Why Hate Crime Legislation Should be Opposed--Ron Paul

This week the Gazette ran an article complaining that Bush would veto proposed hate crimes legislation that passed the House, and of course based most of their complaint on Christian pastors and a (phony) Christian-posturing president. Here is an excellent analysis from Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul--someone who does not wave a Christian banner--as to why Hate Crimes legislation is draconian, and the foundation of a creeping New Inquisition that should be opposed. It is simply a case of the Constitution vs. Hate Crime Laws.

"HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society."

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592's supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher's parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

See full article here:

Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms

The Gazette should reconsider its position in light of the constitutional argument, which is also a threat to freedom of religion, as well as speech, for it impugnes (as does the Gazette) beliefs based upon the teachings of the Bible as "evil". The Gazette should be ashamed of its own hate and biggoted prejudice against such beliefs (i.e. condemnation of homosexuality, criticism of Jewish religion or atheism, etc). It is also completely contrary to their position against the State making a zone banning free speech around funerals, provoked by the protesting of the pastor from Missouri who indicts America for defending homosexuality, and saying America is under God's wrath, where they defended free speech to do so as a matter of principle.

MSNBC Debate Poll: Ron Paul Leads "top 3" candidates!

The Media is lying, saying Romney "won" the debate or gained most! It is clear the media's role is to MARGINALIZE Ron Paul--who is leading the poll! So what do they base their announcement on? Nothing! But you will not read this in any AP headlines or national news:

Ron Paul attracted most positive points from MSNBC poll viewers! (Its not too late for you to vote). If you vote with plus and minus and "submit" you can see the results.

REVISED: MSNBC has new poll, Ron Paul clearly marks win at California debate (click here)

RON PAUL HAS A SIGNIFICANT + CATEGORY LEAD AT 34%!! versus:

Romney 29%

Guliani 26%

McCain 20%

BY THESE RESULTS RON PAUL WON! See for yourself, for the papers and networks will not tell you.

[results above were at about 2am May 5th]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

It is quite obvious and noticeable that the media and republican establishment are afraid of Ron Paul because he tells it straight, and proves them to be anti-constitutional, opposing the "powers that be", even threatening the corrupt tax and monetary system. Yet he articulates more of what Ronald Reagan also state that made him so popular in his campaigning (though in office he did not carry out what he stated about limited government) than any other candidate on the platform.

Joseph Sobran so aptly describes why Paul is such a maverick and non-conformist, it is because he takes the Constitution as law:

In essence, Paul appeals to that subversive document, the U.S. Constitution, long since abandoned by both major parties, not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court. He tests every proposed law by asking whether it exercises a power authorized by the Constitution. The answer is seldom yes.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2007/070125.shtml

Here is another clip more directly and freely expressing his view of present foreign policy and the war in Iraq. Call it Paul "unleashed":

PAUL ON IRAQ WAR

Israel and "Special Forces" conduct False Flag Attacks in Iraq to blame Muslim "Insurgents"

"...the two undercover [British] soldiers - almost certainly special forces - were held by Iraqi security forces after clashes that reportedly left two people dead and threatened to escalate into a diplomatic incident between London and Baghdad.
The soldiers, who were said to have been wearing Arab headdress, were accused of firing at Iraqi police when stopped at a road block."

-- the Guardian (UK)

"The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies [or espionage--Arab translation?]...

...Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr, the deputy commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), told a gathering of senior officials, that the U.S. needs those attacks to justify the continuation of its military presence [occupation] in Iraq.."

-- Al-Jazeera

Just who is trying to "destabilize Iraq"--who are the real "insurgents"? Urge all to look at this documentation from foreign press below that proves that false-flag "terrorist" attacks by Israel and U.S. and British "special forces" are used to incite, inflame, and make propaganda for war, and blamed on "Muslims" and justify Iraq occupation and the vague "war on terror".

The use of false flag attacks by Israel and the U.S. must be considered at large. The motto of Israel's MOSSAD is "by deception thou shalt do war", (a Jewish "tradition", as Jesus accused the Pharisees in their corrupting the scriptures, a perversion of the Proverb 24:6 in the Bible that states "by wise counsel thou shalt make war"). The Army War College states of MOSSAD or Israeli special forces, "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." - Washington Times . Even the US army acknowledges that Israel can and does engineer "false flag" attacks, having the potential to even target U.S. forces. (See Israel's attack on the U.S.S. Liberty).

False-flag attacks then are a clear strategy to conceal the real attacker and blame the enemy (thus the perp plays the role he imputes of his enemy) to justify military intervention. Remarkable attacks then ought to be carefully discerned by evidence before believing "an Al Qaeda website claimed responsibility for the attack", and those "websites" should be researched as to their owners and credibility. Americans are too passive in accepting what is spoon fed to them from the boob-tube. And if Americans doubt that the U.S. would make a false flag attack, even on their own citizens or military, they can read OPERATION NORTHWOODS for themselves, declassified here, or in the press (ABC) here, which many believe was a model or type for 9/11 itself. (The similarities are striking). FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ARE REAL AND BEEN BOTH PROPOSED AND DONE BY THE U.S., ISRAEL, AND BRITAIN!

Now the press sometimes gives clues in their official reporting, that demonstrates just how unlikely an attack could be done without "inside help" (9/11 certainly falls into this category with its coincidental war games that very day), like this reported in the Scotsman, that killed Iraqi members of Parliament, requiring (1) access, (2) precise knowledge of their whereabouts, and the precise time, (3) the means to by-pass the most rigorous security imposed upon the Green Zone, controlled and coordinated by the U.S.:

"US Major [spokesman] General William Caldwell blamed the attack on al-Qaeda [of course he did, propaganda].

How explosives were smuggled into the Green Zone is likely to be the focus of an investigation [because of its extreme improbability without inside assistance]. They would have had to pass through an outer checkpoint manned by US and Iraqi troops and multiple inner checkpoints guarded by security contractors and foreign troops that are part of the US-led coalition.

Militants have rarely [if ever] managed to penetrate the various checkpoints and carry out attacks inside the zone."

-- Suicide bomber breaches Green Zone to attack Iraq parliament

The U.S. Marines themselves have questioned the sophistication of the IEDs and bombs used in attacks on their own forces, and just how the "targets" are selected, with so precise knowledge, to maximize psychological effect, which would require inside information.

There has been evidence of unknowing vehicles being planted with bombs, unwary to the driver, while driving into market from "checkpoints", which is then deemed a "suicide bomber", by an unwilling and ignorant victim. This is a ruthless tactic and manufactures a propaganda lie, then parroted by compliant McMedia for mass consumption.

Does this sound far-fetched? It should not, and now there has been a public incident in mainstream press, in the case of the UNWILLING PIZZA DELIVERY BOMBER recently, where a man was turned into a "suicide bomber" by force, and yet the real perpetrators have never been caught! Here is what was said about this brazen and mysterious crime:

"Brian Wells was identified as the person to be targeted in this case," says Bob Rudge, FBI. "We don't believe that it was a random attack on just an unknown pizza delivery person."

unwilling hostage made "suicide bomber"

What some may be skeptical to believe, was done, right before American's eyes and seen on their own TVs, unless we are to believe that we should be afraid of all "pizza delivery men". Thus, the same modus operandi can be and is used in literally "making" unwilling "suicide bombers" out of hostages to carry out barbarous acts against innocent civilians.

There is no doubt that Israeli Mossad or IDF special forces are sometimes imbedded within U.S. or British special forces, therefore having access to secret plans and information. "Special forces" by definition means secretive and covert (illegal, amoral rogue operations) outside of normal chain of command. Israel considers itself accountable to no one, yet leans on the U.S. (hard) for giving it cover, and supporting it when accused, thus dragging the U.S. into all her conflicts. IT WOULD BE NAIVE TO NOT SEE THE BENEFITS OF THE PROVOCATION OF 9/11 AND THE MIDDLE EAST WAR ON TERROR FOR ISRAEL. After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu [radical Likudist, like the neoconservatives], was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: "Its very good." Then he corrected himself, adding: "Well, its not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans]." This adds great fuel to the evidence of MOTIVE in the 9/11 "attacks", to the neoconservative and Zionist elements imbedded within the administration and the Pentagon. Again, Operation Northwoods is historical evidence that a false-flag attack (and involving remote control aircraft) was considered before to provoke a "helpful wave of national indignation" for war!

There is however, no doubt, some real suicide bombers, but which is only a sign of DESPAIR of a people oppressed, who cannot bear it any longer, and would rather die destroying the occupier than continue in captivity. Despair leads to desperate acts and self-sacrifice to obtain freedom for others who follow. Samson willingly died bringing down the imperial house of the Philistine occupying government, in a final act of desperation in captivity after torture, trading his own life for thousands of Philistine leaders, and for this is regarded as a hero and savior-type in the Bible by orthodox Jews and Christians. (This was when real Israel, not political "Israel", was under occupying government, and not the contemporary Zionist invader and occupier). Special Forces routinely attempt desperate missions (although more calculated) by the most committed who risk themselves in such manner. In WWII some Americans played the "kamikaze" themselves to destroy enemy ships after their planes were hit. It is political propaganda and Hollywood (an arm of Zionist propaganda--the Pentagon visited the set of "24") that distorts it into acts of lunatic "religious fanaticism" that "does not make sense to the rest of us", because they paint it that way, in order to distort the truth, i.e. "they want to kill us all".

Discernment in what is reported is absolutely critical before rushing to judgment, or war.

*** SPECIAL REPORT ***

THE INSIDER

Israeli forces 'dress as Arabs' to conduct operations inevitably blamed on
others

MOSSAD IN IRAQ

WV Supreme Court Upholds the Constitution--4th ammendment requires police need warrant for wires

On WCHS talk radio today Mike Agnello unleashed another rant and gross distortion of a recent decision by the Supreme Court which merely limited police to their constitutional limits by requiring warrants for "wiring" informants in drug cases. Rick Johnson was edited by Agnello, who barely acknowledged the police could still proceed if they obtain a warrant. Their complaint? It is too impractical to get a warrant! Agnello says "this is not a partisan issue", yet he then sets up the controversial Brent Benjamin (republican, and the dissenting judge) as the example. Just who is making this partisan? Agreed--it should not be partisan, but a constitutional issue alone, like all issues should be. But the constitution is insufficient for Agnello's desire for an Italian-fascist police state (something he should recall from his ancestor's history). Of course being from Chicago, reknowned for its police corruption well-documented, he is merely aspiring to "conventionalize" West Virginia into the same jack-boot culture of arbitrary police powers.

Apparently Agnello wants a Fascist Police State where warrants are unnecessary and police are the local and unaccountable Gestapo which can kick in doors, sneak and peak, and spy and conduct surveillance without accountability or limits (and similar to America's New Government under the Bush administration since 9/11). What kind of America, or West Virginia, would that be? What would then restrain the police from entering anyone's home? What then would constitute "probable cause"--mere arbitrary suspicion? Politicizing this as he did also incites and inflames the ignorant public against the Constitution itself and emboldens police to enter into conflict with anyone who regards constitutional law as "suspicious" or hostile--increasing tension and potential violence between people and police! Hostility and disrespect can be expected to police who trample our precious Bill of Rights and also by talk show hosts who want and irresponsibly advocate to overthrow the "rule of law" defined in the Constitution for totalitarian police powers. For if the principle is violated for the inflamed and exaggerated cause of "drugs" then it will also be overthrown for any other purpose as well. The "plea of necessity" is the despots plea as the West Virginia Constitution itself states:

1-3. Continuity of constitutional operation.

The provisions of the constitution of the United States, and of this state, are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.

The police merely have to get a warrant (something required since 1787), which states the evidence they want and expect to obtain, which is necessary for a conviction anyway. It is absolutely dangerous to empower police to act contrary to the constitution. Everyone needs to commit the 4th amendment to memory, and teach their children likewise, lest a political revolution lead to tyrannical police power and arbitrary government--something already well under way.

This is also very similar to the Federal government violation as well in domestic spying, where the violation is also discussed here:

NSA Eavesdropping and the Fourth Amendment

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Jose' Padilla--Another Example of the Terror Hoax

The article below sums up the situation fairly well, while the disaffected but still too gullible public entertains themselves while a phony "war on terror" continues to be propped up in the people's minds by baseless and false accusations where allegation and repetition (ad infinitum) equals truth. It is long time for all to watch the government attempt to present evidence to substantiate its claim of Padilla being involved with 9/11 and attempting to setoff a "dirty bomb". All the media should be held accountable for their headlines, and the Bush administration for its propaganda and assertions which have as much credibility as "WMD" in Iraq.

Where's the Beef?

Padilla and the Zucchini Prosecution

By MIKE WHITNEY

The only thing keeping Padilla in jail is the 9-11 hysteria which still lingers throughout the country. If the administration hadn't figured out how to exploit people's fear of terrorism, Padilla would be a free man right now. Instead, he faces life behind bars on charges that are just as unclear now as they were when they were first made.

The government has dropped all charges that Padilla is a "dirty bomber" or that he was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the US. In fact, they've changed their story completely. Now they're charging Padilla as a material witness in a "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim". They say that he is part of a "North American support cell that's part of a vast international movement of foot soldiers, recruiters and financiers who foment violent jihad around the globe."

It sounds creepy, but where's the proof? In 5 years, the government hasn't produced a shred of evidence that Padilla is guilty of anything....

REAL ID--West Virginia Prepares Resolution and Bill to Reject REAL ID

"The purpose of this bill is to provide that West Virginia will not participate in the "REAL ID Act of 2005" enacted by the United States Congress in Public Law 109-13."

Some of the most beautiful words I've ever seen!

Not bad for a Yankee state, eh? (C'mon Southerners...your late to the battle!) Check here for other state's current status: http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/. Join the just Rebellion now to "defend freedom"! (Next step is to eliminate use of Socialist Security Number--a data-mining scheme--from being required as a condition for doing business or obtaining government documents).

This legislation is pending and needs to be pushed through in the next session so that "Mountaineers are always free" (WV Motto). The Resolution here is weaker than the bills in regards to stating Constitutional articles, both 10th and 4th ammendments respectively should be mentioned.

Here is the pending Resolution:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 38

Urging the President of the United States and Congress to repeal the Real ID Act of 2005.

Whereas, The federal Real ID Act of 2005 mandates an unfunded national driver's license on the people of West Virginia; and

Whereas, Implementation of the Real ID Act would cost West Virginia taxpayers approximately $65 million; and

Whereas, The Real ID Act national database will invite theft of identity and invasion of privacy; and

Whereas, The Real ID Act will impose inconveniences and higher taxes on West Virginians with no attendant benefit such as protection from terrorism; therefore, be it

Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Legislature hereby urges the President of the United States and Congress to repeal the Real ID Act of 2005; and, be it

Further Resolved, That the Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Governor of West Virginia, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each member of West Virginia's congressional delegation.

Here is the bill, identicle in both House and Senate:

Note the proposed TEETH in this bill to prevent Homeland Tyranny from dealing directly with the DMV to entice, coerce, or otherwise come in by the back door! The DMV head in 2004 was completely agreeable to implementation. Bill is pending introduction in next session, having cleared judiciary.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2007_SESSIONS/RS/BILLS/hb3219%20intr.htm

§17B-7-1. Legislative finding; prohibiting implementation of "REAL ID Act."

(1) The Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of the "REAL ID Act of 2005", as part of Public Law 109-13, is inimical to security and well-being of the people of West Virginia, will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to the people of this state, and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) The State of West Virginia will not participate in the implementation of the "REAL ID Act of 2005." The Department of Transportation, including the Division of Motor Vehicles, is directed not to implement the provisions of the "REAL ID Act of 2005" and to report to the Governor any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the "REAL ID Act of 2005" through the operations of that division.


NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to provide that West Virginia will not participate in the "REAL ID Act of 2005" enacted by the United States Congress in Public Law 109-13.

Right to Drive and Travel vs. State Claim of "Privilege"

This article by Phoenix police officer Jack McLamb lays out constitutional rights versus the state's claim that "driving is a privilege" granted by the state. Says who?

Right to Travel

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
3. 
   

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

'deliberate and calculated lies'

from raw story: In a major hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the brother of deceased Army Specialist Pat Tillman, who appears to have been a victim of friendly fire, said that reports of his brother's 'heroic death' were "deliberate and calculated lies."

"These were intentional falsehoods that meet the legal definition for fraud," said Kevin Tillman, who served alongside his brother in the Army Rangers in Afghanistan.

Tillman testified alongside his mother, Mary, at a hearing on "Misleading Information from the Battlefield." Pat Tillman had been a safety for the Arizona Cardinals who turned down a contract extension in 2002 to enlist in the US Army Rangers.

Also at the hearing was Jessica Lynch, the Army Private whose tales of heroism were exaggerated in the aftermath of her capture and subsequent recuse from an Iraqi hospital in March and April 2003.

Lynch criticized the media for making too much of her heroism.

"My parent’s home in Wirt County [West Virginia] was under siege of the media all repeating the story of the little girl Rambo from the hills who went down fighting. It was not true," she said. "The truth of war is not always easy to hear but it's always more heroic than the hype."

Lynch, who still suffers from many injuries inflicted during her ordeal in Iraq, showed a quiet and reserved manner distinct from the Tillmans, who made it clear that they were pursuing truth and justice.

Kevin Tillman set the scene, arguing that the image of America's military campaign in Iraq was bruised after the US tactical defeat in Falluja, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and the call-up of 20,000 additional American troops to fight in Iraq.

"The media accounts, based on information provided by the Army and White House, were wreathed in a patriotic glow," he said of reporting on the circumstances of his brother's death.

"This was a terrible tragedy that might have further undermined support for the war in Iraq, and was instead transformed into a message," to build support for the war he argued.

When quizzed by one Republican Congressman, Darrell Issa of California, if there was any evidence of a conspiracy to falsify details of the Army Specialist's death, Tillman answered without any doubt.

"The evidence is leading to a point, which is why we came to your committee sir," Kevin Tillman responded.

Referring to the 'disconnect' between the stories told of Tillman's death and the truth about its circumstances, his brother said more investigation was needed.

"Based on how a lot of these wars are perception based, it's imperative that the committee take a look," Tillman argued. "[Politicians were] the ones who ultimately benefited from that story."

When Specialist Tillman's mother, Mary, was asked what gaps there were in the public record, she pointed to the large ring binder sitting on the table in front of her.

"See this binder?" she said to Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA).








For starters, she suggested that the Army's awarding of a Silver Star to her son needed to be investigated, as it 'created a paper trail.'

She also challenged the Army Inspector General's report that a group of generals were the sole cause of the fabrications of the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death.

"That's a smokescreen, these officers are scapegoats," Mary Tillman said angrily, while answering a question asked by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT).

But while the Tillman family saw a political decision being made to falsify accounts of the Army Specialist's death, Lynch said to Issa that she didn't see any larger conspiracy beyond the media.

She blamed the media, "for letting the story keep going, they should have found out the facts before they spread the word like wildfire."

But in his opening statement, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the committee's chairman, doubted that the media itself could be to blame for the story on Lynch's capture and rescue.

"Jessica Lynch was captured on March 23. The Washington Post published a completely factual article on her rescue on April 2. But by April 3, ten days after her capture, U.S. officials had become the source for a story that riveted the nation, but twisted the truth beyond recognition," Waxman argued. "It’s four years later and we still don’t know who’s responsible and why they did it. All we really know is that they did a great disservice to Jessica Lynch." ...

[source: http://mediamonarchy.blogspot.com/]
posted by mediamonarchy at Tuesday, April 24, 2007