FROM BELGRADE, SERBIA
In this issue...
Some Reactions to: "Like Watergate, Cover-ups Worse Than Original Crime", TiM GW Bulletin 98/6-1, 6/01/98):
Some Reactions to:"Rising Storm in the Balkans", a New York Times Editorial, 6/06/98):
U.S.: n Good Parallel Between the U.S. and Albania
Other TiM Readers' Comments:
Middle East: n Rabin's Virtual Assassination
Switzerland: n Rioting Against the NWO
Australia: n Pauline Hanson Under Attack by "60 Minutes?"
Czech Republic: n Rioting Against the NWO
U.S.: NEW PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEW YORK - We received the following comment from an American reader:
"Suggestion for a new pledge of allegiance. It is not uncommon to meet people who have difficulty with the present pledge, last modified, I believe, by that arch-fraud FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). Herewith (a new proposed pledge):
'I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, one nation (under God), with liberty and justice for all'."
TiM Ed.: The bracketed phrases are TiM's.
U.S.: MICHAEL NEW'S CASE AND CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
LONDON - A TiM reader had posted our Macedonia troops TiM GW Bulletin 98/6-1 to a Tribunal Watch newsgroup. This evoked a reaction by a TWATCH list member (KINGSLEY):
TiM GW BULLETIN: Ray's Motion to Dismiss also included a reference to a Mar. 22, 1995 report by the then U.N. Secretary-General, Boutros-Boutros Ghali, which stated that the UNPROFOR was structured initially into "three operational commands: UNPROFOR (Croatia) ... UNPROFOR (Bosnia and Herzegovina) ... and UNPROFOR (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)."
KINGSLEY: A crucial element of the story is omitted - Michaal New *lost* his case and was dischargedTiM GW BULLETIN: Now, let's try to reduce all these acronyms and all this "legalese" to common sense. What this Kentucky attorney was basically saying was that, in order for the President of the United States to send our troops to hazardous duty, such as that under "Chapter VII" of the U.N. Charter, he had to have obtained Congressional approval. Which neither Bush nor Clinton ever did with respect to the Macedonia deployment (and even in Bosnia, Clinton got it only AFTER he had already committed the U.S. troops to it per the Dayton agreement of November 1995). KINGSLEY: People seem to forget that, regardless of the circumstances under which troops are committed - a longstanding debate among observers - Congress has always retained the most significant control - holding the purse strings. Under the War Powers Act, though the act says "in every possible instance" the president should consult with Congress, the president alone decides which "instances" are "possible. Short of that, the president is required to file a report with Congress within 48 hours *after* the deployment (under certain hostile conditions, which the preventive deployment in FYROM may or may not have met). Most importantly, the president must terminate the involvement within sixty days unless Congress extends the deadline. Although members of the House and Senate expressed concern of outright opposition to the deployment, neither chose to initiate a concurrent resolution to put a stop to the deployment.
According to Jerel Rosati's "The Politics of United States Foreign Policy," there have been more than 20 cases (since 1973) of deployment of troops under the War Powers Act. "In each case, the president initiated, formulated, and approved the use of military troops without congressional participation." Whatever any of us might think of this, it's hardly a NWO phenomenon.
Joann Kingsley, Dept of Political Science and International Relations
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
To which we replied from London to our TiM reader who had forwarded to us the above Kingsley comment:
FROM LONDON, UK
>A crucial element of the story is omitted - Michaal New *lost* his case and was discharged...
That is NOT true. The case is still on appeal. In fact, a hearing was held just last week (May 28 ) at the Army Court of Criminal Appeals in Falls Church, Virginia.
> People seem to forget that, regardless of the circumstances under which troops are committed - a longtanding debate among observers - Congress has always retained the most significant control - holding the purse strings. [...]
Since I am traveling, I don't have time to debate all other points which your correspondent had raised, except to add that, according to Pentagon's own on-the-record statements, there were about 70,000 American troops on various international missions around the world (in over 100 countries, according to Col. Dave Hackworth, a nationally syndicated columnist. A vast majority of those deployments, including the Macedonian one, has never been debated by Congress.
As for Congress using its weapon of last resort - cutting off the funds - your correspondent should cite the last example of when that happened with respect to some foreign mission in which the U.S. forces were deployed (I am not aware of any).
In other words, instead of defending the Constitution, Congress and the various NWO-sponsored Presidents are colluding in their betrayal of the U.S. taxpayers' interests (see "Death Merchants 81; U.S. taxpayers 19" - TiM GW Bulletin 98/5-2, 5/01/98, as well as my May 17 WASHINGTON TIMES column, "Rekindling NATO to fuel Cold War II...").
Feel free to post my response to your newsgroup list.
(We copied Kingsley on this response).
The next we got, was a copy of the following post by Kingsley to the TWATCH list:
> For the benefit off all those interested in the subject, I am reproducing here Mr. Djurdjevic's reply to Mr. Kingsley:
Kingsley: A crucial element of the story is omitted - Michaal New *lost* his case and was discharged...Djurdjevic: That is NOT true. The case is still on appeal. In fact, a hearing was held just last week (May 28 ) at the Army Court of Criminal Appeals in Falls Church, Virginia.
Kingsley: There can be no appeal without first a conviction; to whit: "G.I. who refused to serve with U.N. is convicted", The New York Times Jan 25, 1996 v145 pA4(N) pA4(L) col 4 (8 col in)Djurdjevic: As for Congress using its weapon of last resort - cutting off the funds - your correspondent should cite the last example of when that happened with respect to some foreign mission in which the U.S. forces were deployed (I am not aware of any).
Kingsley: I think we're missing the point... whether or not Congress chose to exert this power is one issue. Your previous posting suggested that Congress was powerless in the face of a powerful foregin policy president. I am suggesting that if Congressional discontent reaches a sufficient level, they are *not* without remedies.Djurdjevic: In other words, instead of defending the Constitution, Congress and the various NWO-sponsored Presidents are colluding in their betrayal of the U.S. taxpayers' interests.
Kingsley: No doubt we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution vis-a-vis presidential powers in the foreign policy realm, as do many scholars and observers. I should like to caution restraint in equating Congressional (in)action with collusion and/or betrayal merely because one does not agree with a particular decision. I also reiterate that this presidential prerogative long predates Mr. Bush's so-called NWO.
Joann Kingsley, Dept of Political Science and International Relations
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
TiM Ed.: A careful reader will notice some editorial liberties which Kingsley took with our response - by cutting some salient points, so as to suit her views, we suppose. Whereupon, we wrote to our original TiM reader:
FROM LONDON, UK
Thanks. I've noticed that Ms. Kingsley, guess in her zeal to score some debating points by the usual underhanded means of the NWO media, had edited my response. For example, she left out the following comment:
"...according to Pentagon's own on-the-record statements, there were about 70,000 American troops on various international missions around the world (in over 100 countries, according to Col. Dave Hackworth, a nationally syndicated columnist). A vast majority of those deployments, including the Macedonian one, has never been debated by Congress."
She also omitted to mention what I had said - that I could not properly debate her since I was traveling in Europe and was pressed for time. So, I am again enclosing my yesterday's note to you - in its entirety. Would you be so kind as to post it to your newsgroup list? Maybe some of our fellow-Americans are not asleep at the wheel while the NWO folks are busy trying to hijack our Constitution.
TiM Ed.:We do not know for sure if the TiM reader had posted our above reply to the TWATCH list, but we suspect that he might have based on the following...
U.S.: SOLDIER'S FATHER ON STATUS OF MICHAEL NEW'S CASE
IREDELL, Texas - Daniel New, father of Michael New, sent us a report about the status of his son's case, with the disclaimer - that this is his own analysis, not to be construed as that of his son's lawyers. Here's an abridged version of the report:
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
Falls Church, Virginia
28 May 1998
Spc. Michael G. New vs. USA
An analysis by Daniel D. New
For a hearing that was reputedly open to the public, you would not have known it. Not only was there virtually no parking available, but there was a small army of military and civilian security guards around the entrance to the compound housing the courtroom. After the family took seven seats, and the Army about 20, then the press about fifteen, there were only seven seats left for the public to claim.
There were microphones, but no speakers, hence one assumed that they were there for recording remarks. There were air conditioners along the wall of the small room. They were set on high, creating a very loud "white noise" background the type experts employ to foil those who might want to record something. The sound of speaking could be heard but faintly in the back of the room. Even on the third row, one was hard pressed to pick up more than 50% of what was said. Even the attorneys, on occasion, had to ask the judges, approximately ten feet away, to repeat themselves.
A public hearing, by definition, means (1) the public can attend; (2) the proceedings can be seen; and (3) the proceedings can be heard. This was not a public hearing. Incredibly, the microphones were apparently for the singular purpose of misleading the gullible into thinking there were being used for recording. There was NO recording of the deliberations and questions and answers! There was no court stenographer. There was, and is, according to the Army, no record of this hearing except a note in a log that it took place. (In fact, the office of the clerk of the court told us, "But dont you know that no cameras or recording devices are allowed in the courtroom?" Incredible.)
Even though Col. Hamilton (Michael New's lawyer) was to have 30 minutes to deliver his oral arguments, he had not finished the first sentence when he was interrupted, told, "We can read all that in the written briefs." Then began a series of challenging questions from the three judges, all active-duty colonels, focusing on very narrow issues. Those included:
· Why do you contend that the judge should not have ruled on the legality of the order? They do it all the time in civil cases, (but not in criminal cases).
· Would your client have really worn the uniform if we had thought to put it in the regulations (thus making it a legal uniform)? (An irrelevant question. His thoughts are not on trial, his actions are.)
· One judge mockingly compared Michaels stand to a soldier refusing KP because the soap isnt approved by the EPA.
The real issue in this court is simply this: Is Michael New going to ever get a fair trial on the basis of the merits of his arguments, or will the Army continue to stonewall? Since the latter is expected, the only recourse is going to be found elsewhere, which means Article III courts (civilian) or Congress. As Dale Robertson succinctly expressed it, "Article I (military) courts are clearly more concerned about discipline than justice."
This court may take weeks, or months, to render its verdict. We are working on the assumption that it will rule against us, and are prepared to go to the next step, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. Other alternatives are also being contemplated. We are preparing now to present our arguments before the Supreme Court.
Michael New Action Fund
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649
U.S.: CONGRESS FORCED U.S. OUT OF CAMBODIA IN 1973...
NEW HAVEN - A member of the TWATCH list sent us the following comment:
>As for Congress using its weapon of last resort - cutting off the funds - your correspondent should cite the last example of when that happened with respect to some foreign mission in which the U.S. forces were deployed (I am not aware of any).
The US Congress forced a termination of US military operations in Cambodia
in August 1973 by denial of funding. So it can be done when there is a
consensus in the legislative branch.
U.S.: LOOK BEYOND CLINTON FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION
CALIFORNIA - Here's a comment from a TiM reader who expands the charge of constitutional abuse to the two Republican presidents of the 1980s:
I understand what I've been reading on (Bill) Clinton, but I think if we condemn the Clintons, we should also look at:
(George) Bush's son and the Colorado S&L or the multiple pardons given by Bush to CIA operatives for ill gotten gains in the from S&L failures in the 80's.
Campaign contributions via the IRAN contra deal to Florida Republican campaigns etc.
The CIA drug deals in Arkansas as Bush supposedly introduced the Clinton's to the CIA to use Remote Arkansas air strips.
The downsizing of men's wages to women wages that never did anything but reduce family income, create latchkey children, crime, public distrust, force families into slaves, give women only 36% of the traditional male provider and men if they had jobs 60% for a combined family income of 96%.
We also need to look at the blackballing of air traffic controllers and the stalking of them and their families for years after they were fired and served prison time (by President Reagan). Is this freedom and democracy! Was this constitutional? I don't think so!
Thomas Kip Walls
THE BALKANS: LOOK BEYOND CLINTON FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION
MILTON, Massachusetts - Here's a comment from a TiM reader about the latest Kosovo (Serbia) crisis prompted by a New York Times editorial:
In it's June 6 editorial "Rising storm in the Balkans", the Times blames dictator Slobodan Milosevic for the violence in Kosovo. Milosevic certainly is incorrigible, but so is American policy towards the Balkans and the coverage of the region by western media. The great mistake in adopting an anti-Serb viewpoint is failure to distinguish between dictator Milosevic and the national feelings of the Serbian nation and people.
Media coverage minimizes the violence carried out by the separatist "Kosovo Liberation Army", such as the attacks on Serb civilians, police and monasteries. The Times expresses concern that the conflict could spread bringing in Greece and Turkey, a scenario that cannot be ruled out. Support for the Kosovo separatists may very well provoke a regional war. Albanian separatists are (also) active in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a fact that should serve as a stern warning toward changing any borders in the Balkans.
It is unfortunate that political dissidents in Yugoslavia (Serbs and Albanians) could not be encouraged by the west to unite against the Milosevic dictatorship. The same policy makers blaming Milosevic for the current situation in Kosovo did nothing to support pro-democracy demonstrators in Belgrade a year and a half ago. It is strange the editorial did not criticize the violent tactics of the Albanian separatists.
This editorial stands out as a perfect example of media bias.
Theodore G. Karakostas
TiM Ed.: A driver from Kosovo, Serbia, told this writer today here, in Belgrade, that a group of Albanian terrorists was arrested recently by the Yugoslav police. The terrorists had in their possession the standard issue NATO weapons. They reportedly confessed to have been trained in Germany for terrorist action against the Serbs in Kosovo. They said that they were first flown to Zagreb, Croatia, and then to Albania. The terrorists then entered Kosovo by illegally crossing the border between Serbia and Albania on foot. (Echoes of the Iran-Bosnia weapons channel which the Clinton administration sanctioned n 1994 -see the Los Angeles Times 4/05/96 and TIM GW Bulletin 96-04, 4/26/96).
So much for the myth that the latest Kosovo crisis was the Serbs' doing. Once again, the victims are being made into villains by the western governments and media. So that the New World Order's "perpetual war for perpetual commerce" strategy can live forever?
MIDDLE EAST: RABIN'S VIRTUAL ASSASSINATION
JERUSALEM, Israel - Barry Chamish, an Israeli journalist, sent us the following contribution:
You are the recipient of two attachments which contain some of the most powerful proofs of a conspiracy in the Rabin assassination yet found.
A computer expert, who wishes only to be known as TRUTH, superimposed the frame from the Kempler film showing the exact moment Yigal Amir shot Rabin onto the same picture released to the public, first through Yediot Ahronot. His method of achieving the superimposition is complicated and can be found in the discussion page of http://www.webseers.com/rabin. However, you can easily see the stunning results. Among the differences:
Now we must ask, who was that man on Rabin's right who disappeared from the still photo.
Barry Chamish, Israel
SWITZERLAND: RIOTING AGAINST THE NWO
GENEVA, Switzerland - A TiM reader sent us the following news clip from the June 1 Spotlight magazine issue:
In the worst public disturbances in Switzerland in memory, thousands of anti-globalist protesters rampaged through the streets here May 16-17, smashing shops and cars and fighting with police and Swiss army personnel brought in as reinforcements.
Of particular shock to the Swiss government was the presence of many Swiss citizens among the protesters. The protesters targeted all the most representative emblems of globalism such as big banks, big multi-national corporations, big international bureaucracies such as the International Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization.
Many Swiss people and foreigners were amazed that the three day riot was only covered in their local newspapers and television. Damage to the city was calculated in the millions.
TiM Ed.: Of all unlikely places, Switzerland was probably one of the least likely countries in which one could have expected riots of any kind. Yet, we have now been able to confirm independently from an eyewitness that the riots did take place in Geneva as stated in the above report. And that the anti-NWO protesters caused some damage to the Geneva downtown office buildings. Apparently, the riots were set off by a WTO conference which was taking place in Geneva at the time.
AUSTRALIA: HANSON UNDER ATTACK BY "60 MINUTES?"
CANBERRA, Australia - Pauline Hanson, an Australian Member of Parliament and the leader of the One Nation Australian nationalist party:
"This Sunday (June 7), (the Australian version of the) "60 Minutes" is airing a segment devoted to connecting Pauline Hanson with individuals or groups in the United States. While we don't know who these people are, what is certain is that Pauline Hanson is not in contact politically or organizationally with anyone in the United States - the 60 Minutes story is a fairytale.
After hearing of an advertisement for this Sunday's 60 minutes, David Oldfied contacted the program to check its content. Despite making it clear there was absolutely no communication between Pauline Hanson, her advisers, or the organization's heads and anyone in the United States,
60 minutes refused to even consider they had manufactured the story. They also refused to allow One Nation an opportunity to rebut their fairytale until the program the following week. This is a nefariously timed lie.
This is deceptive and dishonest journalism at its worst and all credible journalists, whatever their personal feelings, should be appalled at 60 minutes' approach. Regardless of what evidence 60 Minutes produce or what they may state, the whole story is a fairytale fabricated without the slightest basis of truth. There is no connection or communication between the United States and Pauline Hanson or One Nation.
While we have no knowledge of such activities, it is possible some individual member may be in contact with people overseas but this, if it has happened, is a personal affair and unrelated to us as an organization.
It should also be understood that One Nation letterhead and other documents have been forged on a number of occasions. Further to this, people have falsely claimed to be party officials and candidates as well as one incident where a person in Western Australia claimed to be a close personal adviser to Pauline when in fact she had never even met him.
We are not sure what 60 minutes will put to air, but having spoken to them twice, it is clear they will peddle the lie of links that simply do not exist. Perhaps they have cleverly manufactured a fairytale with the help of people either willing to perjure themselves or who are just not aware they are not really in contact with Pauline or One Nation, but whatever the case, their story is fiction in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree.
60 minute's refusal of an opportunity for us to face their fairytale on their programme this Sunday night, in itself, proves their intention to simply maliciously attack Pauline and One Nation by any means regardless of the total lack of truth. 60 minutes has no credibility and should be treated accordingly. Even their Internet story announcing their programme is filled with lies when factual evidence is clearly available by speaking to us, something they chose not to do because the truth would ruin their dishonest and despicable claims."
"Pauline Hanson and One Nation is, and will always be, 100% Australian owned and 100% Australian influenced."
Statement issued by request of Pauline Hanson MP.
EU: "EURO" CONDOMS GROW IN SIZE
PRAGUE, Czech Republic - "North American men have another reason to feel inferior in comparison to Europeans," a TiM reader wrote. For, the EU has just issued new standards for condoms. Now women throughout the EU can look forward to enjoying the standard feeling at a 17 cm-length, up from 16 cm until now.
Now, top that NOW! (National Organization of Women). Sounds like the EU women have just issued a new lobbying challenge to NOW. Or was it to the NWO?
Also, check out other TiM READERS' FORUMS... April 1998, May 1998, Part I, May 1998, Part II, June 1998, July 1998, August 1998, September 1998, October 1998, November 1998, December 1998, Part I, December 1998, Part II