See other World News Articles
Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source:
Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 30092
Comments: 394
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday. The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence. The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636. The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-178) not displayed.
.
.
.
#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#170)
BINGO. According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.
Is Destro your brother or your debate coach, BAC? Why are you running to him to to report the "indignities" you invite and willingly suffer on this 4um? Btw, "facts" are not what you post here, BAC. What you post are highly selective rightwing biased "cut and paste."
I beg to disagree. The law passed by Congress authorizing the use of force is a fact. The expert opinions of the pathologists in the Ron Brown case is a fact. You now seem to want to avoid both. And said Bush could define the final straw.
BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION. And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically - which I doubt is a result of professional legal training and education like leveller's is.
All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy. Why complicate the matter - it is clear the plane Ron Brown was on was directed into the mountainside. The crash killed everyone on board. Trying to figure out how a shooter could execute the murder of Brown with a head shot (while not killing the rest of the passengers in the same way) and then exiting the plane - wither before lift off - during flight or afterwards is much more complicated a scenario. If you can figure out how Ron Brown's execution could be coordinated with the crash scenario without looking like a cheap hollywood movie with guys jumping out of airplanes just before they crash like in Mission Impossible, be my guest.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments even if I disagree with them - and I disagree with BAC's argument on Iraq. All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That we have come to the point when this is not obvious to so many - especially among what I assumed would be the super dooper constitution upholding party like the Republicans - then the Republic is lost and its maintenance is a fiction. Remember that the fiction of the Roman legions marching under the banner of SPQR was maintained well into the Byzantine era of the Roman empire.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
it's funny the way the chooser complains about the way everyone on 4um debates him. he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over and mostly by the same posters who have done the same to him on LP. what a troll. fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function. ;)
... snip ... Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication? BAC: See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ... HAHAHAHAHA. Come again, BAC, who is making a fool of himself? The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop. Townhall, Fox News, National Review - eeeeeek - are you so thick, BAC, that you don't see what a useful tool you are? Salem Comminications owns Townhall - born again ownership: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=Salem_Communications_Corporation As for Fox News: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News ...Relationship with Republicans In late 2002, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes confirmed the allegation in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War that he had sent a note to Karl Rove in the Bush White House suggesting policies to be adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Woodward described the note as advocating Bush take "the harshest measures possible" in order to maintain the support of the American public. Ailes said the note was not political advice but a message sent "as a human being and a citizen", and denied that he used the word "harsh" or "harshly".[3] ...The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias... As for National Review, "The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital."
"But, though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprise neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel, is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration." Chancellor Kent, Commentaries On American Law, Vol I, Part 1, Lecture III (1826)
All I've done is ask you folks to point out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution or our laws where the FORM that a Declaration of War must take is spelled out. And clearly you can't do it. Because it isn't. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution wanted it that way? Instead, you just CLAIM that a state of war must be stated to exist by Congress for a Declaration of War. Based on YOUR opinion. But the only opinion that really matters is that of Congress and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not ruled this war illegal. They have not ruled that the Authorization To Use Force doesn't constitute a "declaration of war". And I posted the opinion of CONGRESS in the form of a law authorizing Bush to use military force to deal with the problem of Iraq. That law specifically states that "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." Section 5 (b) puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force. That requirement has been met. You may not like it (in your OPINION), but it has been met.
I can't speak for the whole forum, BAC, but for my money, it's time for you to go back & suck on Goldi's sagging tits. You're draining too damned much good time and energy, around here. (Time for the bozo/vote, I guess.) By the way BAC, tell your handlers that I can be bought off. I told you that before, but you didn't listen.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists and what they said about the wound in Brown's head. See post #108. And they said a lot more than just that they would have liked an autopsy. And you responded to post #108 in post #114 ... so don't claim you didn't see it. As I said, you now seem to be running as hard as you can from the pathologists and what they've said in numerous venues about the hole in Ron Brown's head. Curious ...
Except when it comes to what the pathologists have said about the hole in Brown's head. Then you just ignore the arguments and facts. And labeling me a "Bushbot" isn't going to score you points either ... except perhaps in the eyes of the typical 4umer who believes I'm satan, bombs brought down the WTC, the hole in the Pentagon is 20 feet in diameter and an average of 600 Iraqis have been dying every single day since the war began.
No, he's been called "evil" by folks who still insist that the WTC towers collapsed in 10 seconds even though photos and videos at numerous sources prove that's absolutely false. That should tell you something, christine. But you failed to use it on this thread. ;)
So scrapper ... you are saying that NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post all are working together? Because they ALL carried the story about the Jordan chemical bomb plot. Contrary to ...'s claim that my only source was Newsmax. Yes, scrapper ... I do think I know who is making fools of themselves here.
Which is exactly what Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 did.
No I didn't say that that "all were working together." But most of the "news" sources you cited are echo chambers of one another's right wing bias. Come on - how different is FrontPage from Townhall from Fox news,from Little Green Footballs, from Larry Elder, from Washington Times? The others I'd need to check on ownership. Most of the US news sources are owned by approx 6 or so parent companies whose owners have questionable AmericaFirst persuations, politely speaking.
Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation. Now look at AUMF. One reason, apparently that its text does not declare that a state of war exists, is that such a sentence would require completion by specifying the particular nation with which the US is or was at war. AUMF, however, unconsitutionally delegates to the President the power to declare war, by allowing him to determine against whom military force shall be used: "Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
So? No link.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Unsourced cut and pastings.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
... from CNN, from MSNBC, from CBS, from CSPAN, from ABC, from Washington Post, from USATODAY, from Boston Globe, from Associated Press, from AFP, from Reuters. If you include those in your list, the answer is as different as night and day. Which is why you deliberately didn't include them. And if you are claiming that all of them are lying to you about what happened in Jordan and what those terrorists said on live Jordanian TV and in court, then I'm afraid most people are going to think you are a bit paranoid.
Good for them. But the fact remains that neither the Constitution or laws define the form a declaration of war must take. And did you know that none other than President Thomas Jefferson sent his military forces to the Med with orders to look for *someone* to fight ... at a time when we weren't at war because one hadn't been declared by Congress? In fact, Jefferson sent the forces WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS AT ALL. Jefferson sent the navy with permission to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence - by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them." And post facto Congress did approve Jefferson's actions (although they did NOT declare war) which nevertheless led to a defacto war that lasted about four years. In Congress (largely made of framers of the Constitution), only Hamilton criticized Jefferson, but not for using force, but for not using enough force. Hamilton also expressed doubts about Jefferson's strict interpretation of the war powers of the President. He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war, there was no need for Congress to do so. And these were the framers of our Constitution, leveller. Jefferson embroiled the nation in a war BEFORE congressional assent was given ... in any form. The reality is that he sent his forces out to provoke a war, even if none existed because he understood what you folks don't ... that war was the answer. The reality is that the situation at that time is not too dissimilar to our situation now and the actions of Bush are not all that different from those of Jefferson and Madison.
If you include those in your list, the answer is as different as night and day. Which is why you deliberately didn't include them. And if you are claiming that all of them are lying to you about what happened in Jordan and what those terrorists said on live Jordanian TV and in court, then I'm afraid most people are going to think you are a bit paranoid. I told you that I did not include some BECAUSE I needed to check into parent company, ownership. And I also told you that media ownership is controlled by approx 6 families, who held questionable AmericaFirst loyalties. What I implied to you was that even after I double-checked ownership, I doubted there would be that much of a difference between any of them in their primary loyalty persuations. They'd likely all be pro-Israel and therefore all be pro Iraq War because that war was for Israel's benefit. There I spelled it out for you. Kapeesh? Also, may I remind you that you included blogs with newspapers and magazines and even within that "variety" I found a pattern of right wing echo chamber.
delegatvs non potest delegare
You want links to direct quotes by the pathologists and photographer? Fine. ********* "Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938 "Even if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you got something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told the Tribune-Review. In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an apparent gunshot wound." However, he also said, "Whether it's a bullet or something else, we don't know." ... snip ... "Essentially ... Brown had a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which is essentially the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound," Cogswell added. ... snip ... "I talked to Col. Gormley and he told me there is a .45(-inch) inwardly beveling, perfectly circular hole in the top of (Brown's) head," Cogswell said. ... snip ... "Open him up. This man needs an autopsy," Cogswell said he told Gormley. "This whole thing stinks." ... snip ... Cogswell also felt it would be very difficult for any rod or similar item to pierce the skull then exit, leaving a perfect hole as it did. His suspicions grew upon his return to the United States when he spoke to AFIP colleagues who had stayed at Dover. He also reviewed the photographic and X-ray evidence. "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'" he said. ... snip ... Her photos would later become part of Cogswell's slide program. He tells his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows the defect at the top of the head, and something perhaps more sinister. Inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound." ... snip ... The Tribune-Review obtained copies of those images as well as detailed photos of Brown's body and the circular wound. All were shown to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco. While acknowledging he is not a pathologist, Fackler said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round," Fackler said with a chuckle. "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else." Fackler said he could not rule it a gunshot without a full autopsy and better X-rays. He said the supposed metal fragments on the first X-ray were not conclusive because they were very small, an autopsy had not been conducted to locate them, and a side X-ray was overexposed, giving little detail of the head. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding," he said. ************** "Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206 A second Armed Forces medical examiner has stepped forward to publicly confirm key statements made by a colleague about the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause (pronounced "hoss"), a deputy armed forces medical examiner, told the Tribune-Review he personally examined a suspicious head wound on Brown's corpse while it was being examined at Dover Air Force Base, Del. He said several allegations made by Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell in a Tribune-Review article last week are true. Hause also expressed criticism of the military's treatment of Cogswell in the wake of that article. ... snip ... Cogswell was not present at Dover when the wound was examined, but Hause was. According to Hause, his examination table was only two tables away from the one on which Brown's body was laid out. "A commotion" erupted, he said, when someone said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." Hause said he left his examination table to view the wound. He remembers saying, "Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole." ... snip ... Hause agreed that "by any professional standard" an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown's body, but said he understood that "political and administrative" factors made it difficult for one to be conducted. Even so, he suggested that Gormley should have consulted with superiors to get authority, or if that was impossible, sought permission from the next of kin. After viewing the wound, Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further. "I made the presumption the reason (Gormley) concluded it wasn't a gunshot wound, (and) therefore there was no need to go further, was that he looked at the X-rays" and found no evidence of a bullet, Hause explained. ... snip ... Additionally, Cogswell and another expert consulted by the Tribune-Review said a side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head. ... snip ... According to Hause, all that remains of the head X-rays are photographic slide images in the possession of Cogswell and copies of images possessed by the Tribune-Review. Hause said the disturbing facts raised by Cogswell, including the missing X-rays, have not drawn an appropriate reaction from AFIP officials. "It looks like the AFIP is starting its usual procedure of, upon receiving bad news, immediately shooting the messenger," Hause commented in reference to administrative actions taken against Cogswell in recent days. ... snip ... On Friday, Hause said a commotion developed in the office when a military police officer showed up and asked Cogswell to accompany him to Cogswell's home to retrieve all slides and photos in his possession relating to AFIP cases. "One of the things I'm wondering is why all the attention is focused on Cogswell, who never had the original X-rays," Hause said. ************ "Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921 One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists says there was "more than enough" evidence to suggest possible homicide in the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and an autopsy should have been conducted on his body. Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht reached these conclusions after reviewing photographs of Brown's body, photo images of X-rays of Brown's head and body, and the report of the forensic pathologist for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who examined the corpse. ... snip ... Wecht scoffs at skeptics who dismiss the possibility of Brown being found with a bullet after a plane crash. "It's happened," Wecht said. "It's in the literature. It's rare, but it can happen, and evidence of a possible gunshot should not be ignored." After reviewing the evidence, Wecht reached several broad conclusions. "It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown," Wecht said. "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied," Wecht continued. He noted that it's standard procedure to conduct autopsies on all victims in a plane crash. Forget about Brown being a cabinet member, or being under investigation," Wecht added. "He was in a plane crash. That alone should have meant he was autopsied." ... snip ... Wecht, who is also a lawyer, agrees with Cogswell. "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out," Wecht said. "The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy," the coroner continued. ... snip ... "I'm troubled," Wecht added. "They did a tremendous disfavor to the families by not conducting autopsies." For one thing, he noted, survivors may have been left with weaker legal claims for damages. As for the wound itself, Wecht said, "Anytime you have a circular, symmetrical hole, a pathologist knows that one of the distinct mechanisms for making such a defect is a bullet. "It's not the only one (but) you have to consider it," he added. "The answer lies in the autopsy." ... snip ... Wecht did not rule out the possibility that a piece of the aircraft could have caused the hole, but agreed with Cogswell that such a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane. Wecht, like Cogswell, said the possibility of a bullet should have immediately been ruled out by opening the skull and looking for a bullet track through the brain. After analyzing a photograph of the wound, Wecht also identified tiny fracture lines in the skull that he said "would not be inconsistent with a gunshot wound." ... snip ... Most bothersome, Wecht said, was his identification of almost a half-dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole. These "do suggest metallic fragments," he said. "Little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone," he explained. These flecks should have been collected for further analysis, Wecht said, though he noted they aren't by themselves proof of a gunshot. "It just makes it more consistent with one," he said. If the metal is from a bullet, he believes the array of fragments in the scalp would indicate a shot was fired before the crash. Wecht said a review of a photographic image of the first frontal X-ray of Brown's head may show, as Cogswell first suggested, "what we say in the jargon of forensic pathology is a lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet. ... snip ... Wecht jested that disappearance of the X-rays, which Gormley says would support his conclusions, fit what he calls Wecht's Law: "The frequency of lost X-rays, hospital records, documents, autopsy materials and other materials in a medical-legal investigation is directly in proportion to the complexity, controversy and external challenges" to a given case. In reality, Wecht said, "you'll find it is very, very rare" to have X-rays missing from a case file. ************** "Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000 One of the officers, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, for the first time spoke publicly on the matter Saturday. The forensic pathologist joined two other AFIP medical examiners in disputing government claims about Brown's death after an Air Force jet carrying him and 34 others crashed in Croatia on April 3, 1996. ... snip ... On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell's claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel "unanimously backed" the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot. The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that "there is no doubt in anybody's mind" that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot. Citing AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, Fletcher reported that "the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental ..." Fletcher's report also indicated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley's findings. Contradicting these claims are Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP's internal review. Both officers concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted. None was. "Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie," Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims. Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on. ... snip ... Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun. ... snip ... According to Hause, Spencer asked if he agreed with Gormley's findings. Hause responded that the death was "probably" accidental, but that there was insufficient evidence to say Brown died of blunt force injuries as a result of the plane crash. Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP." Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true." ***************** "Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306 The head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's forensic photography unit, like three senior officials before her, has come forward to publicly claim that the military improperly handled the investigation of the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, a 22-year Navy veteran, also says she was told missing evidence of a possible homicide had been purposely destroyed. Janoski, the senior enlisted person at AFIP's Rockville, Md., offices, was present when Brown's body was examined by military pathologists at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. ... snip ... Janoski said she was stunned that AFIP's inquiry focused on the actions of Cogswell when she felt the real issue was AFIP's handling of Brown's death. "The investigation is nothing more than a witch hunt. (AFIP) should be investigating what happened to the missing head X-rays. No one at AFIP seems to care that Brown did not receive an autopsy," Janoski said. ... snip ... "Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound," Janoski recalls exclaiming. ... snip ... Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview. ... snip ... Janoski alleges Sentell told her the original X-rays of Brown's head had been replaced in the case file. Janoski said she remembers that Sentell specifically told her "the first head X-ray that showed a `lead snowstorm' was destroyed, and a second X-ray, that was less dense, was taken." Janoski said she had to ask "What are you talking about?" in reference to Sentell's phrase "lead snowstorm." According to Janoski, Sentell explained that a lead snowstorm is the description of a pattern of metal fragments that appears on an X-ray after a bullet has disintegrated inside a body. ... snip ... One of the pathologists involved questions the timing of AFIP's explanation. "I find it interesting that this explanation about the film cartridge defect came after Lt. Col. Cogswell made his allegations, and not at the time we were at Dover," said Hause. Hause, who made these comments to the Tribune-Review before a gag order had been placed on AFIP staff, said he does not recall ever being told there was a problem with the X-rays. *********** "Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 GRANT: We do have here on the line, Chief Petty Officer, United States Navy and chief of forensic photography with Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Kathleen Janoski. And she alleges that there has been a cover-up in the investigation of Ron Brown. Ms. Janoski, I welcome you to the Bob Grant program via the telephone. I understand that you have received some threats of one type or another. That there's been some pressure brought to bear to have you cease and desist from speaking out. Is that true? JANOSKI: Yes that is. Essentially what's happening is that I'm being punished as a whistleblower because I went on record with The Pittsburgh Tribune Review back in January. I used to be chief of forensic photography but I was kicked out of my office with essentially 32 hours notice and forced to walk away from a quarter million dollar inventory that I'm still assigned responsibility for. ... snip ... JANOSKI: It's actually the Army and the Air Force Colonel who's in charge of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. What it is - there's four of us altogether, (Lt. Col. Steve) Cogswell, (Lt. Col. David) Hause, myself and (Air Force Major Thomas) Parsons. And we all went on the record saying that Ron Brown had what appeared to be an apparent gunshot wound to the head - and that Ron Brown needed an autopsy, which he did not receive. ... snip ... JANOSKI: Well, actually it wasn't a mark. It was a hole in his skull. It was perfectly round, inwardly beveling and it's diameter was .45 inches. And it had punctured the skull. Brain was showing. And that's essentially what we said: that Ron Brown had a wound that appeared consistent with an apparent gunshot wound and that he needed an autopsy. (Janoski has FBI training in gunshot wound analysis). And because of that we're essentially being punished by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. ... snip ... GRANT: You also made an allegation that x-rays were destroyed to hide evidence of a possible bullet wound. JANOSKI: Well, what happened was - we have a Naval criminal investigative agent who's assigned to our office. And about six months after the crash she told me that the first set of x-rays were deliberately destroyed because they showed a "lead snowstorm". And a second set of x-rays were taken and they were deliberately made less dense to try to diminish or eradicate that "lead snowstorm". A Naval criminal investigative agent assigned to my office told me this. GRANT: Now initially you had declined to be interviewed but you changed your mind shortly before a gag order was issued and you came forward, you said, because the AFIP had failed to properly investigate possible wrongdoing by it's own officials in the Brown case. And because of the way the military treated two AFIP pathologists. We have talked to Lt. Col Steve Cogswell and Lt. Col. David Hause. Now, I understand that after they both went public, bad things happened to them. JANOSKI: Yes, yes. We were all supposed to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in February. We had our tickets, we had our reservations, we'd paid our registration fees. And right before we were supposed to leave, the director of AFIP canceled our orders immediately. Also, Dr. Cogswell was forbidden to lecture, forbidden to go on trips. Cogswell, Hause and Parsons were no longer permitted to do any autopsies. And also Dr. Cogswell was kicked out of his office at the same time I was. And he's been re-assigned, they re-assigned him to oral pathology. So they have a medical examiner working with a bunch of dentists right now. He's very ill-equipped to work in that area. So essentially what they're doing is something that's typical in punishing a whistleblower. They're setting him up for failure. ************ And to see a list of other articles on the topic plus the photos of the wound and x-ray, go here: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/1/31/173313 Or you can just continue to pretend ignorance or be lazy and do no further investigation. It's entirely up to you, Destro.
That's hearsay, you idiot.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
You have overlooked the distinction between form and substance. No particular form is prescribed for a declaration of war. But it must, in substance, declare that a state of war exists between the US and another nation. Take another look at that quote from Kent, posted above. The opening sentence refers to ancient usage in international relations. The Framers did not write the Constitution in an intellectual vaccuum. Terms of art are employed throughout. A declaration of war was not understood then, and is not understood now, to be a mere authorization of force.
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF. The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war. They did not initiate war. A band of criminals (according to the official story ) whose organization was once funded and trained and supplied by the US, perpetrated a few crimes on our soil. These crimes gave the US no casus belli against Afghanistan and Iraq. These criminals did not enjoy nationhood, and a declaration of war against them would have sounded ridiculous.
A transcript of that television interview was submitted to a court of law by Judicial Watch. It would be a crime to falsify such a thing, wouldn't it? Has JH been accused of that by the court or anyone else? No? Has Gormley come forward to deny he said that? No? And others reported the same content in the Gormley interview on BET too. All they all liars too? Now you can sit there with your head in the ground but that's not going to convince many that Gormley didn't admit to what was noted or that the other named pathologists haven't said what has been quoted. You only make yourself look even more desperate to make the Ron Brown allegation go away. Which makes me suspicious why you'd be desperate regarding that. You're not a democRAT, are you Dakmar?
If they could see me now, that little gang of mine... :)
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
That's me - Ron Brown News 24/7. You're starting to creep me out a little, Ooser; could you try telling the truth for like five minutes? We'll give you nekkid pictures of Teddy Roosevelt!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Precisely. The delegee cannot delegate. Congress has limited enumerated powers, and among them is no power to delegate its powers. An extreme view, that I favor, is that no regulations promulgated by departments of the government other than Congress have the force of law.
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war. Communications then aren't what they are today. A founding father obviously didn't agree with your views, leveller. That must be sobering. Second, the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition). As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
Their orders wer to protect shipping on the high seas, in accordance with the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, accepted by the Founders.
We had no right to invade Afghanistan to reach those targets. Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders. We have prosecuted some of them for domestic criminal offenses. When we demanded Bin Laden, Afghanistan quite rightly demanded proof. We incorrectly answered that we weren't obligated to provide it. (We probably had none) Rather than provide the proof, we invaded. If Bin Laden had had nationhood, his act of aggression would have created a state of war, and the President would have been authorized and duty-bound to respond against such a country.
The state of war that existed between the US and Iraq during most of the nineties was the result of the illegal US and British no-fly zone bombing after the cease-fire. April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point. It hardly matters whether the first war was over when the second began, since the first one was illegal also. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
Where in the Constitution is it specified which form a Declaration of War from Tripoli shall take?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
EXACTLY!!!! 09/11 was a crime NOT an act of war (except to PNAC, of course).
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
No, the orders were NOT to "protect" shipping but to take out the pirates WHEREVER they might be hiding and to stop those helping them. Which is why Jefferson and Madison's Navy invaded A COUNTRY and DEPOSED a dictator. Did the founders believe in freedom for terrorists to attack US interests from the safety of a dictatorship? Obviously not. A lesson the left never learned.
Afghanistan lost any rights when it allowed terrorists to openly organize and train within it's borders. It is indisputable that they did. The family of the Taliban leader also married into the family of bin Laden, suggesting a far more than arms length association between the two. There's a lesson here that you on the left still haven't learned. We are playing by new rules now. No, they committed an act of war. A war they formally declared before 9/11. So we are legally helpless against terrorists. That's your message, lawyer? ROTFLOL!
Comments (220 - 394) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "No specific form is required.
But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#180. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#172)
See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?
#181. To: Destro, ALL (#177)
You don't use facts either
Congress only authorized war as a last result
#182. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#179)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#183. To: BeAChooser (#178)
Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say.
#184. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#180)
#185. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, leveller, burkeman1 (#182)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#186. To: scrapper2 (#180)
#187. To: BeAChooser, ... (#161)
...: The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.
#188. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL, Just who is this All, BAC? He never posts . . . (#179)
#189. To: scrapper2, leveller, ALL (#182)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.
And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically
#190. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#157)
#191. To: Destro, ALL (#183)
"Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say."
All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy.
#192. To: Destro, ALL (#184)
I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments
All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.
#193. To: christine, ALL (#186)
he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over
fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function.
#194. To: scrapper2, ..., ALL (#187)
The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop.
#195. To: leveller, scrapper2, ALL (#188)
As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration."
#196. To: BeAChooser (#194)
So scrapper ... you are saying that NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post all are working together?
#197. To: BeAChooser (#189)
#198. To: BeAChooser (#191)
Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists
#199. To: BeAChooser (#192)
Except when it comes to what the pathologists have said about the hole in Brown's head. Then you just ignore the arguments and facts.
#200. To: scrapper2, ALL (#196)
Come on - how different is FrontPage from Townhall from Fox news,from Little Green Footballs, from Larry Elder, from Washington Times?
#201. To: leveller, ALL whoever they are (#197)
Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation.
#202. To: BeAChooser (#200)
(Edited)
from CNN, from MSNBC, from CBS, from CSPAN, from ABC, from Washington Post, from USATODAY, from Boston Globe, from Associated Press, from AFP, from Reuters.
#203. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#197)
(Edited)
#204. To: Destro, ALL (#198)
Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists
So? No link.
#205. To: BeAChooser (#204)
Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.
#206. To: BeAChooser (#201)
But the fact remains that neither the Constitution or laws define the form a declaration of war must take.
#207. To: BeAChooser (#201)
He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war,
#208. To: Dakmar, ALL (#205)
"They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.
That's hearsay, you idiot.
#209. To: BeAChooser (#208)
Which makes me suspicious why you'd be desperate regarding that. You're not a democRAT, are you Dakmar?
#210. To: BeAChooser (#208)
You only make yourself look even more desperate to make the Ron Brown allegation go away
#211. To: SmokinOPs (#203)
delegatvs non potest delegare
#212. To: leveller, ALL (#207)
"He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war"
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF.
The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war.
#213. To: BeAChooser (#212)
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war.
#214. To: BeAChooser (#212)
the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition).
#215. To: BeAChooser (#212)
As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
#216. To: BeAChooser (#212)
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war.
#217. To: leveller (#214)
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders.
#218. To: leveller, ALL (#213)
Their orders wer to protect shipping on the high seas, in accordance with the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, accepted by the Founders.
#219. To: leveller, ALL (#214)
We had no right to invade Afghanistan to reach those targets.
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders.
If Bin Laden had had nationhood, his act of aggression would have created a state of war, and the President would have been authorized and duty-bound to respond against such a country.
.
.
.