Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Video Clips of Path to 9//11 Part 1 broadcast in New Zealand last night
Source: mparent7777.livejournal.com
URL Source: http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/12223693.html
Published: Sep 10, 2006
Author: mparent7777.livejournal.com
Post Date: 2006-09-10 14:17:33 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 479
Comments: 10

Not going to waste time posting go here http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/12223693.html

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All, Eoghan (#0)

As Eoghan would say "No Dov Z. here."

The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2006-09-10   14:19:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, *Hasbarfa Alert* (#1)

Jewish Judge Must Recuse, Lawyer Says: 'Zionist' Views Decried In WTC

Forward; 1/28/1994; Gabriel Kahn

Forward

01-28-1994

Jewish Judge Must Recuse, Lawyer Says: `Zionist' Views Decried In WTC. Bombing Trial

NEW YORK -- Attorneys for one of the men suspected of bombing the World Trade Center are attempting to have the presiding judge booted off the case on grounds that he is an Orthodox Jew, that his wife works at a yeshiva and that he harbors "Zionist" views which could compromise his ability to be impartial toward the fundamentalist Muslim defendant.

In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court, defense lawyer William Kunstler and his partner Ronald Kuby cited the judge's apparent adherence to "the tenets of Orthodox Jewish belief" as evidence that he harbors "an actual bias" toward the alleged bomber.

Supreme Court Judge Mukasey is also being asked to make a "full disclosure" of any ties he may have with Israel or any "Zionist" organizations -- including whether he has visited the country in the past several months.

`Dual-Loyalty Charge'

In language that struck some legal observers as verging on the anti-Semitic, Judge Mukasey is requested to disclose whether he or any members of his family has made any contribution to Israel "including any gift of money, bequest, or donation," and to "state the circumstances of each donation." The motion goes on to request that donations with respect "to any Zionist organization" also be disclosed.

"What I find most disturbing," said eminent trial lawyer Nathan Lewin, himself an Orthodox Jew, "is that it is the same sort of dual-loyalty charge that has been leveled against Jews for years: that anybody who is Jewish can't be expected to do anything fair because he or she is Jewish." Yet, the strength of the motion, argues Mr. Lewin, lies precisely in the implicit anti-Semitic threat of dual loyalty, and the scrutiny it might bring. Mr. Lewin said he was concerned that by treading in the murky waters of dual loyalty, the defense might yet succeed in forcing the judge to step down rather than be forced to contend with unpleasant accusations regarding his personal and religious beliefs.

Assumption of Bias

An official at the American Jewish Congress told the Forward that his organization had considered filing a brief in support of Judge Mukasey -- but then shied away fearing that, due to the nature of the charges, support from Jewish groups might work to the advantage of the defense.

Judge Mukasey would not comment.

Mr. Kuby told the Forward he believes the chances of the motion passing were "slim and none," but defended it saying that if the roles were reversed, with a Muslim judge and Jewish defendants, he was certain that there would be a general assumption of bias.

Preposterous Request

Other legal experts called the request preposterous, even as they suggested it could play into the hands of the defense by creating a legal sideshow, helping defense attorneys to skirt the central aspects of the case. By dragging the highly publicized terrorist trial onto religious grounds the defense could strengthen their argument for a subsequent appeal, these experts said.

Although motions to disqualify a judge are not uncommon, disqualification on basis of religion may well be unprecedented. The legal basis for a disqualification is rooted in the relationship between the judge's conduct and the issues in the case. "You must show a tight fit between the two," said Stephen Gillers of New York University Law School.

The 16-page motion, submitted on Jan. 18, attempts to evidence numerous instances of bias towards Ibrahim el-Gabrowny, a leading suspect in the bombing case, from his treatment at Metropolitan Correctional Center to "finding evidence that did not exist." The defense proceeds to assert that the alleged bias of the court is due to "Jewish religious beliefs" intertwined with "political Zionism."

`Political Zionism'

"It's ludicrous," said Mr. Gillers, an ethicist and law professor at NYU. "I'll never stop wondering how these two [Kunstler and Kuby] think...There is no basis for disqualifying a judge because he's Jewish. They may feel that they are not winning, but that is not grounds for disqualifying a judge."

As evidence that Mr. Mukasey is swayed by "political Zionism" the defense cited the Ramaz School, where Mr. Mukasey's wife is head of the lower school. The upscale East Side Orthodox school is described as "well known for its extreme Zionism and promotion of aliya the political credo that all Jews should emigrate to Israel."

Mrs. Mukasey would not comment, but Rabbi Haskell Lookstein, principal of Ramaz, whose political views were the basis for the charge that the school was a hotbed of Zionism, told the Forward that he was both "saddened" and "shocked" by the Kunstler/Kuby motion. He described Ramaz as a "centrist" school. "We are certainly pro-Israel but we do not actively teach our children that they have to go and live in Israel or that all Jews should live in Israel."

In a highly unusual fashion, the motion ends by demanding that Mr. Mukasey reveal whether he, or any member of his family within a third degree relationship, has ever visited, made any financial contributions or any financial investment in Israel, and to divulge any relationship with any Zionist organizations.

"It is extraordinarily offensive to the extent that his personal views regarding the state of Israel would prejudice him," said David Zwiebel, legal counsel for Agudath Israel, the Orthodox organization. "Furthermore, it implies that Orthodox Jews are less impartial."

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-09-10   14:24:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Jethro Tull (#2)

Outstanding motion.

Lod  posted on  2006-09-10   14:28:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: lodwick (#3)

It is creative, isn't it? I hope it's used elsewhere.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-09-10   14:31:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jethro Tull, lodwick, ALL (#2)

Just remember "S and B Fostered Russian Communisum" now they're running the US, or should I say runining the US.

The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2006-09-10   14:32:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Jethro Tull (#2)

In a highly unusual fashion, the motion ends by demanding that Mr. Mukasey reveal whether he, or any member of his family within a third degree relationship, has ever visited, made any financial contributions or any financial investment in Israel, and to divulge any relationship with any Zionist organizations.

Fastforward 10 years...and absolutely no chance for loyalty disclosures.

“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"

Eoghan  posted on  2006-09-10   14:35:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)

I have zero interest in this baloney. This is just more two party Kabuki theater- a way to stir up the partisan hoodwinked true believers of our two party fraud. Pundits of the "left" and "right" can now debate this idiotic fiction endlessly- and the spin off debates that swirl around it are self started (witness LP and the numerous threads about how the "left" wants to censor ABC (isn't that rich?). Clever though- it gives the appearence of "debate" and of lively partisan discourse in our "free" country. What a joke- they are arguing about a topic whose very premise is a lie.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-09-10   14:50:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Burkeman1 (#7)

There are excellent comments by whom ever put the video on utube that agrees with you.

The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2006-09-10   14:53:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Burkeman1 (#7)

What a joke- they are arguing about a topic whose very premise is a lie.

You mean the film doesn't mention the NORAD drills, or the killing of the handgun for pilots law, or that a little dust and a few small fires from the WTC made WTC7 implode upon itself?

I have interest in the film not because of the "D" vs "R" blame game, but because FEDGOV is still trying to pass off the "19 ragheads did it all" kookery.

"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.

Pissed Off Janitor  posted on  2006-09-10   15:20:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Burkeman1 (#7)

This is just more two party Kabuki theater- a way to stir up the partisan hoodwinked true believers of our two party fraud. Pundits of the "left" and "right" can now debate this idiotic fiction endlessly- and the spin off debates that swirl around it are self started

"Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think.
But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing."
-- Thomas Paine

omerta  posted on  2006-09-11   1:28:49 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest