Post by Seany-D on Jun 30, 2004 16:18:10 GMT -5
I was emailed this from a friend, so I hope that I'm not violating too many copyright laws by posting it here. My question: do you think that Johnny A. kept it on the down-low because of his spiritual/political views, or do you think he did so 'cause his boys had to stumble onto the evidence, as opposed to using intelligence to find the evildoers, as our 'merican boyz are always supposed to do?
Sean "maybe Jesus told him to keep it quiet" Davis
---<snip>---
From http://www.nytimes.com:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Noonday in the Shade
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 22, 2004
On April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears
to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday,
Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully
automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as
briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon -- a cyanide bomb -- big
enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.
Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference
to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William
Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say
the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber,"
didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire
such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world.
Mr. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Mr. Ashcroft acted
as if nothing had happened.
Incidentally, if Mr. Ashcroft's intention was to keep the case
low-profile, the media have been highly cooperative. To this day, the
Noonday conspiracy has received little national coverage.
At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft
poses the same difficulties as writing about the Bush administration in
general, only more so: the truth about his malfeasance is so extreme
that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill.
In this case, it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to
bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet
it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household
name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist. Was Mr. Ashcroft, who
once gave an interview with Southern Partisan magazine in which he
praised "Southern patriots" like Jefferson Davis, reluctant to publicize
the case of a terrorist who happened to be a white supremacist?
More important, is Mr. Ashcroft neglecting real threats to the public
because of his ideological biases?
Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement
effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: when he sent a
package containing counterfeit U.N. and Defense Intelligence Agency
credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong
address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the
F.B.I. But for that fluke, we might well have found ourselves facing
another Oklahoma City-type atrocity.
The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up
call: 9/11 has focused our attention on the threat from Islamic
radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there. The
concerns of the Justice Department, however, appear to lie elsewhere.
Two weeks ago a representative of the F.B.I. appealed to an industry
group for help in combating what, he told the audience, the F.B.I.
regards as the country's leading domestic terrorist threat: ecological
and animal rights extremists.
Even in the fight against foreign terrorists, Mr. Ashcroft's political
leanings have distorted policy. Mr. Ashcroft is very close to the gun
lobby ^× and these ties evidently trump public protection. After 9/11, he
ordered that all government lists ^× including voter registration,
immigration and driver's license lists ^× be checked for links to
terrorists. All government lists, that is, except one: he specifically
prohibited the F.B.I. from examining background checks on gun purchasers.
Mr. Ashcroft told Congress that the law prohibits the use of those
background checks for other purposes ^× but he didn't tell Congress that
his own staff had concluded that no such prohibition exists. Mr.
Ashcroft issued a directive, later put into law, requiring that records
of background checks on gun buyers be destroyed after only one business day.
And we needn't imagine that Mr. Ashcroft was deeply concerned about
protecting the public's privacy. After all, a few months ago he took the
unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have
had late-term abortions.
After my last piece on Mr. Ashcroft, some readers questioned whether he
is really the worst attorney general ever. It's true that he has some
stiff competition from the likes of John Mitchell, who served under
Richard Nixon. But once the full record of his misdeeds in office is
revealed, I think Mr. Ashcroft will stand head and shoulders below the
rest.
Sean "maybe Jesus told him to keep it quiet" Davis
---<snip>---
From http://www.nytimes.com:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Noonday in the Shade
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 22, 2004
On April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears
to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday,
Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully
automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as
briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon -- a cyanide bomb -- big
enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.
Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference
to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William
Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say
the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber,"
didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire
such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world.
Mr. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Mr. Ashcroft acted
as if nothing had happened.
Incidentally, if Mr. Ashcroft's intention was to keep the case
low-profile, the media have been highly cooperative. To this day, the
Noonday conspiracy has received little national coverage.
At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft
poses the same difficulties as writing about the Bush administration in
general, only more so: the truth about his malfeasance is so extreme
that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill.
In this case, it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to
bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet
it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household
name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist. Was Mr. Ashcroft, who
once gave an interview with Southern Partisan magazine in which he
praised "Southern patriots" like Jefferson Davis, reluctant to publicize
the case of a terrorist who happened to be a white supremacist?
More important, is Mr. Ashcroft neglecting real threats to the public
because of his ideological biases?
Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement
effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: when he sent a
package containing counterfeit U.N. and Defense Intelligence Agency
credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong
address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the
F.B.I. But for that fluke, we might well have found ourselves facing
another Oklahoma City-type atrocity.
The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up
call: 9/11 has focused our attention on the threat from Islamic
radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there. The
concerns of the Justice Department, however, appear to lie elsewhere.
Two weeks ago a representative of the F.B.I. appealed to an industry
group for help in combating what, he told the audience, the F.B.I.
regards as the country's leading domestic terrorist threat: ecological
and animal rights extremists.
Even in the fight against foreign terrorists, Mr. Ashcroft's political
leanings have distorted policy. Mr. Ashcroft is very close to the gun
lobby ^× and these ties evidently trump public protection. After 9/11, he
ordered that all government lists ^× including voter registration,
immigration and driver's license lists ^× be checked for links to
terrorists. All government lists, that is, except one: he specifically
prohibited the F.B.I. from examining background checks on gun purchasers.
Mr. Ashcroft told Congress that the law prohibits the use of those
background checks for other purposes ^× but he didn't tell Congress that
his own staff had concluded that no such prohibition exists. Mr.
Ashcroft issued a directive, later put into law, requiring that records
of background checks on gun buyers be destroyed after only one business day.
And we needn't imagine that Mr. Ashcroft was deeply concerned about
protecting the public's privacy. After all, a few months ago he took the
unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have
had late-term abortions.
After my last piece on Mr. Ashcroft, some readers questioned whether he
is really the worst attorney general ever. It's true that he has some
stiff competition from the likes of John Mitchell, who served under
Richard Nixon. But once the full record of his misdeeds in office is
revealed, I think Mr. Ashcroft will stand head and shoulders below the
rest.
