclear Iran? The moment that Iran announces its possession of nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and perhaps Kuwait, taking to heart Iran’s declared hostility to Sunni Islam and determination to obtain hegemony in the Gulf, will go shopping for their own. Egypt and Turkey will not be far behind. As if a nuclear-armed Pakistan were not worry enough, the vulnerability of these regimes to overthrow by the forces of radical Islam heightens the possibility of the world’s most dangerous weapons falling into the hands of many of the world’s most dangerous actors.
Furthermore, once the Middle East went poly-nuclear, it would be only a matter of time until a suitcase nuclear bomb fell, leaked, or was placed into terrorists’ hands. Even before that, radical Islamists throughout the Middle East–particularly Hezbollah and Hamas–would receive a tremendous psychological boost from a nuclear Iran and be emboldened by their patron’s nuclear umbrella. A nuclear Iran would further undermine the chance for peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Syria by tempting waverers in the region, those who had begun to abandon the idea that Israel might someday disappear, to once again contemplate an Israel-free Middle East.
In sum, containment is a grim option. So is a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And relying on prayer for Mousavi and the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs is no option at all, at least not for the state of Israel, the front line in Islamic radicalism’s war against the West. Thus, in the short time left before Israel is compelled by an Iran fast closing in on a nuclear capability to choose between two grim options, Israel’s highest priority will be to persuade an equivocating United States, a dithering Europe, and an obstructionist Russia that a nuclear Iran is not just an Israeli problem or a Middle Eastern problem but a problem for the United States and the world.
Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
|
Category: Uncategorized
Comments
14 Responses to “How do you avert a nuclear Holocaust of the Planet”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
July 7th, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Well,I confess my talents at diplomacy are sorely lacking,but I do feel I am capable of understanding an open threat when I hear or see one.Irans President Ahmadinejad has stood up vocally and said Israel has NO right to exist,and at his first oppurtunity he intends to destroy Israel and everything in it.How anyone can see this as anything other than a direct threat is beyond me.This maniac has drawn a line in the sand and why Israel hasn’t responded by sending this madman to Allah is beyond me.In recorded history every nation
has let a handful of Nuts cause the destruction of millions of innocents simply because they fail to weed the garden of these poisonous plants.It is my opinion that if a man ,ANY man,talks the talk, should be aware that they WILL be held personally accountable.Every Nation has the right to self defense,imo.
July 7th, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Here’s another must read… mr. change closest’s advisor> she was also civic leader (and perhaps a social activist), worked for Mayor Daley of Chicago…, speaks french and persian… born in Iran (?) according to wikepedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Jarrett
see also video>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLevtD7HBF4&NR=1
very interesting connections… do some research and think a little bit!
July 7th, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Interesting article, stan. Israel should be protected by the U.S.
The threat of tactical nukes here in the U.S. is just as serious. Have you read the book by former F.B.I. investigative reporter, Paul Williams, titled : (The Al Qaeda Connection) ? specifically the chapter called THE AMERICAN HIROSHIMA ?
In that chapter, he reveals documented and released information to the public, that is flying right under the radar. Captured Al Qaeda laptop computers and documents reveal, that they have already bought tactical nukes from the Chechen and Albanian mafias, around twenty of them, with the intent to blow up seven U.S. cities simultaneously.
The cities listed were : NEW YORK, BOSTON MA, WASHINGTON D.C, MIAMI FLA, Chicago ILL, Houston Tex, Los Angeles Calif.
Every shred of information in the book is cataloged in the back of the book with the date that it was released to the public. All information is totally and easily verifiable.
Our government is not providing adequate protection, or information to our citizens, especially in regard to these threats.
One instance has former C.I.A. Director George Tenent on record, admitting that it’s very likely, that one of these nukes may have slipped in from Canada.
It is possible that these nukes are already here, or waiting for the others to arrive. I highly recommend looking at the book objectively, even if you are totally skeptical, with all the source information revealed, with the time, date etc., your skepticism will be seriously challenged.
The book is pricey, but just sit down at Barnes and Noble and read the chapter called the American Hiroshima, exclusively, and then make sure to keep breathing when you walk out of the book store.
Post 9/11 folks, less than 10 percent of our shipping containers are being checked at all. Yes our government has radiation detection technology, but it is very limited, and these tactical nukes can be encased in thick steel, that WILL NOT GIVE A RADIATION SIGNATURE.
With these gaping holes in our society, i profoundly wonder aloud, why Civil Defense is not the top priority of any stimulus monies. Critical infrastructures like bomb shelters, anti-EMP hardening, food and water supply chains heavily defended, an impenetrable electric power grid, what good is reducing our nuclear deterrent, if a well thought out asymmetrical attack on our UNDEFENDED nations infrastructure, could possibly defeat us ??
July 7th, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
I certainly hope that there are many more or at least a few better sought after options than are laid out here.
This hardly sounds like ‘peaceful’ options and reads more like a designed pre-battle attack plan.
IMO, this carefully worded article is a ‘sales’ pitch for disaster.
I certainly would think those who are in the higher writting degreed levels of international diplomacy would be able to bring to the table solutions that are result benefited in totallity.
While I am (not quite) sure this was written with seemingly good intentions, the bias is still totalitarian.
You can not speak of good will and humanitarian purposes with a banner of peace while carrying a loaded nuke in your breast pocket.
We will not receive any new results to this ongoing concern for balance amoungst countries as long as the scale is rigged and is preset to favor one side at the expense of the other.
America should be the world leader by setting an the example of what is the right thing to do here. I suggest we defer to Our Constituion and let our conscious do the rest. Lord knows we are capable and willing to do so, if allowed.
Frankly, we learned everything we needed to know about treating each other correctly in pre-school. So what happened?
We were promoted to where we are now. It would almost seem that more education is a recipe for eradication.
There are many bright people who read and reply to this site. I am quite sure one of them could write a better proposal.
F.A.Leonetti
P>S> The efforts of this site and all of those who have particapated has been nothing short of phenomenal and uterly fantastic. What a unbelieveable job. Thank you ALL!
July 7th, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Dr. Orly,
What does this Judge Lamberth’s ruling on the Citizens Grand Juries mean???
The judge ruled:
“The Fifth Amendment provides that “no person shall be held to answer a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury U.S. CONST. amend. V. And although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Rules of Criminal Procedures in the statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one. United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 803 n.14 (5th Cir. 1975); Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1065 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1969); see also United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d. 167, 184 (5th Cir. 1965) (Brown, J., concurring).
Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(a)(1). Grand jurors also to be selected are at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 18 U.S.C. § 1861. The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
As such, leave to file this presentment is hereby DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned miscellaneous number along with this order for the Court’s record.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July 2009.
/s/ Royce C. Lamberth”
I don’t understand, and would appreciate your analysis. God Bless, and good luck wiht the July 13 hearing.
July 7th, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
thank you for your donation Mr. Pucetti
July 7th, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
they have no authority to accept these presentments
July 8th, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Richard
The Al Qaeda Connection book is available at very low cost. like less than $2. It was printed in 2005.
No need to read the book in the store. At that price you can take 2 of them home.
July 8th, 2009 @ 2:32 am
There is a fairly good discussion of Judge Lamberth’s ruling on the Citizens Grand Juries rejecting the Presentments on the radio program. I have not listened to it closely but it is an interesting discussion.
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/07/You-and-STARS
It may be available also on video but I do not have the video link. The tuesday and thursday programs they are doing on both video and audio.
July 8th, 2009 @ 8:30 am
Richard says: “The book is pricey…at Barnes and Noble…”
But, if you go to Amazon and can afford to wait for the shipping, then:
https://www.amazon.com/Qaeda-Connection-International-Terrorism-Apocalypse/dp/1591023491
22 new from $1.75 35, used from $0.68
July 8th, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
8by8 says:
July 8, 2009 at 2:26 am
Richard
The Al Qaeda Connection book is available at very low cost. like less than $2. It was printed in 2005.
No need to read the book in the store. At that price you can take 2 of them home.
____________________________
Are we shopping at the local thrift store 8 by 8 ?
Amazan.com sells the new ones for around $16.00 for those that care.
July 8th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Richard:With the persisitant porous southern border problems we have I would not doubt that Ahmed and Hussein have crossed the border with a sombrero. My with abysmal persimism under this cockroach President, I have gone from a healthy skepticism into a dark cloud of very apprehensive cynicism. What do they say? You want to preserve peace? then prepare for war.
With all the talk–generally by restrained, thoughtful civil people– we have gentlemanly and ladytlike Tea Parties– Check out the folk in Honduras–throwing thier Obama out because hewanted like Chavez to be another Idi Amin Dada President for Life–as in uganda ( the first projected sit of isreal by the way-bet you did not knoe that huh?).
But in Honduras the governmnet was straight up and cooperated across the board- the militray DID NOT take over. Look at the folk protesting and being killed in Iran–killed in the name of Mullahs. Look atb the folk about to be killed in China–look at the americans at tea parties? Get the difference. Been along time since we bled for wahyt we believed–civil war? revolution? NO Dresden. NO Belgrad (16,000 killed in one day), No Leningrad– Hitler wanted to starve and kill the entire population–60,000 killed in one day, Coventry in UK? It center so destroyed the germans incorprated COVENTRY into their language when discribing total slaughter.
The Brits had their world trade center–every month in 1941–and warner v0n Braun our late great space engineer knew ell to surrender to a US army Corporal, because the Brits would have strung him up on the spot–rest assured. ( as an aside, the angels of death went around–British JEWISH soldiers at war’s end and summarily executed SS officers esp of the death head’s variety and the Special Task Force Variety–and in my opinion that should continue to this day—if you read properly what they did)–alsop track dowm all Einsatzgrubber rifle and machine gun slaughters and kill them after showing them pics of the mass graves they made their victims dig before a single bullet to the head of each before the gapping hole–also they sometimes tided the victims together and pushed them into the holes they dug and buried them alive.
Some viscous predatory vengeful animal man can become huh? Read history–not sanitized pablum–the real stuff, Gilbert, Davidowitz, etc.
Well now share our grand children be reading history about a docile america allowing a radical leftist pan arab president traitor bring us down in cooperation WITH OUR ENEMIES?
He was elected under false pretenses, is a liar same as a thief andf signed documents in all states among other places attesting under oath to his elibility to be president. OUR majestic blue whale USA is being attacked by killer whales and the blood is attracting all manner of shark-
well? are we going to fend them off in real time and in real ways –as in away from your cell phone and the abstractions of your computers?
All the analogies?
The rotten barrel containing rotten apples–beyond repair and beyond the pale of legitimate RECTIFICATION and asmelioration- God bless orly and her tenacity and persistance ( also the bete noire of Berg on her back), she is fighting mightily for that liberating legal nail in a haystack–the break through to release documents and hang this cockroach president we have. But will it come? So far NO!!!!!!
My opinion? Shoe horn her militray clients and the excellent–in my opinion– Alan Keyes into on the one hand a Nationalist Party–under that banner later on run against the dems and repubs like the thin skinned Perot did and he polled 17,000,000 and he marched through washington and congress stood up and kissed his ass– they are very good at that by the way
Keys would pull 40,000,000 votes against the usuper fraud Obama and a candidate finally to emerged from a disjointed, hamstrung, wornout and probably bought out Repub party- One poll I saw had a third part at one third and dems and repubs at one third.
So you muct organize resistance–NOT revolution– but firs against the rough tactics of Accorn our new $3billion dollar funded census bureau– go ahead keep giving Chairman Obama more room and leeway and watch everything collapse in on itself–watch him make the congress legislate itself out of existance–watch the new clown senator from MN do his dog and pony show–HOW low can this country go—have they no shame here anymore??
I think the new nationalist party should have Keyes at its head–he produces powerful oratory and needs no teleprompters like our current president cockroach. The first march should containmmany many militray retirees IN UNIFORM all to march on the white house–all to focus as Ghanhi made hgis people focus on a single cause- with a few signs fopr variety– astep down usuper. you are the illigitimate president
we do not want a pres who hates his own country.
Step down you fraud. Step down you usuper– focus and concentration and ignor accorn provocateurs like Ganhdi’s folk– also MLK–and inspiring figure and the cue he got from Gandhi (truly a secular saint to be sure).
YOU CANNOT BE RAGTAG–YOU HAVE TO BE ORGANZIED. You need focus and pre intelliegnce, hand on nthe pulse of expected resistance– avoid confrontation, but march in an organized forth right and commited manner. If this president pulls in UN troops with should tags of foreign countries then you have a right to shoot them on OUR SACRED SOIL-
I beleieve and listen to this carefully: The nucleus is not berg, or the excellent Farah at WND, but the nucleus–the atomic nucleus is in the gambit Orly is taking–lesss in her civil actions than in the association with those she represents.
Remeber the people in good Honduras, the aspiring and hopeful–more euro muslims than irag or syria—IRANian students–most under 30, watch how china suppresses its riots–but think!!!! about the risk they are taking to right the wrongs.
WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO? WATCH tv AND WISH ORLY WELL?
send yolur ‘sincere’ good wished? that and 50 cents will get you on a NYC subway. As good and better than your contributions is your phyiscal body present under the banner of the new AMERICAN NATIONALIST PARTY. YOur physical presence as in a body to be countedf where it couynts and when it counts. That is what I see as a basic premise for something new to sweep this country free of the barny franks, raines, holders, ayers, etyc. etc ., etc and other scum that pollute the pure waters of decent people and honest intent.
Time for a change–Johnny Appleseed ( bet Orly does not know who he is) the tight nucleus of orly’s clients–the MILITARY variety? and expand on that–get Keyes to sign on–and move in unison under the AMERICAN NATIONALIST PARTY banner– America for Americans – not for some abstract commie new World skull and crossbones dumb jimmy carter NEw World Order BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!
OUr guys did not die in war buried here and in Europe for a god damned new world order–the damned UN is bad enough–best to move it to generva–let the swiss pay our share–maybe Marc Rich in ZUG will pay for the whoie thing that traitor Larling to Phillips Metals( back stabbing bastard and USA top ten felon whom clinton -=-scumbag number two–attempted to pardon).
NOw there is the path– Orly, militray, keyes and the new American Nationalist Party= throw the rotten barrel out with its rotten contents.
AS to NUKES some damaging stuff in the ole KGB suitcase– but to become fissile you need 50 pounds of U235. Generally speaking and there will be ‘learned’ arguments of this–you need at least a 300 pound trunk of crate to do a slightly smarter than Hiroshima explosion–which of course would wipe out manhattan.
BUT ALL of manhattan was not wipes out– the WTC– twice tried–’93– we had our collective heads in our ass as usual and then succeededing in TOO organized a fashiopn on 911- flight 93 was blown out of the sky–pieces in a 30 mile radius–do not believe propa ganda to the contraray and WTC7 a 40 story building collapsed in what ooked like a controlled demolition at 5:30 PM on 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The psycho terrorists are trying tio hurt us=–no doubt and there are at least several hundred thousand in here who would stab you in the back in a moment–that is right in the gold ole USA ( just friendly folks of course leading good clean lives–but watch out for that dagger in your back)
The world does not want to have anymore nuke explosions, that will ONLY happen if little isreal the size of NJ has no other recourse and they will nuke their enemies and oppressors–to think otherwise or to think isreal is hamstrung is PURE folly–look in Netanyahu’s eyes–no nonsense eyes like PUTIN and bothg sit opposite the community organizer from chicago with absolutely no record of any achievement whatsoever– you think they respect him? I doubt it.
Nukes are not going to get through–Germs, nerve gas–a better chance of that eventuality. Too many following the threads of nukes and their components. Radical isalm is concentraing on one country and one country ONLY–
PAKISTAN– that is why we are in Afghanistan[[the tailban is getting sympathizers among young officers in Pakistan– my sources whisper now and again. USA has to be kept relatively stable despite the bush/obama ruptures and the gamed Goldman Sachs plays( ook at your dollar–their former CEO paulison Jr. is on it and before that RUBIN– egotistical power humgry maniacs, raised and guided by same in a gilded existance–
Am waiting for Michell to tell us to eat cake while she trapses about europe.
NO nukes too many cooperating–they are a primary concern–and they will be halted–thank God for MOSSAD better thanor CIA–with panneta in charge?) or the old remnanats of the KGB.
Simtex– the C4 like explosive is being closely monitored and now degrades ( alleges) and is metal flake detctable–the older stuff–sorry, it is still floating around.
NUKES– everyone is cooperating on that. and remember, liuke that cowboy oligath bush ior not–there were no major subsequent attacks on the USA–though I am suspecting soft targets– trains, etc, swine flu???? maybe.
athe american nationalist party EMERGING FROM ORLY’S CONNECTIONS- KEYES AT THE HEAD POWERFULLY BOLSTERED BY RETIRED AND ACTIVE MILITARY AND NTHEIR FAMILIES AND FRIEND–AND THAT SHOULD BE THE NUCLEUS OF A MASSIVE MARCH ON WASHINGTON–TOO BIG TO BE EFFECTIVELY SIDETRACKED IF YOU ARE COMMITTED AND HOLD TO YOUR FOCUSED AND CONCENTRATED PEACEFUL INTENTIONS OUT SIDE THE WHITE HOUSE.
MP-
old guys do typos–my editor is no where to be found these days without him both of my books would be in tatters–lol
July 8th, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein: “The Palestinian people does not exist”
Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
July 8th, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Ezekial 38 and Ezekial 39.