In article <slrn3vsbgo4it.b485.kybyrd@no-spam>, kybyrd@no-spam
(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:42:15 -0400, Art Clemons <artclemons@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Even
>>Nixon would not have dared to grab a US citizen and hold that citizen
>>as a non-combatant indefinitely without judicial review. Believe me I
>>remember the Chicago 7 trial, and I note that the trial came about in
>>part because the Justice Dept got a pro-prosecution federal judge, who
>>ignored questions of evidence and Constitutional rights. That seems
>>like a major improvement compared to now.
>
>This presupposes that his actions wouldn't have been just as punitive
>if he had faced terrorist controlled jets crashing into the tallest
>buildings in NYC
>and their subsequent collape, another jet crashing and burning
>into the Pentagon. And yet another jet possibly destined for
>the Capital Bldg or White House, crashing and burning in western
>PA. He didn't face any of those
>challenges. How would he have behaved I wonder when he had
>things like enemies list from which sprang the entire Watergate
>debacle.
>
>KByrd
>
>
The President's Speech at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C., January 1999.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/08/1998-08-20-president-address-to-the-natio
n.html
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
For Immediate Release August 20, 1998
ADDRESS TO THE NATION BY THE PRESIDENT
The Oval Office
5:32 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at
terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent
threat they presented to our national security.
I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was
necessary. Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the
network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden,
perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in
the world today.
The groups associated with him come from diverse places, but share a hatred for
democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of
their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United
States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand
against.
A few months ago, and again this week, bin Laden publicly vowed to wage a
terrorist war against America, saying -- and I quote -- "We do not
differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're
all targets. Their mission is murder and their history is bloody."
In recent years, they killed American, Belgian and Pakistani peacekeepers in
Somalia. They plotted to assassinate the President of Egypt and the Pope. They
planned to bomb six United States 747s over the Pacific. They bombed the
Egyptian embassy in Pakistan. They gunned down German tourists in Egypt.
The most recent terrorist events are fresh in our memory. Two weeks ago, 12
Americans and nearly 300 Kenyans and Tanzanians lost their lives, and another
5,000 were wounded when our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed.
There is convincing information from our intelligence community that the bin
Laden terrorist network was responsible for these bombings. Based on this
information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned,
financed, and carried out by the organization bin Laden leads.
America has battled terrorism for many years. Where possible, we've used law
enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. The long arm of American
law has reached out around the world and brought to trial those guilty of
attacks in New York and Virginia and in the Pacific. We have quietly disrupted
terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that
practice terrorism. We've worked to build an international coalition against
terror.
But there have been, and will be, times when law enforcement and diplomatic
tools are simply not enough, when our very national security is challenged, and
when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens.
With compelling evidence that the bin Laden network of terrorist groups was
planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving
people, I decided America must act.
And so, this morning, based on the unanimous recommendation of my national
security team, I ordered our Armed Forces to take action to counter an
immediate threat from the bin Laden network. Earlier today, the United States
carried out simultaneous strikes against terrorist facilities and
infrastructure in Afghanistan. Our forces targeted one of the most active
terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Laden
network's infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally
thousands of terrorists from around the globe. We have reason to believe that a
gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus
underscoring the urgency of our actions.
Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden
network. The factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical
weapons.
The United States does not take this action lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have
been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups.
But countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safe
havens.
Let me express my gratitude to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies
for their hard, good work. And let me express my pride in our Armed Forces who
carried out this mission while making every possible effort to minimize the
loss of innocent life.
I want you to understand, I want the world to understand, that our actions
today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good,
peace-loving people all around the world, including the United States. No
religion condones the murder of innocent men, women and children. But our
actions were aimed at fanatics and killers who wrap murder in the cloak of
righteousness; and in so doing, profane the great religion in whose name they
claim to act.
My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the
bombing of our embassies in Africa; nor will it end with today's strike. It
will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat.
We will meet it, no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing
struggle between freedom and fanaticism; between the rule of law and terrorism.
We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must.
America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are
leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values;
because we're the most open society on Earth; and because, as we have shown yet
again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.
But of this I am also sure. The risks from inaction to America and the world
would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving
their ability and their willingness to strike us intact. In this case, we knew
before our attack that these groups already had planned further actions against
us and others.
I want to reiterate: The United States wants peace, not conflict. We want to
lift lives around the world, not take them. We have worked for peace -- in
Bosnia, in Northern Ireland, in Haiti, in the Middle East and elsewhere. But in
this day, no campaign for peace can succeed without a determination to fight
terrorism. Let our actions today send this message loud and clear: There are no
expendable American targets. There will be no sanctuary for terrorists. We will
defend our people, our interests and our values. We will help people of all
faiths, in all parts of the world, who want to live free of fear and violence.
We will persist and we will prevail.
Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless our country.
END 5:40 P.M. EDT
"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxService@no-spam
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html
Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)
In article <slrn3vsbgo4it.b485.kybyrd@no-spam>, kybyrd@no-spam
(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:42:15 -0400, Art Clemons <artclemons@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Even
>>Nixon would not have dared to grab a US citizen and hold that citizen
>>as a non-combatant indefinitely without judicial review. Believe me I
>>remember the Chicago 7 trial, and I note that the trial came about in
>>part because the Justice Dept got a pro-prosecution federal judge, who
>>ignored questions of evidence and Constitutional rights. That seems
>>like a major improvement compared to now.
>
>This presupposes that his actions wouldn't have been just as punitive
>if he had faced terrorist controlled jets crashing into the tallest
>buildings in NYC
>and their subsequent collape, another jet crashing and burning
>into the Pentagon. And yet another jet possibly destined for
>the Capital Bldg or White House, crashing and burning in western
>PA. He didn't face any of those
>challenges. How would he have behaved I wonder when he had
>things like enemies list from which sprang the entire Watergate
>debac
http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-21.html</A>
"We will use our new integrated approach to intensify the fight against
all forms of terrorism -- to capture terrorists, no matter where they
hide; to work with other nations to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries
overseas; to respond rapidly and effectively to protect Americans from
terrorism at home and abroad."
President Clinton
U.S. Naval Academy
May 22, 1998
The United States has mounted an aggressive response to terrorism -
disrupting potential terrorist action, enhancing cooperation with other
countries, strengthening sanctions on countries that support terrorists,
tightening security for our diplomats, our troops, air travelers and improving
our ability to track terrorist activity.
A RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
Implemented a strategy that combined strengthened law enforcement and
intelligence efforts, vigorous diplomacy and, as was demonstrated in
August 1998 in the wake of the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, use of military force when necessary.
Targeted terrorist finances, broke up support cells, disrupted training
and brought suspects to justice, in cooperation with other governments.
Led efforts that resulted in a dozen terrorist fugitives being
apprehended overseas since 1993 and turned over to the United States to
answer for their crimes. Included in this group are the conspirators in
the World Trade Center bombing, the perpetrators of the attack on the CIA
headquarters and a terrorist responsible for an attack on a Pan Am flight
almost 15 years ago.
Signed three directives (PDD 39, 62, 63) to bring government agencies
together at a senior level to counter terrorism.
Developed a single, coherent budget process for anti/counter terrorism
and appointed the first National Coordinator for counter terrorism to keep
the U.S. effort on track.
Signed into law the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(1996), which banned fundraising in the United States for designated
terrorist organizations, allowed for rapid deportation without the
release of classified information and made it easier to bar terrorists
from entry into the United States. Under this law, the Secretary of
State has formally designated 29 foreign terrorist organizations,
making it illegal for U.S. citizens and institutions to provide funds or
other material support to these groups.
Raised the FBI's counter terrorism budget by 283 percent since 1993.
The number of FBI agents assigned to counter terrorism has risen 2 ½ fold.
Undertook a comprehensive approach to improving the security of our
embassies, including security enhancements at all posts, along with more
local guard coverage and upgraded communications.
Made counter terrorism central to the Clinton Administrations diplomacy
-- accelerating negotiations on extradition and multi-legal assistance
treaties. It has made a major effort to press all UN member states to
sign conventions that require them to prosecute or extradite terrorists to
countries where they are wanted. There is an impressive record of
international cooperation to harmonize legislation on terrorist offenses,
cooperate in research and development and create databases on terrorism.
Led the efforts to bring Usama Bin Ladin to justice, including
sanctioning the Taliban for their continued harboring of Bin Ladin and
his terrorist network. The Administration led an international effort to
impose additional sanctions against the Taliban for their continued
harboring of Usama Bin Ladin and his terrorist infrastructure. This
effort culminated in the UN Security Council adopting UNSCR 1333 in
December 2000 which included a unilateral arms embargo against the
Taliban.
Undertook the largest counter terrorism operation in U.S. history to
ensure a peaceful Millennium celebration.
REFERENCES
Presidential Decision Directive 39, June 1995.
The President's Speech at the U.S. Naval Academy Graduation, Annapolis,
MD,
May 1998.
Presidential Decision Directive 62, May 1998.
Fact Sheet on Combating Terrorism, PDD-62, May 1998.
Bandwidth may not allow the entire copy. Should that happen, I'll do my best
to make the presentation in segments.
"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxService@no-spam
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html
Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)
In article <slrn3vsbgo4it.b485.kybyrd@no-spam>, kybyrd@no-spam
(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:42:15 -0400, Art Clemons <artclemons@no-spam>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Even
>>Nixon would not have dared to grab a US citizen and hold that citizen
>>as a non-combatant indefinitely without judicial review. Believe me I
>>remember the Chicago 7 trial, and I note that the trial came about in
>>part because the Justice Dept got a pro-prosecution federal judge, who
>>ignored questions of evidence and Constitutional rights. That seems
>>like a major improvement compared to now.
>
>This presupposes that his actions wouldn't have been just as punitive
>if he had faced terrorist controlled jets crashing into the tallest
>buildings in NYC
>and their subsequent collape, another jet crashing and burning
>into the Pentagon. And yet another jet possibly destined for
>the Capital Bldg or White House, crashing and burning in western
>PA. He didn't face any of those
>challenges. How would he have behaved I wonder when he had
>things like enemies list from which sprang the entire Watergate
>debacle.
>
Here are the thoughts of another, taken from another NG:
"THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President For Immediate Release August 20, 1998
STATEMENT BY VICE PRESIDENT GORE ON
THE AFGHANISTAN, SUDAN TERRORIST STRIKE
I strongly support the President's decision today to make clear to the
world that the United States will respond to the threat of terrorism. A
network of terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden have made clear in
word and deed that they are waging an all out war against America, targeting
all, sparing none. Today we delivered our response. We will be relentless in
defending our interests and our people against the murderous threat of
terrorism.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/08/1998-08-20-vp-statement-on-the-afghanista
n-sudan-terrorist-strike.html
And you know what, VP Gore most likely did not need a speech writer to
speak these words. Sounds more intelligent than, "Dead or alive", "Axis
of Evil", "You are either with us or against us", and the last one,
"Bring them on".
Thank you, Al Gore for your intelligence. We as a country sorely miss
that. We thank you for over two decades in service to the American
people. We miss a man who would not have ignored terrorist threats made
to us, and we miss a man who would not ignore the Hart/Rudman report.
Under George W. Bush, over 3,000 Americans died on American soil, over
4,000 Afghanis lost their lives, 200 and counting soldiers died in the
War with Iraq, and over 3,000 innocent Iraqis died.
If we had a President Gore, these people would still be alive today.
Also, a President Gore in his bid to serve another term would NOT USE
the deaths of those who died on September 11th, 2001 for his selfish
needs. He would have respected them and their families and let them
rest in peace.
Mary!
"One man can fight a battle, but he needs an army to win the war. And
America did not come to Al Gore's side to become such an army."--Mary
MacElveen: March 28, 2003" (End quoted material)
"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxService@no-spam
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html
Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)
On 09 Jul 2003 17:03:53 GMT, John H. Fisher <taxservice@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <slrn3vsbgo4it.b485.kybyrd@no-spam>, kybyrd@no-spam
>(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:42:15 -0400, Art Clemons <artclemons@no-spam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>> Even
>>>Nixon would not have dared to grab a US citizen and hold that citizen
>>>as a non-combatant indefinitely without judicial review. Believe me I
>>>remember the Chicago 7 trial, and I note that the trial came about in
>>>part because the Justice Dept got a pro-prosecution federal judge, who
>>>ignored questions of evidence and Constitutional rights. That seems
>>>like a major improvement compared to now.
>>
>>This presupposes that his actions wouldn't have been just as punitive
>>if he had faced terrorist controlled jets crashing into the tallest
>>buildings in NYC
>>and their subsequent collape, another jet crashing and burning
>>into the Pentagon. And yet another jet possibly destined for
>>the Capital Bldg or White House, crashing and burning in western
>>PA. He didn't face any of those
>>challenges. How would he have behaved I wonder when he had
>>things like enemies list from which sprang the entire Watergate
>>debac
>
> http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-21.html</A>
^^^^^^^
Get real. I'm not reading anything associated with him now
or ever again.
KByrd
On 09 Jul 2003 17:03:50 GMT, John H. Fisher <taxservice@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <slrn3vsbgo4it.b485.kybyrd@no-spam>, kybyrd@no-spam
>(Karen Y Byrd) writes:
>
>>
>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:42:15 -0400, Art Clemons <artclemons@no-spam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>> Even
>>>Nixon would not have dared to grab a US citizen and hold that citizen
>>>as a non-combatant indefinitely without judicial review. Believe me I
>>>remember the Chicago 7 trial, and I note that the trial came about in
>>>part because the Justice Dept got a pro-prosecution federal judge, who
>>>ignored questions of evidence and Constitutional rights. That seems
>>>like a major improvement compared to now.
>>
>>This presupposes that his actions wouldn't have been just as punitive
>>if he had faced terrorist controlled jets crashing into the tallest
>>buildings in NYC
>>and their subsequent collape, another jet crashing and burning
>>into the Pentagon. And yet another jet possibly destined for
>>the Capital Bldg or White House, crashing and burning in western
>>PA. He didn't face any of those
>>challenges. How would he have behaved I wonder when he had
>>things like enemies list from which sprang the entire Watergate
>>debacle.
>>
>>KByrd
>>
>>
>
>The President's Speech at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
>D.C., January 1999.
>
>http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/08/1998-08-20-president-address-to-the-natio
>n.html
Sheesh!
John, I was speculating about what would *Richard Nixon's* reaction
would have to been to a 9/11 style attack on this country.
Why are you using it as occasion to re-print stuff from the Clinton
administration?!
KByrd