PROLOGUE

When I was 11 years old I sat next to my friend and fellow class clown Jeffery, quietly thinking of ways to torture the unsuspecting substitute teacher. Jeffery and I were competing comedians, always trying to "get over" on each other in school. Jeffery was good and there were no limits to what he would do.

On this particular day we sat next to each other, sharing one of the double desks with which Brooklyn school children of the 70's were so familiar. As our unsuspecting substitute turned his back to write something on the black board, Jeffery raised his arm and launched all his own books across the room in the direction opposite from where I was seated, immediately turning towards me with a look of horror and shock plastered on his face. The teacher, alarmed by the noise of the book launching, spun around only to see Jeffery's books scattered around the room. His loose leaf binder had opened up and produced an explosion of confetti in the form of notes and homework sheets.

A quick glance our way by the teacher brought into view a shocked Jeffery, who appeared to be the victim, sitting right next to me and staring at me with an expression of, "What the hell did you just do?" splashed on his face. I sat there, speechless, as the person on the right side of Jeffery's books prior to their launch to the left. I had nothing to say because the truth was simply not believable and no convincing lie presented itself.

Anyone witnessing this scene from the teacher's vantage point could only come to one conclusion, Jesse did it. Even if I tried to explain that Jeffery launched the books, who would believe me? After all, who would have done this to his own property? Jeffery would have to spend the next hour or so reassembling his loose leaf binder. There is no way he would have done this to himself. No way, except for one thing...he did do this to himself, his motive...comedy. I was the patsy for two good reasons. First, I was sitting right there when it happened, and second - I had a history of being a clown. I understood why people thought I was guilty and let me be the first to commend Jeffery for executing the perfect crime. He did the unthinkable and set up a patsy with his convincing claim of innocence.

In this sad, but true story, I was kicked out of the class by our substitute teacher. I was only 11 years old but I knew enough to understand that there was no way in hell that anyone would believe me if I told the truth and said that Jeffery was guilty of tossing his books . And so, having no proof that I was blameless, I swallowed my defeat and walked out of the room wondering what form my revenge against Jeffery would take.

The point to be made is this: sometimes, the more outrageous an action, the easier it is to get away with. Sometimes, there is no way that people can connect the criminal with the crime: the very idea of guilt is so far out of the norm as to be unthinkable.

Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do. If the deed is egregious enough, even if some proof of your culpability surfaces, you'll be on safe ground. If people cannot imagine your involvement in an unthinkable action, they will simply not believe you could possible be complicit in its commission. Think about it.

THE ART OF DENIAL

Flashback to a heinous crime of the recent past: When Susan Smith appeared before the public to beg the kidnapper of her children to return them to her, the nation cried with her. Her description of the guilty assailant was so very believable. It fit right into the criminal stereotype that had been etched into the psyche of Americans by the corporate media. And for a few very long days, everyone believed her.

But there was one huge problem with her story. It was Susan Smith, herself, who killed her children. Yes, the unbelievable was true. A young mother had actually allowed her own children to drown. It was inconceivable. It just couldn't be. But it was.

Susan Smith had tried to throw the blame for her crime to a reasonable patsy. Had her story gone unchallenged, she might have gotten away with it. As it was, her crime fell apart because there was an effective investigation. Smith had no way of curtailing or controlling the inquiry into her crime. And as a result, justice was done, and Susan Smith was eventually charged and convicted of murder.

Truth and reality often can be totally unbelievable. It is very possible for people to totally deny assertions presented to them, even when provided with very credible of evidence that corroborates what they are told. A perfect example of such denial occurred when eye witness accounts of the Holocaust began coming out of war torn Europe. The unimaginable horror of what was being reported was simply too terrible to believe. It was easier to deal with the information as some sort of exaggeration and overreaction. Humans simply could not do this to other humans.

Think about what we know about acts of genocide in the Congo or Rwanda or Darfur? The art of denial is a well honed form of human self protection. Sometimes it is far easier to close one's eyes to the truth than to acknowledge what is very painful. Think about that as well.

9/11 AND AMERICAN DENIAL

In this post 9/11 era, most Americans are unable even to consider the possibility of US government complicity in the attacks on our nation even when confronted with a mountain of evidence. In contrast, many of these same people accept far less believable scenarios simply on the basis of faith and without a single shred of evidence such as believing in the existence of a God. Tragically, they seem to have the exact same blind trust in the Bush administration.

At close inspection, the official version of 9/11 is outrageously full of holes. When those of us who are knowledgeable discuss the evidence that has been unearthed about that day, there is so much to reveal that we don't know where to start or where to stop. When tapped for what we know, we have so much to expose that the torrent of information that rushes can sound like the meaningless rant of a lunatic. Regardless of how credible or tangible the evidence, when rolled out in front of the public, it often sounds too far fetched or irrational to believe.

The facts that have come out about 9/11 differ so greatly from the official story that they almost defy validity. On the contrary, the official version is so simple as to be perfectly believable. It places the entire blame on the work of a handful of terrorists who hated us for our freedom. Case closed.

It is important to keep in mind that the 9/11 issue is not simply a question of whose version of a story is correct. This is a case in which millions of people would be taking a great risk. They would have to consider that the very government they have trusted and supported for more than four years may have participated in an unthinkable atrocity. That, in itself, may be impossible. By opening their minds to an objective examination of what has been discovered about the 9/11 attacks, millions of Americans would have to abandon their blind faith in this administration, and reject the mistaken belief that those in charge of our nation can do no wrong. That, too, may be impossible.

Herein lies the paradox. If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9/11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed. In the long run, it is far easier to maintain one's faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.

The consequence of such denial is that people end up believing what they must, rather than what is true. As time passes, they totally erase the distinction between fact and fiction in order to believe in their government, and they find themselves living in the America of 2005.

The greater tragedy of course, is the nature of the deception that has been accepted. There are lies, and there are lies. There are deceptions, and there are horrendous deceptions that alter history. It is one thing for Jeffery to have gone unpunished for throwing his own books around so he could claim the crown of class clown. Thirty years after the fact, our mutual friends now believe the truth, and we can laugh at what went on.

It would have been another thing altogether to have allowed Jeffery to perpetrate a Columbine-like massacre to claim that same crown. There is no way that could have resulted in denial, and there is no way that any one would have dared to laugh.

BOTTOM LINE

Ironically, it's almost funny when the fact-based 9/11 research community gathers to discuss the events of that day. The official government version of what happened loses so much credibility in the light of the available facts, films, testimony & chronicled history that it is almost impossible not to laugh in disbelief when we start to share what we know. The evidence that has been amassed is so persuasive as to rip the official version of 9/11 to shreds. And still, there is no one but ourselves to hear us.

We go on and on and on like people obsessed because as responsible citizens of the world we have assigned ourselves the task of exposing the truth. But we also have to accept the obstacles we face. We must understand how and why people refuse to believe what we say despite all the evidence in our possession. To explain that phenomenon I think about my friend Jeffery and his book launch. He did something no one believed he could possibly have done. As a result, he carried it off.

The people who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 did something so unbelievable that most people would not believe they did it, even if presented with conclusive evidence of their guilt. As a result, they also carried it off, and the evidence be damned.

In the end, there is always the comment by those who would discredit the research and the evidence that has been uncovered. The defenders of the official version of 9/11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant challenge by the champions of denial. How naïve they are.

At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9/11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. Exposing the truth about 9/11 would virtually mean the end of the United States of America as a viable power. If the good people in our government and in our intelligence community exposed the truth, America would never ever regain its credibility in the world. We would never again be respected or trusted. We would immediately relinquish our leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. We would expose the huge betrayal of trust that has been developed and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation.

The minute any ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9/11, this nation would be no more. We would never recover. The people who were involved in 9/11 know this. They know that there is more at stake than their exposure. They know that once they did what they did, they would never be held accountable. As I did with Jeffery, let me be the first to admit that these folks committed the perfect crime. Not in the sense that they would not be discovered, but in the sense they knew it would do more harm to the country to expose them than it would to play along with them.

The perpetrators of 9/11 knew they were they protected by the blind loyalty of the American people who would refuse to believe they could have been involved. But they had another ace in the hole as well. They knew that no one who cared for the nation would reveal the truth, for to seek justice would in essence bring down the nation.

Bottom line: the truth is out there, the evidence is real. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Think about that, and weep for us all.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty Friday to conspiring with the Sept. 11 attackers and declared he was chosen by Osama bin Laden to fly an airliner into the White House in a separate assault.

Over the objection of his lawyers, Moussaoui calmly admitted his guilt in a courtroom a few miles from where one of the hijacked planes crashed into the Pentagon in 2001, setting up a showdown with prosecutors who quickly reaffirmed they will seek Moussaoui's execution.

"I will fight every inch against the death penalty," Moussaoui told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema as he became the only person convicted in a U.S. court in connection with the Sept. 11 plot that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The unshackled Moussaoui, wearing a beard and green prison jumpsuit, told the judge he had not been promised a lighter sentence for his guilty pleas. Then he added, "I don't expect any leniency from the Americans."

Moussaoui, a 36-year-old French citizen, pleaded guilty to six felonies, four of which carry the death penalty. They accuse him of conspiring with the 19 hijackers and al-Qaida leaders in a broad plot to kill Americans using commercial airliners as weapons. The conspiracy included the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a "statement of facts" compiled by prosecutors and signed Friday by Moussouai, he acknowledged lying to federal agents after his arrest in August 2001 to avoid exposing the Sept. 11 hijackers.

The pleas ended a three-year legal drama during which Moussaoui attempted to fire his lawyers, ranted against Brinkema and prosecutors and produced arguments over national secrets and access to captured al-Qaida leaders that reached the Supreme Court.

Before accepting the guilty pleas, Brinkema complimented Moussaoui, who in the past had derided her in handwritten court filings.

"He has a better understanding of the legal system than some lawyers I have seen in court," the judge said.

Prosecutors will seek to put Moussaoui to death, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference shortly after Moussaoui's hearing ended. "The fact that Moussaoui participated in this terrorist conspiracy is no longer in doubt," he said, hailing Moussaoui's "chilling admission of guilt."

Moussaoui was arrested on immigration charges in August 2001 after drawing attention at a Minnesota flight school because he had said he wanted to learn to fly a Boeing 747 although he had no pilot's license. He was in custody on Sept. 11.

In contrast with previous court appearances where he angrily taunted his accusers, Moussaoui on Friday occasionally joked, calmy answered questions and described for the first time how he was being trained to fly a jet in to the White House. It was not clear when that attack was to occur.

"How do you plead?" Brinkema asked him for each of the six felony counts. Each time, he answered, "Guilty."

The judge asked Moussaoui to review the lengthy statement of facts in which prosecutors laid out their case against him. He appeared to carefully review it as hushed court spectators watched intently. Brinkema asked if he understood it.

"Yes, I have read more than 10 times this statement," he said. "I pondered each paragraph and find it factual."

In the statement, Moussaoui said bin Laden had personally selected him to take part in an attack on the White House with a commercial airliner.

Bin Laden told Moussaoui, "Sahrawi, remember your dream," according to the statement. Abu Khaled al Sahrawi was one of the names Moussaoui used.

Brinkema asked defense lawyer Alan Yamamoto, the only attorney Moussaoui has been willing to talk to in recent weeks, if he was satisfied his client understood what he was doing by pleading guilty.

"When I have spoken to him, we have disagreed," Yamamoto said. "He is facing the possibility of death or life in prison. He has told me that he understands that."

Prosecutor Robert Spencer told the court he believed Moussaoui should be ordered to pay restitution to the Sept. 11 victims.

When the judge noted that part of the penalties could include a $250,000 fine, Moussaoui replied, "I wonder where I will get the money."

Before he formally entered the plea, he was asked if he understood the statement could be used against him to prove he was guilty. "Absolutely, I do understand that," he said.

A few seconds later, he added, "Where do I get the pen?"

Outside the courthouse, family members of Sept. 11 victims expressed satisfaction with the outcome and their gratitude to the government for pursuing the case.

Dominic J. Puopolo Jr. of Miami Beach, Fla., whose mother from Dover, Mass., died on American Airlines Flight 11 that crashed into the World Trade Center, said he had "a tremendous feeling justice is being served." He said, "I promised my mother shortly after she was murdered I'd somehow have justice."

Last week the alleged "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, changed his plea for a third time in pretrial proceedings in federal court in Virginia. Mr. Moussaoui has now tried every possible plea: attempting not to plead at all, pleading no contest, pleading guilty and, finally, pleading not guilty to conspiring in the events of Sept. 11.

Some see his erratic behavior as evidence of insanity. Others argue that Judge Leonie M. Brinkema is shamefully letting a crazy man represent himself. But there is a third party to this case, and it deserves its share of the blame for Mr. Moussaoui's conduct: the United States government, which deliberately charged him with a crime that it couldn't prove.

Most of the public and much of the news media may believe the government has a solid case against Mr. Moussaoui. With a careful reading of the indictment in the case, however, this certainty begins to falter. The indictment is a colorful and dramatic depiction of the Sept. 11 attacks, detailing the assembling of the hijackers and their preparations in a perfect narrative arc.

But the story it tells is hardly an airtight case against Mr. Moussaoui. Periodically, the indictment splices in parallel activities of Mr. Moussaoui - weaving his actions into the story of what happened Sept. 11 the way Tom Hanks was spliced into historical footage in "Forrest Gump." The indictment never connects him to the other 19 hijackers - who were interconnected with one another - and never suggests he even met them. Save for a single money transfer to Mr. Moussaoui from someone also transferring funds to the group, nothing in the indictment ties him to these men beyond his membership in Al Qaeda.

Scrutinizing the indictment, three possibilities emerge: the government is not presenting crucial evidence tying Mr. Moussaoui to the Sept. 11 attacks; the government has no evidence tying Mr. Moussaoui to the Sept. 11 attacks; or federal conspiracy law is so infinitely elastic that Mr. Moussaoui could receive the death penalty for simply buying knives, learning to fly and training in Qaeda camps.

Most trial watchers assumed the first possibility was true: the government could tie Mr. Moussaoui to Sept. 11, but chose not to do so in the indictment. But Mr. Moussaoui, who fired his lawyers, opted for door No. 3. He made it clear last week that he'd been operating under the assumption that under United States law, he was guilty of conspiring to kill thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, simply because he was a member of Al Qaeda and had operated a guest house. He did not change his plea until Judge Brinkema painstakingly explained to him: "If you're standing in court today and saying, 'I am a member of Al Qaeda and provided a guest house, but I never intended or I never agreed to kill or maim persons in the United States,' then you're not agreeing to this particular conspiracy." Mr. Moussaoui simply made the mistake of taking the government's expansive reading of conspiracy law at face value.

This may explain a good deal of Mr. Moussaoui's bizarre conduct to date. He behaves like a paranoid lunatic because, until last week, he believed he was facing the death penalty for Sept. 11 just for being a member of Al Qaeda. Under the government's version of the law - the only version to which he had access - he assumed he was being paraded in a show trial that was more about revenge than justice.

There are several reasons the government may have charged Mr. Moussaoui with a conspiracy he never knew about. It could be hoping to leverage a better plea bargain. By charging him with a capital crime, it can disqualify any juror who opposes the death penalty, thus ensuring a more conservative jury. Most profoundly, finding him guilty of conspiring in the attacks would begin to avenge the atrocities of Sept. 11.

But this is no way to fight terror. Frankly, military tribunals or a life sentence in a military brig would be preferable.

No one is arguing Mr. Moussaoui is innocent. It's increasingly clear he was training for a different mission, and good lawyering will allow us to prosecute him for whatever he intended to do. But as egregious as Mr. Moussaoui's sins may be, our legal system must reflect the principles by which we live: no one should be found guilty of a crime he did not commit. Unless we intend to try every Qaeda member we can find with capital conspiracy for Sept. 11, we must try Mr. Moussaoui for whatever crimes he committed, and not for the crimes we wish we could avenge.

ABSTRACT - Editorial says Justice Dept is trying to trample Bill of Rights in trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, so-called 20th hijacker, by denying him right to see evidence critical to his defense and then suggesting it might transfer his case to military tribunal if it does not like judge's ruling on matter; says war on terrorism has not repealed Constitution, and Judge Leonie Brinkema must ensure that it applies fully in Moussaoui's case [...]

Tempting the judge presiding over the Zacarias Moussaoui trial to dismiss the case, federal prosecutors said Wednesday they will not cooperate with her latest order to permit two top al Qaeda captives to testify on Moussaoui's behalf.

"The government cannot, consistent with the interests of national security, comply with the court's order," prosecutors said in papers filed with U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia.

Moussaoui, 35, a French citizen of Moroccan descent and the lone U.S. defendant in connection with the September 11 terror plot, maintains that he had no role in the attacks, but admits belonging to al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist group behind them.

He said he was not called upon to act in the September 11 attacks and is not guilty of any conspiracy related to them. Instead, he has argued that he was waiting to participate in a later plot outside the United States.

Moussaoui faces six charges of conspiracy -- to commit terrorism transcending national boundaries; to commit aircraft piracy; to destroy aircraft; to use weapons of mass destruction; to murder United States employees; and to destroy property.

Part of his defense requires testimony from two top al Qaeda operatives captured in Pakistan more than six months ago and are being held in undisclosed military locations by the United States.

Last month, Brinkema ordered the government to make available Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the reputed architect of the September 11 attacks, and Mohamed al- Hawsawi, an alleged financier of the 19 hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing some 3,000 people.

Brinkema ordered videotaped depositions via satellite by December 5.

The Justice Department opposes the order, prosecutors said, in part "because the deposition will result in the disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have also argued the depositions would disrupt ongoing interrogations of the detainees and subvert President Bush's constitutional powers as commander-in-chief to conduct the war on terrorism.

However, Brinkema has decided the detainees' testimony is necessary for a fair trial, saying they might clear Moussaoui of involvement in the September 11 conspiracy or at least spare him a death sentence.

"The government realizes that the attorney general's objection means that the depositions cannot go forward and obligates the court now to dismiss the indictment unless the court finds that the interests of justice can be served by another action," prosecutors said.

Even before Brinkema ordered access to Mohammed and al-Hawsawi, Moussaoui's trial was delayed by a parallel dispute over access to accused September 11 coordinator, Ramzi Binalshibh, who allegedly wired thousands of dollars to Moussaoui in the United States.

Attorneys assisting Moussaoui's defense have suggested that the government might choose to declare Moussaoui an enemy combatant and move his case to a military tribunal instead of allowing him to talk with detained al Qaeda members.

"These unprecedented depositions of three enemy combatants would needlessly jeopardize national security at a time of war with an enemy who has already murdered thousands of our citizens," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors indicated they plan to pursue appeals of Brinkema's orders and any legal sanctions she might impose, including dismissal.

A government appeal of the earlier Binalshibh order is already pending before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

"I'm disappointed we won't get the witnesses, because they exculpate my client," said Frank Dunham, one of the defense attorneys assisting Moussaoui, who is representing himself.

In her opinion last month, Brinkema said the testimony of Mohammed "supports the defense contention that Moussaoui was not involved in the September 11 operation and supports the claim that Moussaoui was not part of the September 11 plot, because the defendant was in the United States at the time, but was not contacted" by the plotters.

Prosecutors have distanced themselves from statements by government officials asserting that Moussaoui would have been the 20th hijacker on September 11 had he not been jailed on an immigration violation a month before the attacks.

Instead, prosecutors now allege, Moussaoui, who attended two flight schools in the United States in 2001, was destined to pilot a fifth hijacked plane into the White House.

The serial killer Harold Shipman hanged himself in his jail cell because he could not face the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison and wanted to ensure his wife was financially secure, an inquest jury concluded yesterday.

In a lengthy narrative verdict, the jurors at Leeds crown court said that a contributing factor was "knowing if he lived beyond 60 years of age, the pension lump sum due to his widow, Primrose Shipman, would be reduced yearly until 65".

Shipman was found hanging in his cell at Wakefield prison, West Yorkshire, in January 2004 on the eve of his 58th birthday. His wife had been due to visit him in prison the following day and had spoken to him on the telephone the night before, when all appeared well.

Shipman had his GP's pension stopped by the then health secretary, Alan Milburn, following his conviction for murdering 15 patients in 2000. But his wife was still entitled to a widow's pension if he died before the age of 60.

During the nine-day hearing, extraordinary details emerged about Shipman's life in prison. He liked to play Scrabble, joined a card school and was writing a biography of Napoleon. He enrolled in an English literature course and studied the peninsular wars. He kept his cell free of clutter - but had a radio, jigsaw, books and newspapers.

He also kept a secret prison diary in which he spoke of his deep despair. One of the diary entries read: "Phones tapped. Letters read. Probably get away with this as the POs [prison officers] are so lazy." Another entry spoke of him "sobbing with despair" in his cell following a visit from his wife, and questioning whether the new year would be worth seeing through if an appeal was not successful.

There were allegations that he had been told by prison officers to "go and hang himself" - but these claims were rejected by the jury yesterday.

Shipman was later found by a public inquiry to be responsible for 250 patients' deaths in Hyde, Greater Manchester, Todmorden, and Pontefract, West Yorkshire.

The jury said: "It was clear from the evidence - the diary entries, phone call entries, conversations with prisoners and prison staff - that Mr Shipman had great affection for his wife and family whom he regarded as his priority."

They found Shipman was "neither bullied nor goaded" into taking his own life. [...]

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The unsettling story of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds took another twist on Thursday, as the government continued its seemingly endless machinations to shut her up. The U.S. Court of Appeals here denied pleas to open the former FBI translator's First Amendment case to the public, a day after taking the extraordinary step of ordering a secret hearing.

Edmonds was hired after 9-11 to help the woefully staffed FBI's translation department with documents and wiretaps in such languages as Farsi and Turkish. She soon cried foul, saying the agency's was far from acceptable and perhaps even dangerous to national security. She was fired in 2002.

Ever since, the government has been trying to silence her, even classifying an interview she did with 60 Minutes.

Oral arguments in her suit against the federal government were scheduled for this morning, but yesterday the clerk of the appeals court unexpectedly and suddenly announced the hearing would be closed. Only attorneys and Edmonds were allowed in.

No one thought the three-judge appeals court panel would be especially sympathetic to the Edmonds case. It consists of Douglas Ginsburg, who was once nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court by President Reagan. He withdrew after it was revealed he had smoked pot as a college student; he later joined the appeals court. Another member, David Sentelle, was chair of the three-judge panel that appointed Ken Starr to be the special prosecutor investigating Clinton. Karen LeCraft Henderson was appointed a federal judge during the Reagan period, then put on the appeals court by the elder President Bush.

In making a plea to open the Edmonds hearing, the ACLU noted appellate arguments normally are accessible to the public. "When the United States asked the Supreme Court to close part of the oral argument in the Pentagon Papers case - a case that involved classified information of the greatest sensitivity - that motion was denied," the ACLU said. "Likewise, in an appeal in the ongoing prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, an alleged conspirator in the September 11th terrorist plot, the court rejected the government's move to close the entire hearing."

Edmonds, an American citizen, was born in Iran and grew up in Turkey. She speaks Farsi, Turkish, and other languages of central Asia. She was hired by the FBI in the hectic aftermath of 9-11 to translate various top-secret materials collected by the bureau from wire taps, surveillance reports, interviews with agents, etc.

In that capacity she began observing the bureau's bizarre, even surreal practices, including such things as sending people to Guantanamo to translate statements by prisoners who spoke Farsi. Only trouble was the translators weren't speakers of Farsi, but were instead Kurds speaking a Turkish dialect. She stumbled across various mistranslations and interpreters who were not able to make accurate translations. Then she discovered someone was signing her initials to approve translations she never made. And she observed translations being doctored or blocked by the actions by one translator or another. She discovered one translator whose relative was working for an embassy which the FBI had under surveillance.

When Edmonds protested to her supervisors, she has said, the ignored her or told her off, at one point calling her "a whore." Eventually she was fired by a supervisor who told Edmonds he'd look forward to meeting her again - in jail.

Taking her protests to Congress, she won support from the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who exchanged letters with the Justice Department's Inspector General's office, which said it was making an investigation. In the midst of all this, then attorney general John Ashcroft stepped in and threw down a gag order by invoking the arcane states secrets privilege, under which the government can classify whatever materials it wishes in the interests of national security. Last year, the Edmonds case was dismissed by a federal district court judge. The government had never even bothered to file an answer to her complaint.

The case that was argued this morning concerned a complaint by Edmonds that the government was denying her First Amendment rights. Only after she was fired did Edmonds go to the Congress. She is saying she played by the rules and was squashed by the government without cause or explanation. And when she went outside the official channel to reveal what was going on within the bureau, the government responded by classifying her previous attempts to speak out, including press accounts written before the classification came down. One of them was a 60 Minutes segment.

"The federal government is routinely retaliating against government employees who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks or protect public safety," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU. "From firing whistleblowers to using special privileges to cover up mistakes, the government is taking extreme steps to shield itself from political embarrassment while gambling with our safety."

With Hospital Emergency Room Infrastructure To Provide Secure ID and Medical Record Access For VeriChip Patients, Thought and Opinion Leaders to Play Key Role in Adoption of VeriChip(TM)

VeriChip Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Applied Digital (NASDAQ: ADSX), announced today that the Bergen County, New Jersey Chief of Police has been implanted with the VeriChip. Chief of Police Jack Schmidig, a member of the police force for over 30 years, received a VeriChip as part of the Company's strategy of enlisting key regional leaders to accelerate adoption of the VeriChip. With hospital emergency room infrastructure forming, patients will have the ability to provide secure ID and medical record access in an emergency or clinical situation.

See Also: Iraq and the Dangers of the Policy of Appeasement

The U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt have used their invasion of Iraq as a means through which to achieve many goals apart from its primary goal of gaining control of Iraq and its natural resources. This war has been a vehicle through which the U.S. not only elevated propaganda to new heights at the expense of the truth, but actually undertook the murder of independent journalists. By targeting journalists for murder, a clear threat was delivered to any one daring to publicise any facts in opposition to the U.S. and Coalition goals. Now the example of the invasion is being utilised as a concrete threat to any other nation that dares to demonstrate any opposition whatsoever to international U.S./Zionist goals. Victory has not been won by the Coalition in Iraq by any means, and yet, by destroying buildings, statues and other symbols of the legitimate Iraqi leadership and by encouraging widespread looting, the Coalition is hoping to convince the Iraqi people as well as the international community of its power to give life or death to whomsoever it wills.

Bogus accusations of 'pursuing weapons of mass destruction' were part of the foundation upon which the Coalition based its invasion of Iraq. Now, even as the country of Iraq continues to resist, the U.S. warns other nations to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq.' In particular, the U.S. threatens Iran, Syria and Korea with the possibility of a U.S. or 'Coalition' invasion, should they attempt to retain the right to oppose U.S. foreign policy. John R. Bolton, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, warned Syria and other countries in the region to 'open themselves' up to 'new possibilities for peace'. In other words, no one has the right to self-defence or defence of the homeland. 'New possibilities for peace' require capitulation to U.S./Zionist aims and are predicated upon total disarmament by any country that is in a position to threaten the Zionist entity.

Bolton declared that: 'With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest.'

Of course, proliferation of nuclear arms is not only allowed but encouraged in the case of the Zionist entity, an illegal political entity that never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and one that has threatened the U.S. government with the possibility of becoming a 'rogue state' if the U.S. should ever waver in its support. In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, told the press that France and the illegal Zionist entity had worked for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin declared, inter alia, that: 'We [France] thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say 'if you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'

Indeed, the Zionists vowed before the current American invasion of Iraq that, should Iraq attack the Zionist illegal entity, they would feel free to use nuclear weapons in response. This is the same Zionist entity that attempted to conceal its own nuclear capacity from the world for decades. In fact, despite all propaganda to the contrary, it was only Iraq who possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and the American invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'threat', actual or potential, from a nation weakened by over a decade of punitive sanctions.

An U.S. Air Force report from 1999 declared the Zionist entity to be building a nuclear naval force meant to respond to any nuclear strike by such countries as Iran or Iraq. The number of Zionist nuclear weapons cited in the report was 400 atomic and hydrogen weapons, double that of previous assessments. Some of these 400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons could be deployed by the Zionist navy on the fleet of three German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarines, giving the Zionist entity a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles. The same report declared that: 'the first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, located strategically near Iran' but that the Zionist entity might be able to use Jordanian air space for a nuclear strike on Iran. It stated finally that: 'Israel's Defense Ministry has requested from the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorisation for a retaliatory nuclear strike.'

In the spring of 2002, the Zionist entity contemplated a 'pre-emptive strike' against Iran. The Coalition invasion of Iraq made it unnecessary for the Zionists to carry out their own threats against Iraq, but they still remain eager to see both Iran and Syria weakened significantly or destroyed. The Bush administration now has made it clear that it could be persuaded to turn its aggression next towards either Syria or Iran.

Iran, despite its rather despicable attempts to curry favour with the U.S. by abetting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its own compliance with international law in terms of its nuclear programmes, has not won either security or safety with the U.S. and its allies. In terms of nuclear weapons, Iran, unlike the Zionist entity, is party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has accepted full scope safeguards and is entitled to import nuclear reactors and other technologies under the provisions of the treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency regularly has inspected all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities, reports it to be in full compliance with the NPT and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons effort. Since 1991, the IAEA invoked authority to conduct special inspections of undeclared sites and Iran allowed the IAEA to visit any site upon request. The agency failed to uncover any non-sanctioned activites in any of its several visits. Despite all of this, Iran remains a potential target for the next act of American/Zionist aggression and will not be removed from Bush's characterisation as part of his 'axis of evil'. Demonstrations of disgraceful jubiliation at the Coalition's current successes in Iraq will change nothing.

In reality, it should be far more frightening to contemplate nuclear weapons at the disposal of the Zionists, an aggressive colonialist racist regime proven to have expansionist aims towards the Arab Nation than nuclear power in the hands of Syria, Iran or Korea. In fact, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons and used them on a civilian population is the United States, the nation that demonstrated its aggressive, law-defying nature once again in its invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq.

A U.S. poll was taken to show that half of the United States population would support U.S. military action against Iran if it continued to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent of those surveyed said the United States should take action against Syria if it were helping Iraq. Polls only represent the views of those chosen to participate, and one hopes that this is not the opinion of the people of the United States, but only of those brainwashed by official U.S./Zionist propaganda. Even so, it is a rather frightening prospect, and if a valid poll, definitely supports the notion of culpability of the people of the United States for the blood shed and crimes committed by its government.

Bolton continued to elaborate upon his threat by stating that: 'I think Syria is a good case where I hope that they will conclude that the chemicals weapons program and the biological weapons program that they have been pursuing are things that they should give up. It is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process. He concluded by stating that the priority of the United States was the 'peaceful elimination of these programmes.'

The U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of how 'peaceful elimination' is achieved. Indeed, it is obvious that other nations do need to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq'. The U.S. and its allies must be stopped now. Half-hearted attempts to support Iraq while attempting to placate the U.S. will accomplish nothing.

The real lesson to be drawn from Iraq is that one must not acquiesce in self-destruction at the hands of the enemy. Iraq actually attempted to conform to the dictates of the United Nations with respect to its weapons and resources for self-defence while the United States never had any intention of forswearing its own plans for invasion. While Iraq destroyed weapons at the behest of U.N. inspectors, the United States amassed troops and weapons in preparation for invasion.

Indeed, it is interesting to look at the example of North Korea and its response to U.S. pressure. In a statement made on the 6th of April, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrated clear recognition of the dangers that face any nation that dares to oppose U.S. world domination and gave its own response to recent threats made by the U.S.

Stating that 'the DPRK has so far made every possible effort to ensure stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula and the region', it accused the United Nations Security Council first of dealing with the nuclear issue on the peninsula in such a manner as to make it a 'prelude to war' to be 'misused by the U.S. as an excuse for war.'

One can hear the echo of similar United Nations discussions and resolutions on Iraq here and recall the recent U.S. manipulation, bullying and ultimate disregard of the international community in its inexorable aim to invade Iraq.

The DPRK then stated very forcefully that: 'The U.S. intends to force the DPRK to disarm itself. The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.'

Furthermore, that: 'Neither international public opinion nor the U.N. Charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq. This suggests that even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the U.S. would not help avert a war.'

And finally:

'ONLY THE PHYSICAL DETERRENT FORCE, TREMENDOUS MILITARY DETERRENT FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DECISIVELY BEAT BACK AN ATTACK SUPPORTED BY ANY ULTRA-MODERN WEAPONS, CAN AVERT A WAR AND PROTECT THE SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY AND THE NATION. THIS IS A LESSON DRAWN FROM THE IRAQI WAR.'

Syria and Iran should take note and respond in like fashion. The DPRK continues by rejecting the entire fabric of deceit upon which the U.S. relies to support its worldwide aggressions, stating that:

'The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the DPRK will accept the demand for disarming while watching one of the three countries the U.S. listed as part of an 'axis of evil' already subject to a barbarous military attack.'

In conclusion, the DPRK vowed that, should the U.S. target North Korea, the DPRK would have 'no other option but to beef up the deterrent force for war by mobilising all the potentials.'

In like manner, Syria and Iran must recognise the need for absolute resistance to the U.S. foreign policy 'programme'. Unity against the U.S. is vital. The lesson to be learned from the U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is that the U.S. is ruthless in its programme to eliminate any potential threats to its own status as the most powerful dictator in the international community. At the heart of U.S. world domination plans are Zionist interests and this never was more obvious than when the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, a country without any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' rather than taking any action towards Korea, a nation possessing nuclear deterrent power. The Zionists have no interest in Korea at present, but they do have an interest in increasing their sphere of control within the Arab Nation and Iran. The appointment of Jay Garner, a Zionist puppet, to supervise the so-called 'post-Saddam Hussayn' admininstration of Iraq is damning evidence of U.S./Zionist collaboration.

Furthermore, Iraq was chosen as the first target probably because the U.S. believed that it would have United Nations support and because it was able to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War without any effective resistance from the Arab Nation as a whole. Despite Arab opposition to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the anger and frustration with respect to the economic sanctions that punished Iraq for over a decade, the leaders of the Arab Nation made it clear that they would not actually oppose a second U.S. invasion. Moreover, much of the military apparatus for a second invasion of Iraq was in place and indeed, the U.S. and British had been invading parts of Iraq throughout the past decade, under spurious claims of 'enforcing' the sanctions.

Iraq, therefore, was a much easier target than Syria, Iran or Korea. The oil resources in Iraq made it irresistable to Western governments determined to take multi-national control over Arab resources and radically diminish the power of OPEC.

An invasion of Syria certainly would be in Zionist interests, perhaps even more than the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq posed an easier target in terms of the degree of passivity that the U.S. could expect from the rest of the world, even if most of the world opposed a military invasion of Iraq. After all, the brutal economic sanctions against Iraq had been allowed to proceed year after year without any sort of effective intervention from any one.

Iraq is by no means defeated, and the U.S. cannot claim true victory of any sort at this point in time. Even so, it is vital for every country to take note of the unequivocally aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy and to respond as the DPRK responded. No one can afford to wait to see what ultimately happens in Iraq, hoping that perhaps the United States will become so entangled in a long war of attrition that it will not be able to open another front. After all, the United States proved itself willing to invade Iraq even while continuing military actions in Afghanistan, and it carried out attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.

There is no middle path here, and a policy of appeasement with respect to the United States will not grant safety, peace or security to any nation. Any country that decides to work with the United States in an attempt to win either U.S./Zionist friendship or tolerance is committing suicide. The U.S./Zionist aims to destroy the Arab Nation and Iran will not waver. Any U.S. 'road map' for Palestine ultimately will facilitate Zionist security in the region, and thus must be repudiated categorically.

Like an abusive marriage, any so-called alliance with the U.S. or the Zionists operates to the benefit only of the abusive partner. Any gains for the victim are illusory at best. Independence from U.S. control is the only path to true survival.

With fresh indictments last week, the UN oil-for-food scandal took an unexpected turn into the Labyrinth -- the tangled skein of war profiteering and state terrorism that has seen the Bush Family's lust for blood money emerge in three of the darkest criminal episodes in modern American history: Iran-Contra, Iraqgate and the BCCI affair.

Texas oil baron David Chalmers of Bayoil and his partners were hit with criminal charges for allegedly cutting deals with Saddam Hussein in the notorious skim operation that outflanked UN sanctions and diverted funds intended for humanitarian relief. Prosecutors were shocked -- shocked! -- to find such collusion and corruption in the oil business.

Of course, the fact that three U.S. presidents -- the two George Bushes and their new best pal, Bill Clinton -- actually brokered massive backroom oil deals for Saddam that dwarfed Bayoil's petty chiseling, plus the fact that Saddam's nation-strangling thievery has since been eclipsed by the epic rapine of Bush II's Babylonian Conquest, in no way mitigates the seriousness of the Chalmers indictment. But somehow we doubt you'll be seeing those august statesmen sharing leg irons with old Davy anytime soon.

Chalmers is a longtime denizen of the Labyrinth. In the mid-1980s, he joined up with Chilean gun-runner Carlos Cardoen, the Financial Times reported. Cardoen was a CIA frontman used by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush I to funnel cluster bombs and other weapons secretly to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. At Reagan's direct order, Saddam received U.S. military intelligence, billions of dollars in credits and a steady supply of covert "third-country" arms to sustain his war effort, even though the White House was fully aware of Saddam's "almost daily use" of illegal chemical weapons, The Washington Post reported. Later, Bush I, as president, would also mandate the sale of WMD material to Saddam, including anthrax -- long after Saddam notoriously "gassed his own people" at Halabja.

As in the present UN scandal, Saddam paid for his covert cluster bombs with oil. Chalmers would move the actual black stuff and broker its sale for the CIA and Cardoen, taking a cut in the process. Since 1999, Chalmers has been doing the same thing on behalf of Italtech, owned by another crony in the old Cardoen gun-running scheme. The Texas baron must be aghast to find himself in hot water for an activity that was once blessed at the highest levels. Perhaps he neglected to cross the requisite Bushist palms with sufficient silver -- or else, as with many a Bush minion, he's just been tossed overboard as chum for the sharks when he's no longer of any use.

But let's be fair. Helping Saddam kill people with chemical gas was not the only reason why Reagan and Bush I aided their favorite dictator. They had bigger fish to fry -- using the Constitution as kindling for the feast.

In 1986, George Bush I visited the Middle East with a secret message to be passed to Saddam via Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: "Drop more bombs on Iran's cities." How do we know this? From the sworn testimony of Howard Teicher, the National Security Council official who accompanied Bush and wrote the official "talking points" for the trip. Ostensibly, Bush urged this mass killing of civilians as a strategy to halt Iran's gains at the front. But as The New Yorker reported -- 13 years ago -- there was another layer to this covert plot.

A fierce aerial offensive by Saddam would force Iran to seek more spare parts for its U.S.-made planes and anti-aircraft weapons, inherited from the ousted Shah. Bush was already waist-deep in the Iran-Contra scam, which involved selling Tehran U.S. military goods through back channels, then funneling the secret profits to the Contras, the gang of right-wing insurgents and CIA-trained terrorists in Nicaragua. Congress had forbidden U.S. aid to the Contras, so Reagan and Bush used the mullahs (and Central American drug lords) to run their illegal terrorist war. More innocent deaths in Iran meant more backdoor cash for the Contras. A win-win situation!

When Bush I became president, he clasped Saddam even closer, sending him billions in U.S.-backed "agricultural credits" through BNL, an Italian bank tied up with BCCI -- the international "financial consortium" that was actually "one of the largest criminal enterprises in history," according to the U.S. Senate. BCCI laundered money and financed arms dealing, terrorism, smuggling and prostitution, while corrupting government officials worldwide with bribes and extortion.

As Bush well knew, Saddam was using the BNL cash for arms, not food; indeed, that was the point of the exercise. When some honest U.S. officials threatened to unravel the BNL gun-running scam, Bush appointed Cardoen's own lawyer to a top Justice Department post -- overseeing the investigation of his former boss. Under heavy White House pressure, the case was quickly whittled down to the usual "bad apple" underlings carrying out some minor fraud.

But perhaps Papa Bush was just being fatherly. Earlier, another BCCI offshoot bank had bailed out one of Bush Junior's many business failures with $25 million in cash. That deal had been brokered by mysterious Arkansas tycoon Jackson Stephens, one of the Bush family's biggest campaign contributors. Curiously enough, Stephens was also a top moneyman for another leading politician: Bill Clinton. When Clinton took office, he obligingly deep-sixed the continuing probes into BCCI, Iraqgate and Iran-Contra.

That's how the system really works. All the guff about law, democracy and morality is just cornball for the yokels back home -- and for the cannon fodder sent off to die in the elite's commercial and dynastic wars. The Labyrinth -- that knotted gut of blood and bile -- has poisoned us all.

WASHINGTON - The Army has cleared four top officers - including the three-star general who commanded all U.S. forces in Iraq - of all allegations of wrongdoing in connection with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and will not be punished, officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who became the senior commander in Iraq in June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, had been faulted in earlier investigations for leadership lapses that may have contributed to prisoner abuse. He is the highest ranking officer to face official allegations of leadership failures in Iraq, but he has not been accused of criminal violations.

After assessing the allegations against Sanchez and taking sworn statements from 37 people involved in Iraq, the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated, said the officials who were familiar with the details of Green's probe.

Green reached the same conclusion in the cases of two generals and a colonel who worked for Sanchez.

The officials who disclosed the findings spoke only on condition of anonymity because Congress has not yet been fully briefed on Green's findings and the information has not yet been publicly released. Green had scrutinized the actions of Sanchez and 11 other officers.

Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were physically abused and sexually humiliated by military police and intelligence soldiers in the fall of 2003. Photos of some of the abuse created a firestorm of criticism worldwide.

Congress has hotly debated the question of accountability among senior Army and Defense Department officials who were in positions of responsibility on Iraq detention and interrogation policy. Some Democrats have accused the Pentagon of foisting all the blame onto low-ranking soldiers.

In a statement Friday that did not mention specific cases, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said that as soon as all Pentagon assessments of accountability are complete he will hold a hearing "to examine the adequacy of those reviews" and to hear senior civilian and military officials address the issue.

Warner said he strongly agrees with one investigation report that concluded last year that commanders should be held accountable for their action or inaction and that military as well as civilian leaders in the Pentagon "share this burden of responsibility." [...]

Some have said the blame should rest with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, although none of the 10 investigations done so far has concluded that he was directly at fault. [...]

Sanchez has been at the center of the Abu Ghraib controversy from its start.

He issued a policy on acceptable interrogation techniques on Sept. 14, 2003, then revised it on Oct. 12, about the time the abuses were happening. The Army inspector general found in an investigation last year that the policies were ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation by soldiers.

A separate investigation by a panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger concluded that Sanchez should have taken stronger action in November 2003 when he realized the extent of problems among military intelligence and military police units running Abu Ghraib. [...]

Sanchez and his former top deputy, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, were cited in the Kern-Fay-Jones report for failure to "ensure proper staff oversight of detention and interrogation operations" in Iraq, specifically at the Abu Ghraib prison.

It was left to Green, the Army inspector general, to weigh the gravity of the various allegations against Sanchez and other senior officers and determine whether they could be substantiated. In only one case - that of Janis Karpinski, an Army Reserve brigadier general who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade at Abu Ghraib - did Green decide that the allegations were substantiated. She has been suspended from her command and given a written reprimand.

In addition to clearing Sanchez, the Army inspector general has determined that there should be no punishment given to Wojdakowski or to Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, who was Sanchez's intelligence chief in Baghdad, or to Col. Mark Warren, Sanchez's top legal adviser at the time. [...]

A week before she was killed by a suicide bomber, humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka forced military commanders to admit they did keep records of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces.

Tommy Franks, the former head of US Central Command, famously said the US army "don't do body counts", despite a requirement to do so by the Geneva Conventions.

But in an essay Ms Ruzicka wrote a week before her death on Saturday and published yesterday, the 28-year-old revealed that a Brigadier General told her it was "standard operating procedure" for US troops to file a report when they shoot a non-combatant.

She obtained figures for the number of civilians killed in Baghdad between 28 February and 5 April, and discovered that 29 had been killed in firefights involving US forces and insurgents. This was four times the number of Iraqi police killed.

"These statistics demonstrate that the US military can and does track civilian casualties," she wrote. "Troops on the ground keep these records because they recognise they have a responsibility to review each action taken and that it is in their interest to minimise mistakes, especially since winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis is a key component of their strategy."

Sam Zia-Zarifi, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, the group for which Ms Ruzicka wrote the report, said her discovery "was very important because it allows the victims to start demanding compensation". He added: "At a policy level they have never admitted they keep these figures."

Exactly how many Iraqi civilians have been killed in the last two years is unclear. Iraq Body Count, a group that monitors casualty reports, says at least 17,384 have died. But the group bases its totals only on deaths reported by the media, and says it can therefore only "be a sample" of the total actually killed. Its website says: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

A peer-reviewed report published last year in The Lancet and based on an extrapolation of data suggested that 100,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion and its aftermath. One of the report's author, Dr Richard Garfield, professor of nursing at Columbia University, said: "Of course they keep records and of course they pretend they don't. Why is it important to keep the numbers of those killed? Well, why was it important to record the names of those people killed in the World Trade Centre? It would have been inconceivable not to. These people have lives of value.

"We are still fighting [to record] the Armenian genocide. Until people have names and are counted they don't exist in a policy sense."

Ms Ruzicka, from California, was killed in Baghdad after her car was caught in the blast of a suicide bomber who attacked a convoy of security contractors on the road to the city's airport. She was in Iraq heading, Civic, the organisation she set up to record and document civilians killed or injured by the US military, and to seek compensation. She carried out a similar project in Afghanistan.[...]

'The public must know how many have died'

This is an edited extract of an article written by Marla Ruzicka a week before her death:

In my two years in Iraq, the one question I am asked the most is: "How many Iraqi civilians have been killed by American forces?" The American public has a right to know how many Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war and as hostilities continue.

In a news conference at Bagram