Profit is the mantra of the CEO. It is the goal that embodies the motives, agendas, and actions of the modern corporation. And it is this very goal that will lead all "profit at any cost" corporations to their own self destruction. How is this so?

Well behavior eminates from motivation and from that agendas are set and parameters of operational strategies to enable these profits are put into place. It can be seen today that an almost psychopathic set of events have transpired and with it the rise of power and domination over world events by multinational corporations.

To enable the maximum profit the agenda of the present day corporation is to find the most exploitable, undereducated, politically powerless, and "most terrorizied" people they can find to manufacture goods, provide services, and ENABLE the PROFITS for those that INVEST in this form of modern psychological slavery, physical abuse, economic domination, and "fear mongering" that is possible under a set of legal and military strategies that enables the corporations to strip the people of human rights, politital power, and the abilities to act in civil disobedience to such immoral and unjustified authority.

Multinational Corporations are legal money making influence oriented investment vehicles that allow the use of money to enable the all important and worshiped profit to be had. That profit then has lead the ideology of the corporation to use any and all means neccessary to gain the maximum amount of control and domination in any profitable situation and has led them to form a global investment coalition of elite rich self decieving individuals that ascribe to a set of psychopathic beliefs that rest on the ideals of profit through "terror" and "terror" for profit, which as we shall see is the reason that conventional ideology wars to be abandoned and a new PsyOps oriented war against the worker to be waged. A war where the leaders do not promise a set of ideals like freedom, but sell fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the "terror" campaign. This PsyOps campaign has at its core several values that are common for this type of Psychologcial Warfare that is being practiced by multinationals against the common working people of the world.

1. The enemy is trying to destroy your way of life and terrorize you.

2. In order to fight this kind of enemy you must TRUST and SUPPORT the states platform.

3. The platform includes the use of secret organizations to fight this new enemy.

4. The secret orginazations are able to violate CIVIL LIBERTIES to fight the enemy.

5. Civil Liberties are too dangerous with this type of enemy and must be curbed to protect you.

6. You will be watched to determine if you are in support of the official propaganda platform.

7. If you are NOT supporting the official propaganda then you will be marginalized as a "terrorist"

8. Terrorists will be subject to a range of behavior modifiing procedures to enable mind control

9. If you do not submit your politcial free will to the state you will be detained or terminated by the states secret organization to enable profiling and refinement of techniques to control a wider range of free thinking people that would POSE A THREAT TO THE CORPORATIONS PROFIT.

The above is highly simplfied in form but is adequate to understand the operational techniques of this model of human behavior control for profit by the corporations "terror" agenda models.

In item #1 and #2 the citizen is put in a psychosocial trap where he is in fear of his being and is given a psychological out by being led to TRUST the STATE and the same one who usually dispenses the fear or "terror" information. The purpose of this step is to align the thinking and the behavior in a way as to hold the mind hostage to a certain set of prescribed cercumstances including lowering of trust of other free thinking humans, degrading of social dialog and intercourse with propaganda, marginalizing current civil institutions as being to "liberal" and thus "unsafe in a world of terror". If you accept this step they have controlled your mind.

In item #3 to #7 the corporations set up a sham orginazation in the states official government machiniary with the title of "Protector of your Security". This is the psychologcial clue that this institution is here to protect you from the terrorist influences and attacks. This is the propganda orginization and terror enforcement branch of this corporation controlled profit support center. Its job is to marginzalize and to ensure no actual factual or useful information or actions that would enable the workers to gain security and actual fair working conditions could arise. This is always operated in secret and is designed to minimize any groups or individuals that subscribe to liberal concepts like democratic self rule, open honest communications of issues or facts, educational or informational outlets that would or could define agendas contraty to the corporations profit motives.

In items #8 and #9 should any "free thinkers", activites, socialist, democracts, leftists, or anybody else that is not mind controled by the psy ops techniques or propaganda will be detained and questioned and labels and made an example of so as to maximize the fear instilled in the target population for exploitation for profit by the CORPORATION.

Anyone that has a free mind use it to free other minds. Any minds in bondage to the corporations propganda "take the RED pill" and "see what the TRUTH actually is"

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Please see the following links to educate yourself on how this is being used now and how it was used in the past.

http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/DHS.htm http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/orde... http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12131&hd... http://www.douglasvalentine.com/art... http://www.antiwar.com/ http://www.informationclearinghouse... http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/ http://www.albasrah.net/index1.html

On Monday, May 23, 2005, FOX affiliate WSVN-TV sent Patrick Fraser, with only a BS in Journalism from UF-Gainsville, to tangle with Scientist Dr. A.K. Dewdney over the 9/11 Pentagon quagmire. Dr. Dewdney: "If we are right the implications are profound."

Reporter: "Right or right off the wacko chart, common sense tells you its not likely. In fact common sense tells you its not only outrageous -- its ridiculous and one well known skeptic has another description for it -- laughable." INDEED, 'laughable' describes most of this article.

As the pioneer 9/11 researcher Kee Dewdney struck gold when he proved beyond a shadow of doubt that extended cell phone calls from airliners were a fable of the Bush Administration on 9/11. That was the first foot in the doorway to 9/11 Truth.

As most Americans are unfamilar with using the Scientific Method in solving problems, everyone should pay attention when Kee Dewdney demonstates the use of the Scientific Method in explaining 9/11. BY THE WAY, the Scientific Method completely funks the Fed Govt. 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Links to Kee's 9/11 research here

As an affiliate of FOX network, WSVN-TV should focus on the Hollywood-style Towering Inferos or lack thereof on 9/11. In the RENSE article, Sneak Preview - 911 Pentagon Tapes Firefighter Russell Dodge said:

"There were two vehicles burning, along with a construction trailer - we didn't know at the time, but that trailer was the main producer of smoke on the outside of the building. He said the foam units got there and concentrated on the area of the construction trailer, which was producing some severe fires and subsequent mini explosions due to highly flammable chemicals in it THAN on the actual point of impact from the hijacked aircraft.



The 'construction trailer', actually a large generator trailer with its own 500 gallon diesel tank, was not used but kept for an emergency. As there was no need for the large extra tank nearby, the tank apparently was filled with a crude oil-diesel oil mixture, similar to an orchard smudge pot, and remotely ignited to create the enormous smoke plume . Note that the smoke from the burning trailer is whitish.

Witnesses said the aircraft hardly penetrated the brick Pentagon wall before an explosion blew it to bits. Apparently that explosion is caught here. See the RENSE article, Sneak Preview - 911 Pentagon Tapes http://www.rense.com/general64/911et.htm

Note that the circled area around the generator trailer was also ignited.

This photo JUST AFTER the Explosion shows a bonfire in front of the impact area with its smoke plume and the Generator trailer area highlighted with its smoke plume just getting a start. Of course, NO Pentagon section down.

This photo shows the generator trailer area producing an enormous smoke plume with the bonfire in front of the impact area about the same as the last photo but a better show for the camera shots sent around the world.

Witnesses said they thought explosive charges were set off inside the Pentagon 'impact area' to make it appear that the aircraft actually passed the front wall when it really didn't. That would explain large fire development even outside the impact area.

Here the firetruck is directing foam at the large fuel tank only with a minor fire still burning on the generator trailer.

Several people are now claiming that is not what happened at all. They claim that the plane that crashed was not a passenger jet at all, and that it was all a plot to mislead the American people. Here's the nighteam's Patrick Fraser with his special report: "Pentagon Plot."

WSVN -- We never put a man on the moon, these pictures were taken in the Nevada desert the conspiracy theories claimed...

President Kennedy was not shot just by Lee Harvey Oswald. The CIA was involved...

And now this one..it was not a passenger plan that crashed into The Pentagon on September 11th.

Scientist Dr. A.K. Dewdney: "I mean how much evidence do people need."

A.K. Dewdney is one of several scientists who have investigated the pentagon crash and concluded something devious and diabolical happened that day.

Their proof...

They say a Boeing 757 was never found at The Pentagon, that only one engine was found and that engine does not seem to match the engine from a 757, that airplane crashes leave wreckage, they mess up the ground -- Not at The Pentagon.

Patrick Fraser: "Dr. Dewdney you also wrote that the wings are missing from the crash site -- I thought they were incinerated in the enormous blaze inside The Pentagon."

Dr. Dewdney: "The structure of the wings dictate that the wings should have sheared off. The fact that there is no wing debris outside the building indicates it was not a 757 that struck the pentagon."

Another point the conspiracy buffs make -- the hole in the side of The Pentagon is too small for a 757 to fit thru. One web page even superimposes a 757 onto the ground to prove its point.

Dr. Dewdney: "So all of this evidence is just sitting there waiting for people to examine it."

The conspiracy theories even claim to have video proof from a security camera outside The Pentagon as the plane neared the building -- they claim the picture is not a 757.

But they are not certain what type of craft it is.

Dr.Dewdney: "The guesses vary from an F-16 loaded with a depleted uranium warhead -- possibly a cruise missile."

But if its a cruise missile, what happened to the plane and its passengers. Dr. Dewdney says they don't know, however they say they do know who is behind the conspiracy.

Dewdney says all the September 11th attacks were planned or allowed to happen to fuel a war with terrorists and as an excuse to invade and gain control of the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr. Dewdney: "If we are right the implications are profound."

Right or right off the wacko chart, common sense tells you its not likely. In fact common sense tells you its not only outrageous -- its ridiculous and one well known skeptic has another description for it -- laughable.

James Randi from the Randi Educational Foundation: "Come on, in order to do a thing like that you would have to have a conspiracy that would involve thousands of people..all of whom would have to be completely silent. Now thats impossible to do."

We showed James Randi the claims of Dewdney's scientific group, and he countered each one -- beginning with the hole in The Pentagon.

James Randi: "Now the hole isnt big enough. Oh I see now you know how big the hole should be do you? No, that's data that we simply don't have."

As for those missing wings -- easy to explain Randi says.

James Randi: "That the fuselage penetrates the brick wall and the wings fold back just like an umbrella."

Finally the people who helped Dewdney research his theories are all well educated, very intelligent people which Randi says proves one more thing.

James Randi: "Well-educated intelligent people doesn't mean smart people."

Dewdney's reply -- prove him wrong.

Dr. Dewdney: "By all means get in touch with us none of us want to spend our time doing this if we are just wasting our time if we are wrong."

And even if he is wrong, a few people may believe him -- but a few million won't.

By the way we spoke with The Pentagon about the conspiracy theory, and they said, "it's so ridiculous, we don't even address it."

06/02/05 - - The U.S. government gave the slave trade a boost by offering money for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Afghan and Pakistani warlords simply rounded up people who looked Arab or foreign and sold them to the Americans as captured fighters. The "fighters" apparently included relief workers, refugees, and Arab businessmen. The tribunals looking into the classification of Guantanamo prisoners as "enemy combatants" have uncovered numerous examples of hapless victims of a naive U.S. government too flush with money.

The Bush administration, of course, denies that it bought its detainees, as it denies everything. However, on May 31, 2005, Michelle Faul of the Associated Press reported that in March 2002, leaflets and broadcasts from helicopters in Afghanistan enticed Afghans to "Hand over the Arabs and feed your families for a lifetime." One leaflet said: "You can receive millions of dollars. This is enough to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life, pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people."

Najeeb al-Nauimi, a former Qatar justice minister, leads a group of lawyers representing 100 detainees who were sold to the naive Americans. He says a consortium of wealthy Arabs are buying back fellow citizens kidnapped by Pakistani gangs before they can be sold to the Americans.

More is going on here than merely unintended consequences of a harebrained policy. The Bush administration has proven itself to be utterly irresponsible in the use of power. And it keeps demanding more power, including the suspension of our civil liberties in order to better fight "terrorism."

Aside from 9/11, an event of several years ago, the only terrorism the U.S. has experienced is the terrorism Bush created by invading Iraq. Why are we worried about Osama bin Laden when the moronic Bush administration is so adept at creating terrorism?

Notice the pattern. Bush creates terrorism and then suspends our civil liberties in the name of his war on terror.

The real terror Americans experience comes from their own government. Indeed, consider the terror the accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, and its 85,000 worldwide employees experienced as a result of the Gestapo tactics of federal prosecutors. Prosecutors used a stupid jury and a weak-minded judge to convict an entire accounting firm for the actions of the few accountants who handled the Enron account. It was completely clear at the time that whereas a case existed against a few individual accountants, no case existed against the firm itself. Arbitrary and capricious prosecutors grabbed power. The American public was so whipped up in a frenzy over Enron that it didn't care whose blood was spilled. Just as someone had to pay for 9/11 – even if it is our own troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who had no more to do with 9/11 than the U.S. troops who are losing their lives and limbs – someone had to pay for Enron. So the prosecutors destroyed Arthur Andersen, one of the top 10 companies in the world ranked by market value and one of America's greatest assets.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the conviction. The highest court says Arthur Andersen was not guilty. But how do we bring Arthur Andersen back to life and restore the reputations and careers of its many thousands of employees? Federal prosecutors effectively executed the firm and destroyed the highly valuable asset.

Don't expect Bush, who admits no mistake, to make restitution for the criminal actions of his Department of Justice (sic). The remedy is a civil suit by all the partners and employees of Arthur Andersen against the U.S. government for damages. I think $1 trillion is a good number. It is a figure demanded by justice. And it will serve the cause of peace by bankrupting the warmongering Bush administration and applying the brake to Bush's wars of empire.

Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions

Let's consider an item from the news of about two weeks ago:

A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured, conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication.

So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from Niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks, fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib.

It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.

What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiple betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.

Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.

Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul.

We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.

What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too? Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them?

We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity.

Last October, agents from the FBI and Treasury Department, accompanied by a gaggle of TV news crews, raided the Columbia, Mo., offices of a small charity called the Islamic-American Relief Agency (IARA). Computers and records were seized, and several hundred thousand dollars in donated funds destined for relief work in Kenya were frozen. There were no arrests or charges, though federal agents visited the homes of many of the charity's local donors. IARA, according to its attorney, Shereef Akeel, was effectively shut down under a little-known provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to allow the government to freeze the assets of organizations while it investigates for links to terrorism.

"The government has not presented one shred of evidence linking IARA to funding for terror, but by seizing their funds and interviewing their donors, they have effectively destroyed the charity and created a chilling effect in the Muslim community in Columbia," Akeel says. He suggests the government may have confused IARA, founded two decades ago as the Islamic African Relief Agency (the name changed during the Bosnia conflict when demands for aid moved beyond an African focus), with a Sudan-based charity called the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the government claims has links to terrorists.

The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, signed into law six weeks after the 9/11 attacks with no congressional debate, faces review in Congress, as 16 of its provisions "sunset" at the end of the year.

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB), an unusual right/left coalition that includes the ACLU, the American Conservative Union and the Free Congress Foundation, is pressing to end some of the act's particularly egregious civil liberties abuses--specifically, the sneak-and-peek provision, which allows the government to spy on people without notifying them or obtaining a court order, and the library provision, which grants federal authorities the power to inspect library, video, and bookstore user records without a warrant, and which bars librarians and store owners from alerting customers.

ACLU national security lobbyist Lisa Graves says the coalition is optimistic about winning some improvements. "Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) held a 'critics' hearing last week," says Graves, "which the last chair, Orrin Hatch, (R-Utah) would never have done, and in the House, Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) has expressed some 'concerns' about the act." The nationwide grassroots movement, which has seen 383 communities, including seven states, pass anti-Patriot Act resolutions, has also put pressure on Congress to amend the law.

"I'm guessing the reforms we want in the act could gain some traction," says Steve Lilienthal, director of the Center for Privacy and Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative member of the coalition. "It will be an uphill battle, but I think we may win."

Not everyone, however, is happy with the notion of reforming the law.

"There's a danger in trying to fix it," argues Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has not joined the coalition. "I'm afraid by working to fix problems with a few provisions that have gotten attention--the library provision and sneak-and-peek--the focus is taken off of the really serious threats to freedom, both in the Patriot Act and outside it.

"Things like the broadened definition of terror, which can include blocking a highway during a demonstration, or the enhancement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which now allows the government to spy on ordinary criminal suspects without showing probable cause or obtaining a warrant, are horrible," says Ratner. "Whole Islamic communities in the U.S. now live in terror and fear. It's much worse than the spying on CISPES [Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador] in the '80s.

"Just because 9/11 happened, doesn't mean you need new laws, " Ratner says. "The government should have to prove why current laws and powers don't work. It should have to justify each new power given to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. On some things, you have to stand on principle and not compromise."

Graves concedes that Ratner may have a point. "The 9/11 Commission had a similar perspective," she says. "One of their recommendations was that the administration should have the burden of proof for any change in the laws that affect civil liberties." But Graves says that the coalition's--and ACLU's--view is that by joining right and left, they can win at least some improvements, while repealing the PATRIOT Act is not politically possible--at least for now.

Meanwhile, Akeel and the IARA, taking matters in their own hands, have sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., to unblock the charity's funds. "I've been getting letters from little kids in Kenya begging for me to restore the money that was being sent to support them," says Akeel.

Dave Lindorff, a frequent contributor to In These Times, is the author of This Can't Be Happening: Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy. His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

Last month, we reported here about Jeb Bush's courtroom efforts to crush the life of an abused, poverty-stricken 6-year-old girl in his gubernatorial satrapy of Florida. Later, against all odds, a jury of ordinary citizens thwarted the dynast's brutal will. But as befits a scion of the ruling family, Bush is now brushing aside this interference from the rabble and pressing ahead with his plans to strip the little girl of all public assistance.

Bush's minions went to court earlier this year in a bid to cut off medical aid to Marissa Amora, who, at the age of 2, had been abandoned by Jeb's "Department of Children and Families" despite overwhelming evidence of horrific past abuse -- and the imminent danger of more to come. More came. Within weeks, she was beaten almost to death; then Jeb's agents tried to stop her medical treatment and let her die. She survived their malign intervention and is now thriving with a new family -- but still suffers from permanent, catastrophic damage caused by the entirely predictable beating she received after the DCF cast her aside.

But late last month, the jury in the case issued a stern rebuke to these perverted Bush Family values: They awarded Marissa $35 million in damages for institutional neglect and for her future medical care, with the DCF ordered to pay the bulk of the costs. So, a happy ending, right?

Don't be silly -- we're dealing with the Bush-Walker gang here. And for almost 100 years, from their ammo-dealing days in World War I to their heavy investments in Nazi Germany to their profitable hook-ups with Arab oil tyrants to their back-door buttressing of Saddam Hussein to their present- day bonanza of blood money gushing from the slaughter in Iraq, this clan of wingtipped thugs has always built its fortune on the backs -- and the bones - - of the poor. And no self-respecting Bush clansman would ever let some uppity little black girl and her foster mother make him look bad, no matter how egregious his failures.

Jeb had three choices after the verdict. He could have simply accepted responsibility for his agency's horrible neglect and paid the full amount. Or he could have accepted responsibility but asked that the large award be reduced, as often happens in such cases, which would still leave Marissa with enough money to afford the extensive and costly health care she will need for the rest of her life. The first course would have been just and honorable; the second, pragmatic yet not inherently cruel.

But honor, justice and responsibility have no place in the Bush clan's ruthless operations. So Jeb picked the third choice, the "nuclear option." He asked an appeals court to throw out the entire award -- even the damages levied against other, non-state parties in the case -- leaving Marissa with absolutely nothing, The Palm Beach Post reports.

Filing for dismissal, Bush's lawyers blasted the jury for being too stupid to process the complex documentation of the case and acting instead on "prejudice and sympathy." While any "prejudice" in the case would seem to lie with the lily-white governor's attempt to grind a black child under his heel, it's true that the jury probably did have some measure of sympathy for a 6-year-old girl who will have to be kept alive through a feeding tube for the rest of her days because Bush's bureaucrats failed to protect her from well-documented abuse. But sympathy is for "girlie-men" in the demented moral universe of the Bushist faction. Or as one of the Bush Family's old business partners once said, just before he launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Poland based on lies, propaganda and manipulated intelligence about a bogus threat to the nation: "Close your hearts to pity. The stronger man is right. Be steeled against all signs of compassion." Power is everything, people are nothing, and the weakest go to the wall -- that's the Kennebunkport Code.

But of course you have to dress up your blood-and-iron philosophy with the prevailing pieties of the day if you want to snow the hoi polloi and weasel your way into power. And Jeb is one of the great whited sepulchres of our time, a master of the hypocritical arts, ever eager to hog the nearest camera and blubber teary platitudes about the "culture of life" -- even as he feverishly signs death warrants in an apparent bid to surpass his older brother's record as the most bloodthirsty executioner in modern U.S. history. If Marissa were, say, a nice white woman in a vegetative state whose case had been taken up by powerful interest groups and ballyhooed into a national media carnival, then doubtless Jeb would even now be dabbing his eyes as he knelt for a photo-op at her bedside.

But because Marissa is "nobody" -- one of the poor, the powerless, the "insulted and injured," in Dostoevsky's phrase -- she can be flushed down the toilet and no one will notice. For the aim of Bush's legal maneuvering is clear: He wants to "run out the clock" on Marissa, litigating the case quite literally to death, until her family sinks beneath the overwhelming financial and physical burden of keeping her alive and her makeshift, overstrained support system eventually suffers the inevitable breakdown.

It's a despicable strategy, a wicked strategy, but entirely in keeping with the Ruling Family's ethos, which has given the world a terror-spawning quagmire of murder and atrocity in Iraq -- 10,000 Marissa Amoras, dead, mangled, orphaned, abandoned, abused, forgotten. And for what? For power. For money. For the Code.

Some Youths and Parents Worry Despite Government's Assurances

In their Ellicott City kitchen, Jeff Amoros's parents handed their son the Selective Service registration form that arrived shortly after his 18th birthday. For them, it evoked dark memories of the Vietnam era. For Amoros, it meant: "I'm old enough to die for my country now."

At a Montgomery County Friends meeting house, peace activist J.E. McNeil explained to an audience how to convince draft boards that they are conscientious objectors. "Let me tell you why I think there's going to be a draft," she said.

Rarely in the more than 30 years since the draft was abolished has the Selective Service triggered such angst. Two years into the Iraq war, concern that the draft will be reinstated to supplement an overextended military persists -- no matter how often, or emphatically, President Bush and members of Congress say it won't.

In this atmosphere of suspicion, the Selective Service System, the Rosslyn-based agency that conscripted 1.8 million Americans during the Vietnam War and 10 million in World War II, quietly pursues its delicate dual mission: keeping the draft machinery ready, without sparking fear that it is coming back.

"We're told not to do a particular thing but to be prepared to do it," said Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service, which last year registered about 15.6 million young men between the draft-eligible ages of 18 and 25. "We just continue to carry out our mission as mandated by Congress."

These days, the agency spends a lot of time allaying fears and dispelling rumors. Go to the Selective Service Web site, and the first thing you see is an explanation of how Congress voted 402 to 2 against a bill to make military service mandatory.

A Washington public relations firm, Widmeyer Communications, hired by the agency to offer strategic advice, noted last year that "virtually any move taken by Selective Service is seen in many quarters as clear evidence that a draft is imminent."

"There is so much misinformation out there," said Richard Flahavan, associate director of Selective Service for public and intergovernmental affairs. "Most folks, if you pulled them off the street, would believe we could turn on the draft in the dark of night and consult no one." [...]

Baghdad, - The Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq - died on Friday and his body is in Fallujah's cemetary, an Iraqi Sunni sheikh, Ammar Abdel Rahim Nasir, has told the Saudi on-line newspaper Al-Medina. He claims that gunfights which broke out in Fallujah in the last few days involved militants trying to protect the insurgency leader's tomb from a group of American soldiers patrolling the area.

During a telephone conversation from the city of Fallujah with the Saudi newspaper, Nasir said al-Zarqawi was taken there after being injured in the city of Ramadi around three weeks ago, and may have been treated by two doctors who had worked with his aides in Baghdad. He said the two doctors had stopped a serious haemorrhage in al-Zarqawi's intestines, but that after his condition worsened last week, the militant died on Friday.

Nasir adds that in his will the insurgent leader left the order that no funeral should be held for him and the right to announce his death should be left to the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden.

The Al-Medina newspaper reports that it also called the headmaster of a school in Fallujah, who preferred to remain anonymous, but confirmed that many people in the city were aware of the fact that al-Zarqawi had recently been taken to the city.

Sheikh Nasir's claims appear to correspond with reports several weeks ago that al-Zarqawi had been injured and taken to Ramadi hospital for emergency treatment, and with messages on the Internet talking of two Arab doctors accompanying him. Al-Zarqawi was reported to have been seen at the hospital on April 27. The hospital's director told an Iraq-based newspaper that US troops later surrounded and raided the entire building, searching for the Jordanian militant.

Only two days ago, an audio message attributed to al-Zarqawi was posted on the Internet, in which he assured his followers that he had only been lightly injured. Following the message, the US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned countries neighbouring Iraq not to give any medical assistance to al-Zarqawi. "Our current theory is that he is in Iraq," he said. "Were a neighbouring country to take him in and provide medical assistance or haven for him, they obviously would be associating themselves with a major linkage in the al-Qaeda network, and a person who has a great deal of blood on his hands," Rumsfeld continued. "And that's something that people would want to take note of."

Last year, Kevin Sites filmed a marine shooting an apparently unarmed insurgent in Falluja. He tells Dan Glaister the truth of what he saw and how what followed changed his life

'This was a fucking mess, man." Kevin Sites peers at the monitor in the bright Californian sunlight, trying to make out the images on the screen. But Sites doesn't really have to look. This is his film, his moment; the images on the screen ones that have come to define his life.

Kevin Sites is the journalist who captured the moment when a young US army marine shot an equally young insurgent inside a mosque in Falluja in November last year. Sites' video, broadcast around the world, caused a storm. For some it showed an American soldier executing an insurgent, proof of the brutality of war, of the US army and of its soldiers. For others, it highlighted the perils faced by US troops, from booby-trapped insurgents taking cover in mosques to the threat of an embedded liberal media.

For Sites, it posed other questions: of how to reconcile the need for truth and honesty with the sense of responsibility to the troops around him, of how to honour his duty to minimise harm through his reporting.

Assailed by all sides, Sites wrote a memorable explanation of his actions in releasing the video on his blog, kevinsites.net, "Dispatches from a life in conflict". Titled "To Devil Dogs of the 3.1", the text, in turn, was reprinted by media around the world, including this newspaper. Sites, it seemed, had inadvertently become the conduit for debate about the war. Earlier this month, a military tribunal ruled that the corporal involved in the incident should not face charges.

On Sites' laptop, the 12-minute video he shot in the dust of Falluja plays out its story. Working as an embedded "sojo" - a solo journalist - employed by NBC to cover the offensive in Falluja, Sites arrives outside a mosque with a squad of six marines. Shooting has been heard from inside the mosque, even though the site had been cleared the day before. Another squad enters the building from the rear. Three shots ring out, and a marine emerges to say that they have found five insurgents and have shot them. "Were they armed?" asks the lieutenant with Sites's squad. The marine shrugs and wanders off.

Sites enters the mosque. His camera pans around a small room, settling on two bodies lying together, one wearing a red kaffiyeh on his head. Blood bubbles from the man's nose. Off-screen a voice says, "He's fucking faking he's dead. He's faking he's fucking dead." Sites' camera slowly pans across the room until it stops at the image of a marine, his body made bulky by equipment, standing before two figures lying on the floor. The camera's movement is matched by the barrel of the marine's M-16 being raised. As the camera stops moving, so does the gun. A shot rings out. One of the figures is thrown back. The marine fires a second shot and abruptly turns and walks away. The camera pauses for a moment on the figure lying on the ground. In an almost balletic movement, the figure's leg drops gracefully to the floor. The camera, echoing the stillness of the scene, slowly moves back to the dying man with the bleeding nose. The video ends a few moments later.

Six months later and Sites is still reeling from the effects of the video he shot that day. Tanned and muscled, he exudes the genial, unreserved charm that can seem almost de rigueur in southern California. Dressed in black T-shirt and jeans, black hair swept back, the 42-year-old talks quickly and confidently about his experiences. He is clear now, he says, about his actions and what happened in Falluja. But underlying his resolve, there is a sense of anxiety. Did he favour one side over the other? Did he become a pawn for the anti-war movement? Was he swayed by his allegiance to the troops he was embedded with? In trying to present every side of the story, did he lose sight of the story?

Sites, who had been to Iraq many times, and was even held captive by Saddam's Fedayeen outside Tikrit, was embedded with the US marines for three weeks prior to the onset of the offensive against Falluja.

"I would sleep in the dirt," he says. "I would do whatever they did, and they liked that. We ended up developing this incredible relationship. To the point where people started to criticise me on my blog that I was becoming too sympathetic. I was taking pictures of them holding up pictures of their kids. My whole idea was to humanise them."

When his employer, the NBC network, tried to replace him with a more traditionally telegenic frontman, the marines came to Sites' rescue, saying that it was Sites or nobody. So Sites, with his video camera, went to Falluja and the mosque and one of the biggest stories of the war.

"I knew what I had right away," Sites says. "I called the top bosses at the network, the three news officials that are responsible for foreign news. Got them out of bed. I said I've got something that is potentially bigger than Abu Ghraib. I need you to know that I have it. For the first time I watched the videotape on playback as I talked to them and I remember my words, I go, 'Fuck, I have it.'"

But even though he knew what he had, and he had made sure that his superiors in the US knew of its existence, he didn't immediately know what to do with it. His journalistic instincts were tempered by his comradeship with those around him.

"I wasn't thinking clearly as a journalist," he says. "I was still feeling part of a unit, part of some people who have just been embroiled in some serious conflict. I was heartsick because I just knew that this wasn't good for anybody, not for the guy who got shot, not for that marine, not for me. I've seen plenty of people get killed. I've never seen anybody get killed like that. I'd never seen what looked like an execution point blank. I hoped at that moment that it had been anybody else other than me shooting that video tape."

NBC waited 48 hours before broadcasting Sites' report from the mosque. Instead of broadcasting a story about a marine shooting an apparently unarmed insurgent inside a mosque, NBC and Sites constructed a story about the dangers marines faced in fighting an enemy that used mosques as cover and was not afraid to booby-trap bodies.

"We backed into it," says Sites, with considerable disbelief. "We didn't get to the shooting until a third into the story." He mimics a pompous TV announcer's voice: "'There was a terrifying new technique being used by insurgents: booby-trapping bodies blah blah blah.' We highlighted all the mitigating circumstances to set this up. We made it seem that there was no question that this guy was probably justified."

But, as Sites knew at the time, some of the mitigating circumstances did not apply. The marine who shot the insurgent had himself been shot in the face the day before, a fact reported in Sites' original story. What he did not say was that the shooting was probably an accident, by US forces. Similarly, although marines were aware of the dangers of booby traps in general, the only specific instance of a booby-trapped body in Falluja came at the same time as the mosque shooting.

"If he felt so strongly that this guy was a threat," says Sites, "he knew there were two other guys by me still alive; he never checked them after he shot him, he just spun on his heels. I don't know what was on his mind: the fog of war does strange things to people."

Sites also points out that as the marine left, a fifth Iraqi inside the mosque, who had been hiding under a blanket, popped his head up. The marine ignored him too.

The reaction to the video was immediate. Sites began to get 500 "hate mails" a day, including a dozen or so death threats. Every day. The networks outdid themselves: Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, with cheerleaders such as Oliver North and Bill O'Reilly, took it upon itself to attack Sites, while his employer, NBC, tried to have its scoop while denying any responsibility, choosing to describe Sites as a "freelance cameraman".

So Sites wrote his open letter to the marines, explaining what he had filmed and why he had decided to broadcast it.

"If the truth is known then people will be able to make the responsible decisions that they need to make in a democracy," he says. "And if you're burying it you're not trusting them with that responsibility, you're saying that democracy doesn't work. And to me that was a betrayal of everything I'd spent my whole adult life doing, as well as a betrayal of those very principles of democracy that those soldiers and those marines believe that they're fighting for."

With the appearance of his letter to the Devil Dogs, the hate mail eased off. Sites returned to the US and decided to take a holiday. He went scuba diving in south-east Asia, eventually ending up in Cambodia. He even sent his video camera home, vowing to take a rest from journalism. Then the tsunami hit and Sites was back at work, blogging and filming.

The experience, he says, helped him gain a fresh perspective on the events that had buffeted him in Iraq. He was persuaded again of the usefulness of the media in informing and involving the public. He was also inspired again to use his talents to make a difference.

Does he think that he will always be identified with the video? "In a way that's going to be my burden to bear," he says. "I've seen a lot of death, especially in the last five years. And I have to live with those consequences. They come out, I have nightmares, and I've experienced a lot of personal attrition in my life, failed relationships. But you want your life to have purpose, and you want it to have meaning."

The decision to broadcast the video, he says, "was the hardest decision I'd made in my life. I know passionately now that it was the right thing to do, that I couldn't have lived with myself if I had buried that tape."

Two Israeli soldiers have come forward to describe how they took part in what they say was an officially ordered "revenge" operation to kill Palestinian police officers ­ among them several unarmed men.

In graphic testimony, one soldier has confessed that he "really enjoyed" a chase in which he shot an unarmed Palestinian in the head who was trying to escape during a series of reprisal raids ordered the day after the killing of six Israeli soldiers in an ambush by militant gunmen three years ago.

In what may be the first inside account of such an operation, the soldiers from two reconnaissance units say they were among troops ordered by their commanders to "liquidate" the police officers at a series of Palestinian West Bank checkpoints even though they were given no evidence they had been involved in the killing of the Israelis.

The raids were among a series of ground and air attacks which, in all, killed 15 Palestinians ­ 12 of them policemen­ in and around Nablus and Ramallah 24 hours after the six Israeli soldiers were killed at a military post in the village of Ein Arik, west of Ramallah, at the height of the intifada.

One soldier, who took part in the attack on a Palestinian post at Deir es Sudan said they had lain in wait after finding the position empty when they arrived in the middle of the night.

"The idea was simply to kill them all. Whenever they arrived, we would kill them, regardless whether [they were]armed or not. If they were Palestinian policemen, they were to be shot. The order was given and our six opened fire."

The soldier, from the Yael Reconnaissance Troop, said that their [naval] squad commander had told them: "We are going to kill six Palestinian policemen somewhere, revenging our six they took down". He added: "On my question 'what did they do?' the answer was there was a suspicion that the terrorist who killed our six came through that [Palestinian] checkpoint. Suspicion, but no concrete evidence. But I was told: 'it doesn't matter; they took six of ours, and we are going to take six of theirs.'"

The soldier said that, after hitting and wounding two of the Palestinians as they tried to run away, the soldiers continued to fire, as one ran into a corrugated metal shed and another into a cemetery. After they sprayed the shed with bullets, a gas cylinder in it caught fire. "We had a killed policeman, another one in this burning inferno, and a third one, escaping. We ran after him into a graveyard ... stood on the surrounding wall and shot at him. We killed him too."

The soldier said that no fire had been returned by the Palestinians and added: "Later we understood, that not one of them ... was armed." He added that he had inspected the "completely smashed" body of the man in the graveyard after shooting at it to "confirm the kill" and that it was of "a guy in his mid-50s or 60s, very old."

The accounts were originally given to the "Breaking the Silence" group of young former soldiers which is critical of methods used by the army in the occupied territories.

One of the group's spokesmen, Avichai Sharon, a former member of the crack Golani Brigade, claimed the operations on 20 February 2002 were ordered "from high"­ including the Ministry of Defence­ and added: "In my eyes, this