The San Diego Union-Tribune

* Make Us Your Homepage
* Subscribe
* Today's U-T
* Archives
* U-T Store
* Email Alerts
* Text Alerts

SignOnSanDiego
Forums

* News
Local Topics
o Border & Immigration
o Courts
o Education
o Environment
o Health
o Government & politics
o Military
o Obits
o Public Safety
o San Diego Attractions
o Science Quest
o Transportation
o Watchdog
Columnists
o Diane Bell
o Tom Blair
o Logan Jenkins
Local Communities
o San Diego
o North County
o East County
o South County
Elsewhere
o California
o Nation
o U.S. Politics
o U.S. At War
o World
o Mexico & Latin America
* Sports
Topics
o Padres
o Chargers
o Aztecs
o Toreroes
o High School
o College
o Golf
o Horseracing
o MLB
o Motorsports
o NBA
o NFL
o NHL
o Other sports
o Outdoors
o Soccer
o Special Reports
o Tennis
Columnists
o Nick Canepa
o Tim Sullivan
* Business
o Consumer
o Defense
o Economy
o Energy & Green Business
o Growth & Development
o Markets
o On The Move
o Personal Finance
o Real Estate
o Small Business
o Special Reports
o Tech & Telecom
o Tourism & restaurants
o Xconomy
* Obits
* Opinion
o U-T Editorials
o Dialog
o Commentary
o Steve Breen
o Hot Seat
o Special Reports
o Letters to the editor
* Lifestyle
o Dear Abby
o People
o Public Eye
o Shopping & Deals
o Smart Living
* Night & Day
o Classical Music
o Dining
o Events
o Movies
o Music
o Theater & Arts
o TV & Radio
o Visual Arts
Columnist
o Karla Peterson
* Visit SD
o Book a Hotel
o Rent a Car
o Book a Flight
o Find a Deal Package
o Find More Deals
o Find Activities
* Travel
* Radio
* 4SD

* Boocoo Auctions
* Classifieds
o Place an ad
o Pets
o Merchandise
o Obituaries
o Contact Us
* Autos
o Sell your car
o Buy a car
o Research a car
o Finance
o Find a dealer
o Contact Us
* Jobs
o Find a job
o Post your resume
o Employer Section
o Job Fairs
o Contact Us
* Real Estate
o Resale homes
o New homes
o Rentals
o Foreclosures
o Commercial
o Mortgages
o Place an ad

Weather
Traffic
Webcams
Photos
Video
Columnists & Blogs

Go Back SignOnSanDiego Forums > News > General News
Reload this Page FBI Watch

User Name Remember Me?
Password
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

General News News, politics, wildfires and more.

Search Forums
Show Threads Show Posts
Advanced Search
Go to Page...
Closed Thread
Page 322 of 353 « First < 222 272 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 > Last »

Thread Tools Display Modes
#4816
Old 11-25-2009, 10:27 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
'Aggressive' policing of protests condemned in post-G20 inquiry

Senior inspector warns police risk losing public consent and calls for return to 19th-century style of minimal force


* Paul Lewis and Sandra Laville
* guardian.co.uk, 25 November 2009



Senior police officers could lose the consent of the British public unless they abandon misguided approaches to public protests that are considered "unfair, aggressive and inconsistent", an inquiry has found.

Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, used a landmark report into public order policing to criticise heavy-handed tactics, which he said threatened to alienate the public and infringe the right to protest.

The report, published today, called for a softening of the approach and urged a return to the "British model" of policing, first defined by 19th-century Conservative prime minister Sir Robert Peel. O'Connor advocated an "approachable, impartial, accountable style of policing based on minimal force and anchored in public consent".

The initial reaction from protest groups was positive. A lawyer from environmental organisation Climate Camp, believed to be the largest network of activists in the country, described the findings as a "huge step forward".

Among recommendations designed radically to change the way police forces deal with demonstrations, O'Connor said:

• The home secretary, Alan Johnson, should take the unusual step of issuing a national code of practice to ensure all 44 police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with protest in the same way. The report found a wide variation in equipment and tactics used, as well as a divergences in their interpretation of the law.

• The government should introduce a set of "overarching principles" to guide police on the use of force, informing officers about what constitutes appropriate behaviour in "all areas of policing business". O'Connor said that, faced with aggressive protesters, some officers were replacing the notion of a "proportional" reaction with a '"reciprocal" one.

• The routine use of forward intellience teams (FITs) who film, photograph and follow protesters, and use "spotter cards" to identify activists and store their information on databases raises fundamental privacy issues and should be reviewed. The Home Office should provide legal guidance on surveillance of protesters and retention of their images.

• Public order training should be overhauled, with a new emphasis on schooling the 22,500 officers trained for protests in communication and diplomacy rather than riot scenarios. "Time spent on suppressing mass urban disorder should be reduced and time spent on planning and keeping the peace should be increased," O'Connor said.

• The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) should be made more transparent, with mechanisms introduced to hold the body to account for "quasi-operational" policing units that collate and retain intelligence on databases. O'Connor is known to be concerned with Acpo's three "domestic extremism" units, which the Guardian last month revealed were storing data on thousands of protesters in a £9m government scheme.

The 200-page Her Majesty's Inspecorate of Constabulary (HMIC) report was commissioned in the aftermath of the Metropolitan police's controversial handling of G20 protests, in April.The interim HMIC report, published in July, found serious failings in the way senior officers at the Met had planned for and managed protests near the Bank of England.

It followed a public outcry after the force used "kettling" techniques to detain peaceful protesters for several hours. Its officers were also captured on video using batons to lash out at protesters, who on at least one occasion held their arms in the air and chanted, "This is not a riot." A newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, collapsed and died after an officer struck him as he tried to make his way home from work through the protests.

Although the Met is expected to endorse today's report, O'Connor's findings will be seen as a damning indictment of a style of policing protest pioneered by Scotland Yard in the last decade. Senior Met officers are known to have lobbied hard against some of O'Connor's proposals, at one stage even hiring lawyers in an unsuccessful attempt to oppose one of his key recommendations.

The Met has gained a reputation for clamping down and "containing" protests it deems unlawful, an approach forged in its response to the May Day protests in 2001. The force also developed the technique of using FIT surveillance officers to monitor crowds, a technique first used against football hooligans in the late 1990s that has since been adopted by forces across the country.

The force's public order unit, CO11, was recently forced to delete 40% of the photographs it holds on a database of protesters after the court of appeal ruled in a landmark judgment it had illegally retained an image of Andrew Wood, an anti-war campaigner. The Met employs most of the UK's FIT-trained officers.

Although O'Connor's report says little about kettling, which is due to be tested at the European court of human rights, he raises serious questions about the legality of FIT operations and says there is "confusion" about their role.

"If individuals are lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, the justification for police gathering their personal information is unclear, and it is not at all obvious under what powers the police are acting in these circumstances," the report said.

HMIC inspectors visited several forces during their inquiry, and conducted a review of the handling of several protests, including three Climate Camp events, Tamil protests in Parliament Square and rallies by far-right groups such as the British National party and the English Defence League.

They also commissioned an academic review of crowd psychology. This found police were relying on a scientifically unfounded presumption that crowds are innately "unpredictable, volatile and dangerous", and looked at policing models used in other western European countries, the United States and Canada.

But O'Connor said he favoured a return to a British style of consensual policing for an era in which the actions of police would be instantly recorded and scrutinised.
PART 1
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4817
Old 11-25-2009, 10:27 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
PART 2



'Aggressive' policing of protests condemned in post-G20 inquiry

Senior inspector warns police risk losing public consent and calls for return to 19th-century style of minimal force


"British police risk losing the battle for the public's consent if they win public order through tactics that appear to be unfair, aggressive and inconsistent," he said. "This harms not just the reputation of the individual officers concerned but the police service as a whole."

Acpo's lead officer for uniformed operation, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, Meredydd Hughes, said O'Connor's report would "shape the future of national public order policing".

"It represents the first time that British policing has examined modern protest in such a public way," Hughes said. "It will drive changes in our preparation for protest and our relationships with those involved."

Frances Wright, a member of the legal team for Climate Camp who gave evidence to the inspectors, said protesters would also welcome the conclusions. She implied the death of Tomlinson had played a central role in bringing about the reform.

"These findings are a vindication of what protesters have been saying for years," she said. "Now it has to be delivered, and if these proposals are seen through, then that would be a huge step forward. It shouldn't have taken a death for people to finally start to listen."
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4818
Old 11-25-2009, 10:33 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
2 reads
Nobel Peace Prize winner refuses to sign Land Mine Ban Treaty

1st read

US revises statement on land mine policy

By DESMOND BUTLER
11-25-2009 WASHINGTON

The Obama administration is backtracking on an announcement that it had reviewed its policy allowing military use of land mines and decided to leave it in place.


On Tuesday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the administration had completed a review and decided not sign a treaty banning land mines.

But in a statement Wednesday, Kelly said that there had been only a partial review concerning who would represent the United States at a conference on the international Mine Ban Treaty next week in Cartegena, Colombia.

Kelly said the administration is still looking at its overall policy. The new statement follows criticism by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy.

More than 150 countries have agreed to the treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines.



2nd read

http://www.banminesusa.org/
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4819
Old 11-25-2009, 10:38 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8377802.stm


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lapl...the-pearl.html
Colombian fascist paramilitary leader captured inside Venezuela. AUC chief caught in Maracaibo, a secessionist anti-Chavez hotbed. Anti-Chavez US ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield knows what "The Pearl" was doing in Venezuela. Brownfield coordinated anti-Chavez operations in Zulia state.
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4820
Old 11-26-2009, 08:28 AM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...osition=recent
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4821
Old 11-26-2009, 06:42 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
We now know for a FACT that FBI agents created the 1993 1st World Trade Center bombing and it now looks from emerging evidence the FBI agent Larry Potts was handling Timothy McVeigh before the Oklahoma City bombing. Can India be correct in assuming FBI agents created the Mubai terrorist attack?



Is Headley an American agent who turned rogue?
TNN 27 November 2009, 01:26am IST


NEW DELHI: It's a plot that could be straight out of the bluff-and-double-bluff worlds created by John le Carre and Frederick Forsyth. Only, it seems to have played out in real life, to the tragic misfortune of hundreds of innocent people. The tantalising possibility that David Coleman Headley may have been a US undercover agent who turned rogue is vexing many here as American authorities keep the US-based Lashkar jihadi out of the reach of Indian investigators.

To make the tale even more dramatic, Headley may just have provided American intelligence agencies information that prevented a Lashkar attack on Mumbai in September. The theory -- and it's still a theory -- is that Headley was used to infiltrate the Lashkar, but gradually went astray under the influence of the very terrorists he was supposed to be spying upon.

Torn between conflicting loyalties, he may have continued to give information to his American handlers, and a tip-off by him may even have helped avert a Laskar attack orginally planned for September. But he seems to have commited fully to Lashkar shortly after that, which could be one reason why American agencies were caught napping by 26/11.

During his interactions in India, Headley frequently introduced himself as a CIA agent. But suspicions that he's a rogue agent stem more from the just-released information that Headley, a man with one green and one brown eye, could straddle America and Pakistan with ease despite a run-in with the law in the US.

A recent profile in the New York Times said that in 1998, Headley (then known as Daood Gilani) was convicted of conspiring to smuggle heroin into US from Pakistan. ``Court records show that after his arrest, he provided so much information about his own involvement with drug trafficking which stretched back more than a decade and about his Pakistani suppliers that he was sentenced to less than two years in jail and later went to Pakistan to conduct undercover surveillance operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)," the NYT report said.

This suggests that Headley had a deal with authorities in the US who allowed him to get away with mild punishment in exchange for a promise of cooperation.

To many here, that also implies that he was a known entity to the counter-terror and drug enforcement authorities in the US. After 9/11, the walls between these agencies had come down because of the links between drugs and terrorism, particularly in the context of Pakistan-Afghanistan where there is a huge overlap between the functions of the DEA and CIA. Surprisingly, the FBI affidavit against Headley doesn't mention his tryst with the DEA.

FBI's affidavit against Headley says that he changed his name from Daood Gilani to David Coleman Headley in 2006 to hide his history as an offender. As he told border police in August 2009, it was to give himself the freedom to travel undetected -- he said the new name aroused much less suspicion when he travelled.

It is a fact that terrorists are masking their religious identity to get past the counter-terror surveillance, with terror groups seeking to recruit Caucasians for fresh strikes. But many doubt here that the mere switching of names could have worked in Headley's case given his brush with law but more because of the destinations he was flying to.

Given Pakistan's unquestioned reputation as the hub of global terror, people travelling to and from the country automatically pop up on the scanner at airports across the globe. Headley, to boot, would often meet his contacts in UAE -- a known rezendevous for terrorists and smugglers and a place that is of immense interest to law enforcement agencies.

The doubters found it intriguing that ultra-sensitive agencies in the US did not find anything amiss about the entries on Headley's US passport. While the sceptics don't think they have an answer yet, they are inclined to look at the possibility of Headley being an undercover agent who, torn between the competing demands of the jihadi outfits he had been asked to infiltrate and his American handlers, went astray.

Headley, by his own confession, joined Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2006 and received training in one of the terror camps run by the jihadi outfit.

Those who subscribe to the "rogue agent" theory are inclined to believe that this was known to the Americans, always anxious to ferret out information from hard-to-penetrate terror groups. They also feel that US agencies were perhaps aware that last year, Headley was in India to recce targets for a Lashkar attack that it had originally planned for September -- as confirmed by Ajbal Kasab in his testimony -- and which was finally carried out on 26/11. Rather, they also suspect that Headley might have been the source of information that helped Americans warn of the attack planned for September last year.

In their warning, which was passed on to Maharashtra government by Intelligence Bureau, the Americans had said that prominent installations in Mumbai were on the jihadis' target. As a matter of fact, the FBI alert made a specific mention of Taj and other hotels -- Marriott, Land's End and Sea Rock.

It is felt that Headley's defection happened immediately afterwards and that is perhaps one of the reasons why Americans could not, unlike in September, sniff 26/11. The suspicion is reinforced by the fact that it was around this time that FBI put Headley under its surveillance, leading to his arrest on October 3 this year.

Suspicions are getting stronger as Americans delay giving Indian investigators access to Headley. The hope here is that Indian agencies would get their turn to talk to the terrorist after charges -- indictment in the American lexicon -- are framed against him on Jauuary 1. There is also the possibility that Headley has promised to sing on the condition that he is not exposed to interrogators from India.

But during interactions on the issue, FBI has been unusually cagey about discussing Headley in detail -- odd on the part of the agency which swiftly warned of the attack Lashkar had planned in September and without whose help the breakthrough in the 26/11 probe would not have happened.
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4822
Old 11-26-2009, 07:44 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin


Global Research, November 25, 2009


Despite a treasure-trove of new information having emerged over the last forty-six years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. There are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission. Both groups agree, however, that whatever the truth, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred almost a half-century ago, so let’s move on.



Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Orbis Books, 2008). It is clearly one of the best books ever written on the Kennedy assassination and deserves a vast readership. It is bound to roil the waters of complacency that have submerged the truth of this key event in modern American history.



It’s not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations faced by President Obama today. So far, at least, Obama’s behavior has mirrored Johnson’s, not Kennedy’s, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. One can’t but help think that the thought of JFK’s fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.



Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by “unspeakable” (the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s term) forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace. He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA – “the CIA’s fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it” - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot.



Why and by whom? These are the key questions. If it can be shown that Kennedy did, in fact, turn emphatically away from war as a solution to political conflict; did, in fact, as he was being urged by his military and intelligence advisers to up the ante and use violence, rejected such advice and turned toward peaceful solutions, then, a motive for his elimination is established. If, furthermore, it can be clearly shown that Oswald was a dupe in a deadly game and that forces within the military/intelligence apparatus were involved with him from start to finish, then the crime is solved, not by fingering an individual who may have given the order for the murder or pulled the trigger, but by showing that the coordination of the assassination had to involve U.S. intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA . Douglass does both, providing highly detailed and intricately linked evidence based on his own research and a vast array of the best scholarship.



We are then faced with the contemporary relevance, and since we know that every president since JFK has refused to confront the growth of the national security state and its call for violence, one can logically assume a message was sent and heeded. In this regard, it is not incidental that former twenty-seven year CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, in a recent interview, warned of the “two CIAs,” one the analytic arm providing straight scoop to presidents, the other the covert action arm which operates according to its own rules. “Let me leave you with this thought,” he told his interviewer, “and that is that I think Panetta (current CIA Director), and to a degree Obama, are afraid – I never thought I’d hear myself saying this – I think they are afraid of the CIA.” He then recommended Douglass’ book, “It’s very well-researched and his conclusion is very alarming.”



Let’s look at the history marshaled by Douglass to support his thesis.



First, Kennedy, who took office in January 1961 as somewhat of a Cold Warrior, was quickly set up by the CIA to take the blame for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. Kennedy refused to go along and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy. But it was all a sham.



Though Douglass doesn’t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but – and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end - never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway. Why? So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.



PART 1
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4823
Old 11-26-2009, 07:46 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
PART 2

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin


Global Research, November 25, 2009


This treachery set the stage for events to come. For his part, sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (as in a bad joke, later to be named to the Warren Commission) and his assistant General Charles Cabell (whose brother Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed) and said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not the sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.



The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.



In 1961, despite the Joint Chief’s demand to put troops into Laos, Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”



Also in 1961, he refused to concede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”



He refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Afterwards he told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”



Then in June 1963 he gave an incredible speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”



A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.



In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.



All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, “I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.” Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals.



These clear refusals to go to war and his decision to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course. As Douglass and others have pointed out, every move Kennedy made was anti-war. This, Douglass argues, was because JFK, a war hero, had been deeply affected by the horror of war and was severely shaken by how close the world had come to destruction during the Cuban missile crisis. Throughout his life he had been touched by death and had come to appreciate the fragility of life. Once in the Presidency, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peace maker. He came to see the generals who advised him as devoid of the tragic sense of life and as hell-bent on war. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’etat against him. On the night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.” And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned it.



But who killed him?



Douglass presents a formidable amount of evidence, some old and some new, against the CIA and covert action agencies within the national security state, and does so in such a logical and persuasive way that any fair-minded reader cannot help but be taken aback; stunned, really. And he links this evidence directly to JFK’s actions on behalf of peace.



He knows, however, that to truly convince he must break a “conspiracy of silence that would envelop our government, our media, our academic institutions, and virtually our entire society from November 22, 1963, to the present.” This “unspeakable,” this hypnotic “collective denial of the obvious,” is sustained by a mass-media whose repeated message is that the truth about such significant events is beyond our grasp, that we will have to drink the waters of uncertainty forever. As for those who don’t, they are relegated to the status of conspiracy nuts.



Fear and uncertainty block a true appraisal of the assassination - that plus the thought that it no longer matters.



It matters. For we know that no president since JFK has dared to buck the military-intelligence-industrial complex. We know a Pax Americana has spread its tentacles across the globe with U.S. military in over 130 countries on 750 plus bases. We know that the amount of blood and money spent on wars and war preparations has risen astronomically.



There is a great deal we know and even more that we don’t want to know, or at the very least, investigate.



If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters.

PART 2
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4824
Old 11-26-2009, 07:48 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
PART 3

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin


Global Research, November 25, 2009

As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?”

After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife - during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union - he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department.

He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.

Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide.

Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI,CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former FBI agent, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.



During this time up until the assassination Oswald was on the FBI payroll, receiving $200 per month. This startling fact was covered up by the Warren Commission even though it was stated by the Commission’s own general counsel J. Lee Rankin at a closed door meeting on January 27, 1964. The meeting had been declared “top secret” and its content only uncovered ten years later after a lengthy legal battle by researcher Harold Weisberg. Douglass claims Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”



When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did , but for which he was paid. Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the picture on cue. Douglass illuminatingly traces in their intelligence connections. Ruth later was the Warren Commission’s chief witness. She had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September 1963 Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to her house in Dallas to live with her. Thirty years after the assassination a document was declassified showing Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell helicopter and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance. Her mother was related to the Forbes family of Boston and her lifelong friend, Mary Bancroft, worked as a WW II spy with Allen Dulles and was his mistress. Afterwards, Dulles questioned the Paines in front of the Warren Commission, studiously avoiding any revealing questions. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently got Oswald a job in the Texas Book Depository where he began work on October 16, 1963.



From late September until November 22, various Oswalds are later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Dallas to Mexico City. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theatre, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back. As Douglas says, “There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.” Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico…their ( CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. It was apparent that a very intricate and deadly game was being played out at high levels in the shadows.



We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass adds layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so. Oswald, the mafia, anti-Castro Cubans could not have withdrawn most of the security that day. The Sheriff Bill Decker withdrew all police protection. The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been the day before in Houston; took agents off the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire. They approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car came, almost to a halt, a clear security violation. The House Select Committee on Assasinations concluded this, not some conspiracy nut.




PART 3
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4825
Old 11-26-2009, 07:48 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
PART 4

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
Review of James Douglass' Book

by Edward Curtin


Global Research, November 25, 2009





Who could have squelched the testimony of all the doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story? Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 – a story little known but extraordinary in its implications – is riveting.) The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up - clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.



The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book.



He says it best: “The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of Kennedy’s murder and immediate cover-up.”



Speaking to his friends Dave Powers and Ken O’Donnell about those who planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, JFK said, “They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”



Let’s hope for another president like that, but one that meets a different end.
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4826
Old 11-26-2009, 07:59 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial will convict us all

by Paul Craig Roberts


Global Research, November 25, 2009


Republican members of Congress and what masquerades as a “conservative” media are outraged that the Obama administration intends to try in federal court Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, and four alleged co-conspirators.

The Republican and right-wing rant that a trial is too good for these people proves what I have written for a number of years: Republicans and many Americans who think of themselves as conservatives have no regard for the US Constitution or for civil liberties.

They have no appreciation for the point made by Thomas Paine in his Dissertations on First Principles of Government (1790):

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

Republicans and American conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They assume that police and prosecutors are morally pure and, in addition, never make mistakes. An accused person is guilty or government wouldn’t have accused him. All of my life I have heard self-described conservatives disparage lawyers who defend criminals. Such “conservatives” live in an ideal, not real, world.

Even some of those, such as Stuart Taylor in the National Journal, who defend giving Mohammed a court trial do so on the grounds that there are no risks as Mohammed is certain to be convicted and that “a civilian trial will show Americans and the rest of the world that our government is sure it can prove the 9/11 defendants guilty in the fairest of all courts.”

Taylor agrees that Mohammed deserves “summary execution,” but that it is a good Machiavellian ploy to try Mohammed in civilian court, while dealing with cases that have “trickier evidentiary problems” in “more flexible military commissions, away from the brightest spotlights.”

In other words, Stuart Taylor and the National Journal endorse Mohammed’s trial as a show trial that will prove both America’s honorable respect for fair trials and Muslim guilt for 9/11.

If, as Taylor writes, “the government’s evidence is so strong,” why wasn’t Mohammed tried years ago? Why was he held for years and tortured--apparently water boarded 183 times--in violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions? How can the US government put a defendant on trial when its treatment of him violates US statutory law, international law, and every precept of the US legal code? Mohammed has been treated as if he were a captive of Hitler’s Gestapo or Stalin’s KGB. And now we are going to finish him off in a show trial.

If the barbaric treatment Mohammed has received during his captivity hasn’t driven him insane, how do we know he hasn’t decided to confess in order to obtain for himself for evermore the glory of the deed? How many people can claim to have outwitted the CIA, the National Security Agency and all 16 US intelligence agencies, NORAD, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, airport security (four times on one morning), US air traffic control, the US Air Force, the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, all the neocons, Mossad, and even the supposedly formidable Dick Cheney?

Considering that some Muslims will blow themselves up in order to take out a handful of Israelis or US and NATO occupation troops, the payoff that Mohammed will get out of a guilty verdict is enormous. Are we really sure we want to create a Muslim Superhero of such stature?

Originally, according to the US government, Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11. To get bin Laden is the excuse given for the US invasion of Afghanistan, which set up the invasion of Iraq. But after eight years of total failure to catch Osama bin Laden, it became absolutely necessary to convict some culprit.

Unfortunately, there will be no such sensible outcome. David Feige has told us what the outcome will be (Slate, Nov. 19). The prosecution doesn’t need any evidence, because no judge and no jury is going to let the demonized “mastermind of 9/11” off. No judge or juror wants to be forever damned by the brainwashed American public or assassinated by right-wing crazies. Keep in mind that the kid, John Walker Lindh, termed “the American Taliban” by an ignorant and propagandistic US media, was guilty of nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Despite the complete trampling of his every right, he got 20 years on a coerced plea bargain.

The price that Mohammed will pay will be small compared to the price we Americans will pay. The outcome of Mohammed’s trial will complete the transformation of the US legal system from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state. Feige writes that Mohammed’s statements obtained by torture will not be suppressed, that witnesses against him will not be produced (“national security”), that documents that compromise the prosecution will be redacted. At each stage of Mohammed’s appeals process, higher courts will enshrine into legal precedents the denial of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, thus enshrining indefinite detention, the denial of the right against damning pretrial publicity, thus allowing demonization prior to trial, and the denial of the right to have witnesses and documents produced, thus eviscerating a defendant’s rights to exculpatory evidence and to confront adverse witnesses, The twisted logic necessary to disentangle Mohammed’s torture from his confession will also be upheld and will “provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time--a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.”

It took Hitler a while to corrupt the German courts. Hitler first had to create new courts, like President George W. Bush’s military tribunals, that did not require evidence, using in place of evidence hearsay, secret charges, and self-incrimination obtained by torture.

Every American should be concerned that the Obama administration has decided to use Mohammed’s trial to complete the corruption of the American court system. When Mohammed’s trial is over, an American Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler will be able to convict America’s Founding Fathers on charges of treason and terrorism. No one will be safe.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4827
Old 11-26-2009, 08:09 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
November 25, 2009
"Working the War Up Since Early 2002"
The Blair-Bush Conspiracy on Iraq

By DAVE LINDORFF

Most Americans are blissfully in the dark about it, but across the Atlantic in the UK, a commission reluctantly established by Prime Minister Gordon Brown under pressure from anti-war activists in Britain is beginning hearings into the actions and statements of British leaders that led to the country’s joining the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Even before testimony began in hearings that started yesterday, news began to leak out from documents obtained by the commission that the government of former PM Tony Blair had lied to Parliament and the public about the country’s involvement in war planning.

Britain’s Telegraph newspaper over the weekend published documents from British military leaders, including a memo from British special forces head Maj. Gen. Graeme Lamb, saying that he had been instructed to begin “working the war up since early 2002.”

This means that Blair, who in July 2002, had assured members of a House of Commons committee that there were “no preparations to invade Iraq,” was lying.

Things are likely to heat up when the commission begins hearing testimony. It has the power, and intends to compel testimony from top government officials, including Blair himself.

While some American newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, have run an Associated Press report on the new disclosures and on the commission, key news organizations, including the New York Times, have not. The Times ignored the Telegraph report, but a day later ran an article about the British commission that focused entirely on evidence that British military leaders in Iraq felt “slighted” by “arrogant” American military leaders who, the article reported, pushed for aggressive military action against insurgent groups, while British leaders preferred negotiating with them.

While that may be of some historical interest, it hardly compares with the evidence that Blair and the Bush/Cheney administration were secretly conspiring to invade Iraq as early as February and March 2002.

Recall that the Bush/Cheney argument to Congress and the American people for initiating a war against Iraq in the fall of 2003 was that Iraq was allegedly behind the 9-11 attacks and that it posed an “imminent” danger of attack against the US and Britain with its alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, such arguments, which have subsequently been shown to have been bogus, would have had no merit if the planning began a year earlier, and if no such urgency was expressed by the two leaders at that time. Imminent, after all, means imminent, and if Blair, Bush and Cheney had genuinely thought an attack with WMDs was imminent back in the early days of the Bush administration, they would have been acting immediately, not secretly conjuring up a war scheduled for a year later. (The actual invasion began on March 19, 2003).

As I documented in my book, The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin’s Press, 2006), there is plenty of evidence that Bush and Cheney had a scheme to put the US at war with Iraq even before Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Then Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill in his own tell-all book, The Price of Loyalty, written after he was dumped from the Bush Administration, recounts that at the first meeting of Bush’s new National Security Council, the question of going to war and ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was on the agenda. Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, NSC anti-terrorism program czar Richard Clark also recalled Bush ordering him to “find a link” to Iraq. Meanwhile, within days, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was ordering top generals to prepare for an Iraq invasion. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was heading up the military effort in Afghanistan that was reportedly closing in on Osama Bin Laden, found the rug being pulled out from under him as Rumsfeld began shifting troops out of Afghanistan and to Kuwait in preparation for the new war.

It is nothing less than astonishing that so little news of the British investigation into the origins of the illegal Iraq War is being conveyed to Americans by this country’s corporate media—yet another example demonstrating that American journalism is dead or dying. It is even more astonishing that neither the Congress nor the president here in America is making any similar effort to put America’s leaders in the dock to tell the truth about their machinations in engineering a war that has cost the US over $1 trillion (perhaps $3 trillion eventually when debt payments and the cost of veterans care is added in), and over 4000 lives, not to mention as many as one million innocent Iraqi lives.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). He can be reached at dlindorff@mindspring.com
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4828
Old 11-26-2009, 08:37 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4829
Old 11-26-2009, 08:54 PM
fruhmenschen fruhmenschen is offline
Banned/suspended

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,545
Re: FBI Watch
2 reads


Safety and Security
ISC @ Javits : Keeping safe


By Dr. Elinor Garely, eTN Staff Writer | Nov 26, 2009

NEW YORK (eTN) - Always on the lookout for new ideas and cutting edge technology that will make traveling and hotel visits safer, I was anxious to get to the ISC (International Security Conference and Exposition) recently held at the Javits Convention Center in NY.

Guests Need to Feel Safe
Following right on the heels of our need for air, water and food is our need for safety and security. At the recent ISC show I found updated initiatives from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and state-of-the-art security technology that will (hopefully) be installed at the next hotel visited.

Maryann Goldman, a special agent and InfraGard coordinator with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) discussed the agency commitment to soft target protection through a renewed realization: the community and private sector security have important roles to play if we are to live in a safe society. Hoteliers along with travel and tourism security personnel, working through InfraGard, can obtain valuable information and be among the first to receive threat advisories, alerts and warnings, training on counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber-crime updates, and notice of situations that impact on the nation and US assets.

Unfortunately, at this time, there is no way for travel consumers to get into the “inner circle” – without a heavy duty FBI investigation.

Joe Tadrick from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discussed the importance of integrating all hotel personnel into the security function (including housekeepers and maintenance staffers). From improved technology surveillance to the use of dogs to patrol property perimeters, the best way to keep assets safe is to prevent the bad guys from gaining access. It was suggested that the recent Mumbai hotel terrorism event may have been averted if background checks on hotel personnel had been thoroughly executed, and the back-of-the-house surveillance was adequate.

New Products: Truth or Dare
Smiths Detection has introduced a new dual detector system (Ionscan 500 DT) that identifies explosive substances and narcotics from a single sample. During a brief trade show demonstration my $10 bill was put through the system, and came up clean while the “test dollar” – showed evidence of cocaine. No longer is guessing whether a guest has been near or involved in illegal activities: check currency and in 5-8 seconds the large touch-screen color displays the good/bad news.

“Broken Window”
For hotels located in less than safe locations and the management team believes in the “broken window” scenario as a way to prevent crime, the Amseco Merlin Graffiti Detector should make it to the Christmas wish list . Merlin identifies and characterizes the graffiti event as it is happening and texts up to 10 users. It can be attached to an existing alarm system or siren, allowing immediate event detection and notification permitting very little time for the perpetrator to get away from the scene.

Going Forward: Break Routines
Hotel guests, airline passengers and everyone moving from the security and safety of their own neighborhoods to new locations should keep vigilant. The bad guys are constantly looking for opportunities to invade perimeters. Both the FBI and DHS recommend that travel patterns to/from work, to/from airport/hotels be varied: change the time, the day of week, and the route! By using this simple scheme individuals can lower their vulnerability and decrease their chances for being America’s Next Top Victim.


2nd read

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://nyccan.org
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911blogger.com/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://0x1a.com
http://patriotsquestion911.com
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
http://www.CSI911.info
http://doujibar.ganriki.net/english/e-menu.html
http://www.ultruth.com/
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm
http://www.visibility911.com/
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/gage_richard/
http://www.stj911.com/
http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/
fruhmenschen
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fruhmenschen
#4830
Old 11-27-2009, 06:47 AM
fishfinger's Avatar
fishfinger fishfinger is offline
Registered User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,759
Re: FBI Watch
Are you under the illusion that people are reading your post?
__________________
Back in the saddle again
fishfinger
View Public Profile
Find all posts by fishfinger
Closed Thread
Page 322 of 353 « First < 222 272 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 > Last »

Bookmarks

* Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
* Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
* Submit Thread to Digg Digg
* Submit Thread to del.icio.us del.icio.us
* Submit Thread to Fark Fark
* Submit Thread to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
* Submit Thread to Google Google


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Hybrid Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode
Threaded Mode Switch to Threaded Mode
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Rules

Forum Jump
User Control PanelPrivate MessagesSubscriptionsWho's OnlineSearch ForumsForums Home News General News Immigration & Border Issues Gasoline prices Politics Climate change Showdown with Iraq Food For Thought The Sandbox Sleuthing Older cases Jessica Lunsford Laci Peterson Stephanie Crowe Danielle van Dam Remembering Danielle Kristin Rossum Samantha Runnion Military Navy National Anthem Project Marines Army, Air Force, Coast Guard Sports Chargers DRAFT (and stadium issues) Off-topic / Other teams Humor / Smack attack Padres The Cheap Seats Other Sports Fishing College Sports Golf More Smart Living Entertainment TV Comic-Con Movies Forum Help and Feedback

The San Diego Union-Tribune

* News
* Sports
* Business
* Lifestyle
* Entertainment
* Things To Do
* Travel
* Classifieds
* Real Estate
* Jobs
* Autotrader.com

* About Us
* Contact Us
* FAQ's
* Privacy
* Subscribing
* RSS
* Mobile

© Copyright 2010 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.