Muslim in Suffer

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem. Assalamu\’alaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh!

Archive for December 17th, 2007

“Hermeneutika dan Fundamentalisme”

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

From: Qosim Nursheha Dzulhadi <qosim_deedat@yahoo.com>
Subject: [INSISTS] “Hermeneutika dan Fundamentalisme”

 

“Hermeneutika dan Fundamentalisme”

Dosen IAIN mengatakan, ciri fundamentalis adalah orang-orang yang menolak ‘hermeneutika’. Kok bisa?. Baca Catatan Akhir Pekan [CAP] Adian Husaini ke-216

Oleh: Adian Husaini

Senin, 17 Desember 2007

Ahad (9/12/2007) lalu, di Solo, seorang mahasiswa pasca sarjana Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta memberi saya sebuah buku berjudul “Is Religion Killing Us? (Membongkar Akar Kekerasan dalam Bibel dan al-Qur’an)”. Sudah cukup lama saya memiliki edisi bahasa Inggris buku karya Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer tersebut. Banyak hal bisa dikritisi dari isi buku ini, karena penulisnya sudah menggugat kesucian teks Al-Quran. Misalnya, penulis berkesimpulan, bahwa ”Masalah Islam yang identik dengan kekerasan tidak hanya sebatas adanya ketidaksesuaian teks-teks, tetapi berakar pada banyaknya ayat-ayat dalam Qur’an yang melegitimasi kekerasan, peperangan dan intoleransi.” (hal. 165).

Penulis buku ini juga dengan semena-mena membuat kesimpulan, bahwa ”Kekerasan religius yang lazim diantara tradisi kepercayaan penganut monoteisme tidak semata-mata sebagai masalah distorsi penafsiran kaum beriman terhadap teks-teks suci mereka. Hal itu lebih pada masalah yang berakar dalam tradisi kekerasan Tuhan yang terletak pada inti teks-teks suci tersebut.” (hal. 180).

Tapi, Nelson-Pallmeyer menulis buku tersebut, berangkat dari pengalaman dan pemahamannya sebagai seorang Kristen di Barat. Pemahamannya terhadap Al-Quran dan Islam tampak dangkal. Maka, yang lebih menarik, adalah membaca kata pengantar edisi bahasa Indonesia buku ini yang ditulis oleh tokoh Katolik Dr. Haryatmoko S.J. dan khususnya oleh Dr. Hamim Ilyas, seorang dosen UIN Yogya yang juga anggota Majelis Tarjih Muhammadiyah.

Karena cukup menarik, kita perlu menyimak kata pengantar Dr. Hamim Ilyas yang berjudul ”Akar Fundamentalisme Dalam Perspektif Al-Qur’an”. Berikut ini paparan Hamim Ilyas tentang fundamentalisme:

”Fundamentalisme adalah satu tradisi interpretasi sosio-religius (mazhab) yang menjadikan Islam sebagai agama dan ideologi, sehingga yang dikembangkan di dalamnya tidak hanya doktrin teologis, taoi juga doktrin-doktrin ideologis. Doktrin-doktrin itu dikembangkan oleh tokoh-tokoh pendiri fundamentalisme modern, yakni Hasan al-Banna, Abu A’la al-Maududi, Sayyid Quthb, Ruhullah Khumaini, Muhammad Baqir al-Shadr, Abd as-Salam Faraq, Sa’id Hawa dan Juhaiman al-Utaibi.”

Menurut Hamim Ilyas, ”Karakteristik fundamentalisme adalah skripturalisme, yakni keyakinan harfiah terhadap kitab suci yang merupakan firman Tuhan yang dianggap tanpa kesalahan. Dengan keyakinan itu dikembangkan gagasan dasar bahwa suatu agama tertentu dipegang kokoh dalam bentuk literal dan bulat, tanpa kompromi, pelunakan, reinterpretasi dan pengurangan.”

Lalu, Hamim melanjutkan tulisannya tentang fundamentalisme dengan mengutip pendapat Azyumardi Azra dan Martin E. Marty, dengan menjelaskan sebagai berikut:

Pertama, oposionalisme. Fundamentalisme dalam agama mana pun mengambil bentuk perlawanan – yang bukannya tak sering bersifat radikal – terhadap ancaman yang dipandang akan membahayakan eksistensi agama, baik yang berbentuk modernitas, sekularisasi maupun tata nilai Barat. Acuan atau tolok ukur untuk menilai tingkat ancaman itu tentu saja adalah kitab suci, yang dalam fundamentalisme Islam adalah Al-Quran dan pada batas-batas tertentu juga hadits Nabi.

Kedua, penolakan terhadap hermeneutika. Kaum fundamentalis menolak sikap kritis terhadap teks. Teks al-Qur’an harus dipahami secara literal sebagaimana bunyinya, karena nalar dipandang tidak mampu memberikan interpretasi yang tepat terhadap teks. Meski bagian-bagian tertentu dari teks kitab suci boleh jadi kelihatan bertentangan satu sama lain, nalar tidak dibenarkan melakukan semacam ”kompromi” dan menginterpretasikan ayat-ayat tersebut.

Ketiga, penolakan terhadap pluralisme dan relativisme. Bagi kaum fundamentalis, pluralisme merupakan pemahaman yang keliru terhadap teks kitab suci.

Keempat, penolakan terhadap perkembangan historis dan sosiologis. Kaum fundamentalis berpandangan bahwa perkembangan historis dan sosiologis telah membawa manusia semakin jauh dari doktrin literal kitab suci… Karena itulah, kaum fundamentalis bersifat a-historis dan a-sosiologis; dan tanpa peduli bertujuan kembali kepada bentuk masyarakat ”ideal” – seperti pada zaman kaum salaf – yang dipandang mengejawantahkan kitab suci secara sempurna.
”Karakteristik fundamentalisme yang telah mengakar membawa konskuensi logis munculnya doktrin-doktrin yang justru mengekang, menyiksa diri dan membatasi ruang gerak, bukannya membebaskan. Doktrin sentral fundamentalisme adalah Islam kaffah. Dalam doktrin ini Islam tidak hanya diajarkan sebagai sistem agama, tetapi sebagai sistem yang secara total mencakup seluruh aspek kehidupan manusia, baik dalam kehidupan pribadi maupun sosial,” tulis sang dosen tafsir UIN Yogya ini.

Ditambahkan lagi, bahwa ”Akar fundamentalisme yang berasal dari kesalahan menafsirkan teks suci al-Qur’an ternyata benar-benar mencoreng nama Tuhan (Allah Swt) dan al-Qur’an itu sendiri. Menjadikan Islam sebagai idoelogi yang mendorong timbulnya ekstrimisme dan radikalisme dapat diyakini sebagai perilaku berlebih-lebihan dalam beragama yang jelas-jelas dilarang.”

Demikianlah kutipan paparan Dr. Hamim Ilyas tentang fundamentalisme.

Ringkasnya, menurut Hamim Ilyas, fundamentalis adalah orang-orang yang skripturalis atau literalis dalam memahami Al-Quran, menolak hermeneutika, menolak pluralisme, menolak relativisme dan sebagainya. Paparan dosen tafsir UIN Yogya tentang ”fundamentalisme Islam” ini – sebagaimana banyak cendekiawan lainnya – masih sebatas membeo definisi fundamentalisme yang aplikasikan oleh para ilmuwan Barat yang merujuk kepada pengalaman sosial-keagamaan kaum Yahudi dan Kristen. Jika dicermati, tulisan ini sebenarnya serampangan dan asal-asalan.

Kita tentu sudah maklum, bahwa istilah dan wacana fundamentalisme keagamaan dikembangkan oleh Barat menyusul berakhirnya Perang Dingin. Seperti ditulis Huntington dalam bukunya, The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order, bahwa adalah manusiawi untuk membenci karena untuk penentuan jati diri dan membangun motivasi, masyarakat perlu musuh. (It is human to hate. For self definition and motivation people need enemies: competitors in business, rivals in achievement, opponents in politics).

Sejak itu, wacana ”fundamentalisme keagamaan”, khususnya ”fundamentalis Islam” dikembangkan. Banyak sarjana dibayar untuk meneliti dan menulis tentang masalah ini. Seminar-seminar tentang fundamentalisme digelar. Media massa memainkan peran yang dominan dalam pembentukan opini negatif tentang kaum yang dicap sebagai fundamentalis.

Istilah-istilah “Islam fundamentalis”, “Islam eksklusif”, “Islam militan”, “Islam radikal”, “Islam konservatif”, dan sejenisnya memang sering digunakan untuk memberikan stigma negatif terhadap kelompok-kelompok Islam yang pemikirannya tidak sejalan dan tidak disukai oleh Barat. Ilmuwan Yahudi, Prof. Bernard Lewis, dalam bukunya The Crisis of Islam menyatakan, bahwa fundamentalis Islam adalah jahat dan berbahaya, dan menyebutkan bahwa fundamentalis adalah anti-Barat. (Fundamentalists are anti-Western in the sense that they regard the West as the source of the evil that is corroding Muslim society).

Dalam “Catatan Pinggirnya” di Majalah Tempo, 27 Januari 2002, Gunawan Muhammad menutup tulisannya dengan kalimat: “Fundamentalisme memang aneh dan keras dan menakutkan: ia mendasarkan diri pada perbedaan, tetapi pada gilirannya membunuh perbedaan.” Lalu, pada pidatonya di Taman Ismail Marzuki Jakarta, 21 Oktober 1992, Nurcholish Madjid mengatakan: “Kultus dan fundamentalisme adalah sama berbahayanya dengan narkotika.”

Genderang perang yang ditabuh oleh Barat dan sekutu-sekutunya dalam melawan fundamentalisme agama tentu saja dibuat dalam perspektif Barat dan untuk kepentingan Barat. Karena itulah, proyek ini mendapatkan kucuran dana yang sangat besar. Salah satu yang menonjol adalah proyek liberalisasi Islam. Karena itu, kita tentu maklum dengan munculnya orang-orang seperti Hamim Ilyas ini, yang entah karena ketidaktahuannya atau karena hawa nafsunya membuat opini-opini yang menyudutkan kaum Muslim dan cendekiawan Muslim tertentu seperti al-Maududi, dengan memberi stigma negatif semacam “fundamentalis” dan sebagainya.

Kita bisa saja tidak setuju dengan sebagian pemikiran Hasan al-Banna atau Abul A’la al-Maududi. Tetapi, untuk apa memberi cap bahwa mereka adalah fundamentalis, literalis, anti-pluralis, dan sebagainya? Tuduhan-tuduhan seperti ini sebenarnya sangat naif dan bodoh, apalagi dilakukan oleh seorang doktor dan dosen tafsir. Abul A’la al-Maududi, misalnya, adalah pemikir besar yang karya-karyanya telah memberi inspirasi dan manfaat bagi jutaan kaum Muslim di seluruh dunia.

Lalu, dikatakan oleh Hamim Ilyas, bahwa salah satu ciri fundamentalis adalah menolak hermeneutika. Pada muktamarnya di Boyolali tahun 2004, NU juga menolak penggunaan hermeneutika untuk Al-Quran. Apa NU juga fundamentalis? Di Muhammadiyah sendiri, banyak tokohnya yang telah menulis secara kritis bahaya penggunaan hermeneutika untuk Al-Quran. Apa mereka semua itu adalah kaum fundamentalis?

Jika dikatakan Hamim Ilyas, bahwa “doktrin sentral fundamentalisme adalah Islam kaffah” maka, pada Muktamar Muhammadiyah ke-45 di Malang, juga telah ditetapkan tujuan jangka panjang Persyarikatan Muhammadiyah, yakni “tumbuhnya kondisi dan faktor-faktor pendukung bagi terwujudnya masyarakat Islam yang sebenar-benarnya.” Bukankah masyarakat Islam yang sebenar-benarnya yang mau diwujudkan oleh Muhammadiyah juga sesuai dengan konsep “Islam kaffah”? Apa Muhammadiyah juga dicap fundamentalis karena mencita-citakan terbentuknya masyarakat Islam yang kaffah?

Kita pun patut bertanya kepada doktor tafsir UIN Yogya ini, apa salahnya jika kaum Muslim ingin menerapkan Islam secara kaffah dalam seluruh aspek kehidupannya? Apa salahnya jika kaum Muslim menolak paham Pluralisme Agama, sebagaimana telah difatwakan oleh MUI dan banyak ulama lainnya? Sebelum MUI menolak paham ini tahun 2005, pada tahun 2000, Vatikan juga telah terlebih dahulu menolak paham tersebut. Juga, apa salahnya jika kaum Muslim menolak paham relativisme, yang memang merupakan paham yang merusak pikiran dan keimanan?

Sebenarnya, jika dicermati, sang dosen UIN Yogya ini pun tidak konsisten dengan paham relativisme yang diagungkannya sendiri. Lihat saja, gaya tulisannya yang menghujat dan menyalah-nyalahkan apa yang disebutnya paham fundamentalisme! Artinya, dalam hal ini, dia juga telah menjadi fundamentalis, karena merasa sok benar sendiri, dan tidak menerima pandangan lain, selain pandangannya sendiri.

Di akhir tulisannya, Dr. Hamim Ilyas mengkaitkan aksi terorisme dengan tafsir fundamentalis. Katanya: “Akhirnya, terorisme yang dilakukan oleh sebagian umat Islam, dalam kenyataannya merupakan fakta yang direkayasa, mungkin oleh Barat dan mungkin juga oleh Al-Qaidah pimpinan Usama bin Ladin. Perbuatan mereka yang merusak itu sedikit banyak berhubungan dengan tafsir fundamentalisme ini sebagai basis ideologis.”

Kesimpulan yang mengaitkan terorisme dengan tafsir keagamaan sebenarnya terlalu jauh. Ada yang menarik kesimpulan sederhana, karena pelaku aksi pengeboman membaca buku-buku Ibn Taimiyah, kemudian dikatakan, bahwa buku Ibn Taimiyah adalah sumber terorisme. Padahal, ratusan juta orang telah membaca karya-karya Ibn Taimiyah, dan mereka tidak melakukan pengeboman. Karena itulah, ada sebagian politisi Barat yang meminta agar Al-Quran dilarang, hanya karena dia melihat para pelaku pengeboman juga membaca Al-Quran.

Dengan menggunakan sedikit saja kecerdasan, kita bisa membuktikan, bahwa aksi-aksi terorisme yang terjadi di berbagai penjuru dunia bukanlah dipicu oleh paham keagamaan, tetapi lebih banyak dipicu oleh faktor eksternal, terutama faktor ketidakadilan. Para pengikut Hasan al-Banna di Palestina melakukan aksi jihad – yang oleh Zionis Israel dikatakan sebagai “terorisme” — karena mereka terjajah dan terzalimi di negerinya. Di zaman penjajahan Belanda, kita juga membanggakan pahlawan-pahlawan kita yang berani mempertaruhkan nyawanya untuk meraih kemerdekaan, meskipun oleh penjajah dilabeli dengan kaum ekstrimis, dan sebagainya. Di Indonesia, para pengkit Hasan al-Banna atau pengagum Abul A’la al-Maududi tidak melakukan aksi-aksi pengeboman.

Karena itulah, sangatlah tidak tepat jika masalah fundamentalisme dan terorisme dikaitkan dengan penolakan terhadap hermeneutika dan relativisme. Ini sudah sangat berlebihan dan keterlaluan dalam membebek dan membeo saja pada pendapat ilmuwan Barat. Orang yang menolak penggunaan metode hermeneutika dan menggunakan ilmu Tafsir untuk memahami Al-Quran sudah dimasukkan “kotak maut” bernama fundamentalis. Bahkan, kaum Muslim yang meyakini kebenaran agamanya sendiri, yang berjuang untuk menjadi Muslim yang kaffah juga divonis sebagai “fundamentalis”, yang dikonotasikan sudah dekat dengan “teroris”.

Di era reformasi dan penjajahan modern ini, sudah begitu banyak aset-aset umat dan bangsa yang sudah hilang. BUMN sudah banyak yang dijual. Kekayasan alam telah punah. Ekonomi, politik, teknologi, budaya, dan sebagainya juga telah “dikuasai”. Yang masih tersisa dalam diri kita saat ini adalah kemerdekaan iman dan pemikiran; kemerdekaan untuk meyakini kebenaran agama kita sendiri, kemerdekaan untuk memahami Al-Quran dengan cara kita sendiri, bukan dengan cara agama atau budaya lain.

Kini, sisa-sisa milik kita yang paling pribadi dan vital itu pun mau dirampas pula. Kita tidak boleh meyakini agama kita sendiri yang benar, dan harus memeluk paham pluralisme dan relativisme. Kita tidak boleh lagi menggunakan Ilmu Tafsir kita sendiri dalam memahami Al-Quran, karena sudah ada ilmu baru yang disodorkan Barat yang bernama hermeneutika. Intinya, kita disuruh beragama, sebagaimana orang-orang Barat beragama.

Sayang sekali, saat ini, kemerdekaan iman dan pikiran kita itulah yang hendak mereka rampas, baik dengan cara halus maupun kasar. Kita bisa paham, jika yang berniat merampas kemerdekaan iman dan pikiran kita adalah orang-orang sejenis Snouck Hurgronje dan kawan-kawannya. Tapi, alangkah sedih dan prihatinnya kita, jika yang melakukan perampasan iman dan pikiran kita itu adalah oknum-oknum bergelar doktor dalam bidang agama, yang sedang berkuasa di lembaga-lembaga agama. Mudah-mudahan Allah SWT memberi kekuatan kepada kita untuk mempertahankan iman dan pemikiran keislaman kita di tengah zaman yang penuh dengan fitnah ini. Amin.
[Depok, 14 Desember 2007/www.hidayatullah.com]

Catatan Akhir Pekan [CAP] Adian Husaini adalah hasil kerjasama antara Radio Dakta 107 FM dan www.hidayatullah.com

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

9/11 Guantanamo “Living like an animal living in a cage”

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

9/11 Guantanamo “Living like an animal living in a cage”

By Mohamed Vall in Khartoum, Sudan

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

Adil Hassan Hamad can scarcely believe he is back with his family in Sudan, because only days ago he was still in the US’s Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

“I am very, very happy and not believing this,” Adil tells Al Jazeera, “That I am here with my family – even now I feel this could all be taken away at any moment.”

In 2002, Adil and another man, Salim Mahmoud Adam, were picked up from their homes in Peshawar, Pakistan, by Pakistani troops and were later handed over to the US.

Most of his children were babies when their father, who was then working as the director of a hospital in Afghanistan, was taken to Guantanamo.

His daughter, Rahma, now six, was only a few months old when he was taken and now her father seems like a stranger.

“She knows I am her father,” says Adil, balancing Rahma on his knee and holding her close. “But she’s not used to me.”

“Like a cage”

Since his release from Guantanamo, family, friends and neighbours have come to Adil’s home in Khartoum to greet a man many thought they might never see again.

Adil recounts stories of torture, interrogation and solitary confinement when speaks of his time in the prison.

“The cell was all made of iron on iron. You don’t see anyone or hear anything,” he says.

“It was a boring and miserable life… psychologically very tiresome. It was like a cage … like an animal living in a cage.”

Among those present to celebrate Adil’s return is Assim al-Haj, brother of Sami al-Haj, the Al Jazeera cameraman imprisoned in Guantanamo six years ago.

He listens to Adil’s story of his release from the prison, but knows that his brother’s health is deteriorating in captivity.

“Injustice and abuse”

More than 750 people have been held in Guantanamo since January 2002 and only three have been formally charged.

Despite international criticism, there are few
signs the US will close the prison [GALLO/GETTY]

Even with the recent releases, over 270 detainees remain in Guantanamo Bay.

The US supreme court has reviewed the legal status of Guantanamo prisoners on several occasions and found in favour of the inmates – that they should be allowed to have the legality of their detention examined by US courts.

The US administration, which argues that since the base is outside the country rights under the US constitution do not apply, has avoided following this judgment.

Amnesty International, the UK-based human rights group, has called Guantanamo “a symbol of injustice and abuse” and called on the US government to close the down the prison “in a transparent manner which fully respects the human rights of those detained and brings to fair trial all those who are accused of recognisable crimes”.

But though the US has drawn international criticism for holding foreign nationals captive in Guantanamo, there are few signs that the US has any plans to close the prison.

Adil and Salim were two of 15 people, the rest Afghan, recently released by the US. Neither have ever been told why they were imprisoned.

The full story in
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/guantanamo-living-like-an-animal-living-in-a-cage/2027/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

9/11 Crime : Inside the CIA’s notorious “black sites”

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

9/11 Crime : Inside the CIA’s notorious “black sites”

A Yemeni man never charged by the U.S. details 19 months of brutality and psychological torture — the first in-depth, first-person account from inside the secret U.S. prisons. A Salon exclusive.

By Mark Benjamin

News

Exhibit I: Rendering of Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah’s first cell in Afghanistan (based on Bashmilah’s own drawings).

Dec. 14, 2007 | WASHINGTON — The CIA held Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah in several different cells when he was incarcerated in its network of secret prisons known as “black sites.” But the small cells were all pretty similar, maybe 7 feet wide and 10 feet long. He was sometimes naked, and sometimes handcuffed for weeks at a time. In one cell his ankle was chained to a bolt in the floor. There was a small toilet. In another cell there was just a bucket. Video cameras recorded his every move. The lights always stayed on — there was no day or night. A speaker blasted him with continuous white noise, or rap music, 24 hours a day.The guards wore black masks and black clothes. They would not utter a word as they extracted Bashmilah from his cell for interrogation — one of his few interactions with other human beings during his entire 19 months of imprisonment. Nobody told him where he was, or if he would ever be freed.

It was enough to drive anyone crazy. Bashmilah finally tried to slash his wrists with a small piece of metal, smearing the words “I am innocent” in blood on the walls of his cell. But the CIA patched him up.

So Bashmilah stopped eating. But after his weight dropped to 90 pounds, he was dragged into an interrogation room, where they rammed a tube down his nose and into his stomach. Liquid was pumped in. The CIA would not let him die.

On several occasions, when Bashmilah’s state of mind deteriorated dangerously, the CIA also did something else: They placed him in the care of mental health professionals. Bashmilah believes these were trained psychologists or psychiatrists. “What they were trying to do was to give me a sort of uplifting and to assure me,” Bashmilah said in a telephone interview, through an interpreter, speaking from his home country of Yemen. “One of the things they told me to do was to allow myself to cry, and to breathe.”

Last June, Salon reported on the CIA’s use of psychologists to aid with the interrogation of terrorist suspects. But the role of mental health professionals working at CIA black sites is a previously unknown twist in the chilling, Kafkaesque story of the agency’s secret overseas prisons.

Little about the conditions of Bashmilah’s incarceration has been made public until now. His detailed descriptions in an interview with Salon, and in newly filed court documents, provide the first in-depth, first-person account of captivity inside a CIA black site. Human rights advocates and lawyers have painstakingly pieced together his case, using Bashmilah’s descriptions of his cells and his captors, and documents from the governments of Jordan and Yemen and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to verify his testimony. Flight records detailing the movement of CIA aircraft also confirm Bashmilah’s account, tracing his path from the Middle East to Afghanistan and back again while in U.S. custody.

Bashmilah’s story also appears to show in clear terms that he was an innocent man. After 19 months of imprisonment and torment at the hands of the CIA, the agency released him with no explanation, just as he had been imprisoned in the first place. He faced no terrorism charges. He was given no lawyer. He saw no judge. He was simply released, his life shattered.

“This really shows the human impact of this program and that lives are ruined by the CIA rendition program,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, an attorney for Bashmilah and a professor at the New York University School of Law. “It is about psychological torture and the experience of being disappeared.”

Bashmilah, who at age 39 is now physically a free man, still suffers the mental consequences of prolonged detention and abuse. He is undergoing treatment for the damage done to him at the hands of the U.S. government. On Friday, Bashmilah laid out his story in a declaration to a U.S. district court as part of a civil suit brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing accused of facilitating secret CIA rendition flights.

Bashmilah said in the phone interview that the psychological anguish inside a CIA black site is exacerbated by the unfathomable unknowns for the prisoners. While he figured out that he was being held by Americans, Bashmilah did not know for sure why, where he was, or whether he would ever see his family again. He said, “Every time I realize that there may be others who are still there where I suffered, I feel the same thing for those innocent people who just fell in a crack.”

It may seem bizarre for the agency to provide counseling to a prisoner while simultaneously cracking him mentally — as if revealing a humanitarian aspect to a program otherwise calibrated to exploit systematic psychological abuse. But it could also be that mental healthcare professionals were enlisted to help bring back from the edge prisoners who seemed precariously damaged, whose frayed minds were no longer as pliable for interrogation. “My understanding is that the purpose of having psychiatrists there is that if the prisoner feels better, then he would be able to talk more to the interrogators,” said Bashmilah.

Realistically, psychiatrists in such a setting could do little about the prisoners’ deeper suffering at the hands of the CIA. “They really had no authority to address these issues,” Bashmilah said about his mental anguish. He said the doctors told him to “hope that one day you will prove your innocence or that you will one day return to your family.” The psychiatrists also gave him some pills, likely tranquilizers. They analyzed his dreams. But there wasn’t much else they could do. “They also gave me a Rubik’s Cube so I could pass the time, and some jigsaw puzzles,” Bashmilah recalled.

The nightmare started for him back in fall 2003. Bashmilah had traveled to Jordan from Indonesia, where he was living with his wife and working in the clothing business. He and his wife went to Jordan to meet Bashmilah’s mother, who had also traveled there. The family hoped to arrange for heart surgery for Bashmilah’s mother at a hospital in Amman. But before leaving Indonesia, Bashmilah had lost his passport and had received a replacement. Upon arrival in Jordan, Jordanian officials questioned his lack of stamps in the new one, and they grew suspicious when Bashmilah admitted he had visited Afghanistan in 2000. Bashmilah was taken into custody by Jordanian authorities on Oct. 21, 2003. He would not reappear again until he stepped out of a CIA plane in Yemen on May 5, 2005.

Bashmilah’s apparent innocence was clearly lost on officials with Jordan’s General Intelligence Department. After his arrest, the Jordanians brutally beat him, peppering him with questions about al-Qaida. He was forced to jog around in a yard until he collapsed. Officers hung him upside down with a leather strap and his hands tied. They beat the soles of his feet and his sides. They threatened to electrocute him with wires. The told him they would rape his wife and mother.

It was too much. Bashmilah signed a confession multiple pages long, but he was disoriented and afraid even to read it. “I felt sure it included things I did not say,” he wrote in his declaration to the court delivered Friday. “I was willing to sign a hundred sheets so long as they would end the interrogation.”

The full story in
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/bashmilah/

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

PEARL HARBOR, PROVES 9-11 FRAUD

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

PEARL HARBOR, PROVES 9-11 FRAUD

by Alan Stang

NewsWithViews.com

December 7, 2007

Here we are again at the “day that will live in infamy.” I have a modest thought I have seen nowhere else. Let’s look at the horror again, through the eyes of Robert B. Stinnett, who spent seventeen years going through more than 200,000 documents and interviews about it. His book is Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, New York, Touchstone (S & S), 2001.

It is crucially important to establish who Robert Stinnett is. In the early years after the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, through one utterly phony “investigation” after another, Roosevelt’s Socialist idolaters swore up and down that he had known absolutely nothing about it. The possibilities that he knew it was coming and did nothing, or, even worse, that he conspired to arrange it, were labeled psychotic fantasies only a psychiatrist could call serious.

All these years later, however, so much slime has oozed forth that Roosevelt worshippers now stand up to their eyeballs in it. They can’t deny it. So, now they take a totally different position, a diametrically different position. Now they say, yes, Roosevelt knew about it, he even arranged it, because the American people at the time were too dumb to know they needed to be in the war – they needed a big enough shock to trick them into it – so Roosevelt arranged it for our own good.

And it is important to establish that Robert Stinnett is one of these people. He is not a “Roosevelt hater.” He idolizes Roosevelt. He is a decorated veteran of World War II and therefore, like other veterans of that nightmare, has considerable emotion invested in it. Here’s the way he puts it in the preface:

“As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom. He knew this would cost lives. How many, he could not have known.

“The country was disillusioned by the failure of America’s idealistic commitment to make ‘the world safe for democracy’ in World War I. Many Americans had chosen isolationism to shelter their young from the horrors of another war, and believed that Roosevelt would ‘not send their sons to fight in foreign wars.’ Roosevelt believed that his countrymen would rally only to oppose an overt act of war on the United States. The decision he made, in concert with his advisors, was to provoke Japan through a series of actions into an overt act: the Pearl Harbor attack.”

So the Stinnett book is what the criminal lawyers (even some lawyers who are not criminals) call an “admission against interest.” Notice that Stinnett even uses the telltale terminology of the world government crowd. He calls America’s wholesome, fervent desire to mind its own business “isolationism.”

But Stinnett, like your Intrepid Correspondent, is a news man. And like a Dalmatian in a fire house, he apparently could not help but respond to the bell. His book proves beyond even the remotest question – with an endless Niagara of evidence from the government itself – that Roosevelt conspired to arrange the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

A word should be said about Franklin Roosevelt. In World War I, he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the administration of Woodrow Wilson, who conspired with First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill to arrange for a German submarine to sink HMS Lusitania, a Royal Navy warship posing as a passenger liner.

Despite strenuous German warnings to passengers – even including newspaper ads – the conspirators continued the pretense, and used the ensuing outrage as a cause célèbre to trick the United States into the world government war. Roosevelt held that job for seven years. It is important to understand that he was a real expert on the U.S. Navy.

In 1932, he ran for President. He won by accusing Republican Herbert Hoover of perverting our system by creating big government, by inflicting scores of Socialist bureaucracies on the people, a charge that was true. The people elected Roosevelt because he promised to dismantle Hoover’s big government. Don’t take my word for that. Look at his campaign speeches. If I told you that some Ron Paul forerunner wrote them, you would believe me.

Roosevelt lied, of course. He never had any intention of doing what he said. His New Deal was simply more and bigger Herbert Hoover. Indeed, whenever the economy tried to revive, Roosevelt intervened with more and bigger warmed over Hoover – more programs, more agencies, more handouts, etc. – and it collapsed again. When war erupted, the U.S. economy was just about as bad as it was on Black Friday, 1929. See the unemployment numbers. One of Roosevelt’s “solutions” was to steal the people’s gold.

Now, let’s browse through the Stinnett book. Not only did FDR know about the Japanese attack, not only did he help arrange it, but he also had an eight-step plan to implement it. Throughout the book we learn, according to horse’s mouth Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, that Roosevelt said, “The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.”

In a weird replay of World War I, Churchill was again First Lord of the Admiralty, early in the war. By the fall of 1940, he was PM, and T. North Whitehead of the British Foreign Office, sent him a message from the United States: “America is not in the bag. However, the President is engaged in carefully calculated steps to give us full assistance.” (Preface)

One step in FDR’s treason plan kept our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, not on the West Coast. Vice Admiral James O. Richardson, commander in chief of that fleet, a true hero, strenuously disagreed, because at Pearl his men and the fleet would be in jeopardy. He was fired.

Page 17: “. . . A Gallup poll taken in early September showed that 88 percent of Americans agreed with the views of an isolationist bloc . . . that advocated staying away from Europe’s wars. . . .” So in 1940 a staggering 88 percent of the American people wanted no part of the war. Remember that in his reelection speeches that year, FDR swore up and down that he hated war, his wife hated war, even his dog, Fala, hated war, and he would not send American boys to fight in the war then raging in Europe.

Page 30-31: On January 26, 1941, Max W. Bishop, third secretary at the U.S. embassy, Tokyo, cables the State Department: Many sources say that “the Japanese military forces planned in the event of trouble with the United States, to attempt a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor using all of their military facilities. . . .” Remember, this is more than 10 months before the attack.

Page 31-32: Lt. Cdr. Arthur McCollum, author of Roosevelt’s eight point plan, head, Far East desk, Navy intelligence, sends as follows to Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, Richardson’s successor as new commander of the pacific fleet, on 2/1/41: “The Division of Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. . . . . no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future.”

Admiral Kimmel kept trying to get intelligence, but gradually became aware that Washington was withholding it. Of course, he could not have imagined why. Stinnett reports that by late July, 1941, he was cut off from intelligence completely.

One of the enduring Roosevelt Pearl Harbor myths says that Japanese naval forces never broke radio silence, so there was no way to know they were on their way to attack Pearl. Stinnett utterly buries that myth under a mountain of U.S. government documents. Admiral Yamamoto and other Japanese commanders broke radio silence again and again, even giving their route and location.

Roosevelt knew this because Navy intelligence had broken the Japanese code, but Washington withheld that fact from Kimmel. The U.S. Army commander at Pearl was General Walter Short. He intercepted Japanese messages but couldn’t decode them and sent them to Washington. Despite his pleas, Washington would not tell him what they said. Washington intercepted bomb plots at Pearl but did not tell Short.

Kimmel and Short did not learn until later that they were being set up as fall guys who would take the rap for the treason in progress. All of this was concealed in the phony post-war “investigations.” Key witnesses were not called. The conspirators falsified documents. They re-dated documents. Some documents that could not be falsified or re-dated simply disappeared.

Page 158: On 11/15/41, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall says in a secret press conference that we’ll be at war with the Japanese during the first ten days of December, 1941. But Marshall doesn’t bother telling this to Kimmel and Short! Washington told Short again and again to watch for sabotage, not for attack. Sabotage requires an entirely different kind of planning. Washington told our Pearl Harbor commanders the Japanese would attack the Philippines.

Page 186-87: Author Stinnett writes as follows: “None of the nine Pearl Harbor investigations examined the TESTM dispatches or questioned why their crucial data were cut from Kimmel’s intelligence loop. Since he was never told, the admiral could not raise the question in his own defense. . . . In April 1995, Congress . . . directed that the Department of Defense conduct an investigation. But the TESTM documents were not produced by the DOD, even though they had been released by the FOIA. Captain Duane Whitlock—one of America’s most honored and heroic code-breakers—was available to explain and identify the dispatches in both 1945 and 1995. He was never asked to testify.”

Page 203: Lt. Cdr. Joseph J. Rochfort, who commanded Station HYPO, Pearl Harbor, said later of our losses: “It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country.” I admit I do not understand this. As I read it and re-read it, my mouth falls open. The only way I can keep it in my head is to recognize that I am looking at an utterly different kind of mentality. Rochfort is a U.S. Navy officer. The price he says was pretty cheap was the mass murder of about 3,000 fellow Americans, many of them fellow U.S. Navy sailors.

As I write, I can see in mind’s eye the sailors trapped in the hull of a capsized battleship. It is dark, not just dark, but so dark they can’t see their fingers in front of their own nose. The water is rising. The air is running out. They tap on the hull. Some were rescued. Hundreds were not. The rescuers couldn’t get to them.

The tapping apparently continued for a couple of weeks. That’s right; it took two weeks for those sailors to die in the dark. Today they are entombed, still at Pearl. The movies have immortalized Rochfort as a hero. I would have hanged him. Of course, remember, I do not understand.

Loc.cit: “Seven Japanese naval broadcasts intercepted between November 28 and December 6 confirmed that Japan intended to start the war and that it would begin at Pearl Harbor. The evidence that poured into American intelligence stations is overpowering. All the broadcasts have one common denominator: none ever reached Admiral Kimmel. . . .”

P. 204: “There is not the slightest reason to believe that JN-25 or any other navy system contained anything that would have forecast the attack.” So says Lt. Cdr. Thos. Dyer, second in command to Rochfort as chief cryptographer at HYPO, in a letter to the author dated 6/4/83. But Station H Japanese radio intercepts make him a liar.

Page 208: Washington sent mutilated summaries to Kimmel in late November and early December. Yes, that is correct. We are talking about physical mutilation. More than 65 summaries were “crudely cut” to omit the information Admiral Kimmel needed. Page 226: On December 5, Tokyo sends two messages that war with U.S. would start on December 7. The messages were decoded immediately but not sent to Pearl.

Page 227-28: Tokyo sends a four part message starting on December 6 to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura in Washington, severing relations and instructing him to deliver it at 1 pm Sunday, the next day, December 7, which was 7:30 am in Pearl. U.S. intelligence intercepted, decoded and translated the message even before Nomura got it. So FDR, Marshall & Co. knew that at 7:30 am, Japan would take some hostile action. What would you do if you were Army Chief of Staff?

Page 228: Here is what Marshall did, says Robert Stinnett: “Instead of picking up his scrambler telephone and tipping off General Short to the 1:00 P.M. deadline, Marshall sent the warning to Hawaii using a combination of Western Union and RCA, a slower method. . . . It includes a later attempt to distance Pearl Harbor investigators from Marshall and the 1:00 P.M. deadline and involves coercion of a U.S. Army colonel to alter his testimony. It even reaches to post-surrender Germany in 1945 when that colonel, Rufus Bratton, was flagged down on the Berlin Autobahn and persuaded to ‘modify’ evidence against Marshall.”

FDR read all this Saturday night and said: “This means war.” Meanwhile, early Sunday morning, Colonel Bratton, who knew the attack was coming, but didn’t know the fix was in, desperately tried to find his boss, Marshall, who conveniently was out horseback riding. Bratton finally convinced Marshall he needed to go to his office, a ten minute trip. Marshall showed up an hour and fifteen minutes later.

Page 255: The Roberts Commission, named for Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen Roberts, conducted an “investigation.” Remember that the purpose of a federal investigation is to conceal and confuse the subject it is “investigating.” Sure enough, the commission was not allowed to see any evidence. Its report, issued on December 24, 1942, was not the Christmas present Short and Kimmel expected.

It absolved Marshall, another traitor President Stang would have hanged, and blamed Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Admiral James Richardson said: “It is the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office. I cannot conceive of honorable men serving on the commission without greatest regret and deepest feeling of shame.”

Stinnett says that four days after the attack, on December 11, Rear Adm. Leigh Noyes, U.S.N. director of communications, told his subordinates: “Destroy all notes or anything in writing.” Page 256: In 1945, Congress was denied access to those Japanese intercepts that would have proved Roosevelt knew. Admiral Ernest King threatened all Navy personnel who knew anything that, if they talked, they would lose all benefits and be imprisoned.

Page 302: From Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: on November 25, 1941, To First Air Fleet (Pearl Harbor Attack Force) “The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow. . . .” That was just one of the intercepts.

So what do we have? Franklin Roosevelt was a liar, a swindler, a robber, a traitor and a mass murderer. Notice that after doing everything he could for a couple of years to provoke the Japanese to attack us, he could at least have warned Admiral Kimmel and General Short, who would have acted immediately to save American lives.

He didn’t because he wanted as many killed as possible to overcome the almost unanimous American desire to stay out of the war. Had “not enough” been killed, had not enough damage been done, the attack on Pearl Harbor would not have been sufficiently convincing to qualify as a casus belli; it would have remained what the diplomats call an “incident,” like the Chinese Communist attack on that U.S. Navy plane early in 2001. Again, it is hard for the normal man to understand the Roosevelt mentality. He was obviously a satanic monster who should have been hanged beside Marshall.

The subtitle of this piece says Pearl Harbor proves that Nine Eleven is a fraud. How can something that happened sixty years before Nine Eleven prove it? What elements do they share, other than the odd fact that both enemy attacks killed about the same number of people?

One of the official elements of Nine Eleven says federal collusion in that enemy attack is unthinkable, because to think it would logically enmesh many of the highest officials in our government. Well paid Washington mouthpieces have used that fact to ridicule any hint of collusion. Treason on such a scale is inconceivable, we are told.

But at Pearl Harbor we have the incontrovertible, undeniable fact, even applauded by their supporters, that top government officials – from the President of the United States on down – conspired to attack the United States. When you know that, it becomes perfectly thinkable that a future President could have participated in another such attack. Rather than a reason for derision, it becomes a speculation worth considering if the facts lead in that direction.

Secondly, one of the arguments designed to discredit any speculation about government collusion says that it couldn’t be possible because so many people would need to be involved and someone eventually would talk. There would be too many people in the plot to keep the secret, according to this argument.

But look at all the people we know for sure were involved in the Pearl Harbor conspiracy. On page 318 of the Stinnett book, there is a list of 36 Americans cleared to read all Japanese intercepts in 1941. Many more people were aware of or involved in elements of the conspiracy. No one talked.

Remember, the Navy threatened everyone who could have talked with loss of benefits, even prison. If someone had, who would have listened? Even today, all these years later, even after Robert Stinnett’s vacuum cleaner research, a host of documents are still sequestered. Maybe as many people kept the secret of Pearl as so far have kept the secret of Nine Eleven.

Here is an example you will recall that proves why premises are so important. There was a time when the four-minute mile was physically “impossible.” A man just couldn’t run that fast. But in the year after medical student Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile, thirty seven other runners did so.

Can the excuses! Peel off the slime! Let’s nail the traitors who perpetrated Nine Eleven, whoever they are.

The full story in
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan18.htm

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

‘The (US) President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing’

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

 

 

‘The (US) President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing’

INTERVIEW WITH INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST SEYMOUR HERSH

SPIEGEL ONLINE – September 28, 2007, 11:58 AM

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has consistently led the way in telling the story of what’s really going on in Iraq and Iran. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke to him about America’s Hitler, Bush’s Vietnam, and how the US press failed the First Amendment.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?Seymour Hersh: A lot. And it’s been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what (IAEA head Mohamed) ElBaradei and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA’s best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they’ve been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn’t enough evidence to justify a bombing raid.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we’ve had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he’s not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That’s just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You’d think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can’t possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren’t there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?

Hersh: Oh no. We’re going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can’t have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I’d actually be relieved because I’d know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he’s doing God’s work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?

Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the “Surge” (eds. The “Surge” refers to President Bush’s commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it’s going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We’ve basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They’ve simply split.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?

Hersh: I think that’s a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:So what are the lessons of the Surge?

Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he’s talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He’s not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You’re going to have a Kurdistan. You’re going to have a Sunni area that we’re going to have to support forever. And you’re going to have the Shiites in the South.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the US is over four years into a war that is likely going to end in a disaster. How valid are the comparisons with Vietnam?

Hersh: The validity is that the US is fighting a guerrilla war and doesn’t know the culture. But the difference is that at a certain point, because of Congressional and public opposition, the Vietnam War was no longer tenable. But these guys now don’t care. They see it but they don’t care.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If the Iraq war does end up as a defeat for the US, will it leave as deep a wound as the Vietnam War did?

Hersh: Much worse. Vietnam was a tactical mistake. This is strategic. How do you repair damages with whole cultures? On the home front, though, we’ll rationalize it away. Don’t worry about that. Again, there’s no learning curve. No learning curve at all. We’ll be ready to fight another stupid war in another two decades.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of course, preventing that is partially the job of the media. Have reporters been doing a better job recently than they did in the run-up to the Iraq War?

Hersh: Oh yeah. They’ve done a better job since. But back then, they blew it. When you have a guy like Bush who’s going to move the infamous Doomsday Clock forward, and he’s going to put everybody in jeopardy and he’s secretive and he doesn’t tell Congress anything and he’s inured to what we write. In such a case, we (journalists) become more important. The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I’m asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they’re going to have to live with it.

URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,508394,00.html

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

RACIST : LINGUISTIC TERRORISM

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

RACIST : LINGUISTIC TERRORISM

Malcom Lagauche

speakenglish.jpg

Philadelphia steak house owner’s regulations

December 16, 2007

When I returned to my home country, the U.S., in 1983, after living in Europe for eight years a friend told me there were all kinds of jobs in the San Diego area. He was wrong. Southern California, and most of the U.S., was going through hard times for employment. This was the period when “Reaganomics” had taken a foothold. For three months, I took a job as a car salesman at a Renault dealership. The business was as slimy as any one could be without being shut down. And, this was one of San Diego’s cleanest car dealers.

After three months of selling cars, I found another job in a retail sports outlet. On the day of my resignation, I had to attend the daily meeting before I gave my notice.

The owner of the business began the meeting with an accolade for one of the salesman. The prior day, he had set the company record for the largest gross profit on a car sale. As the salesman stood up, the owner announced the historical transaction sale asked, “Why did you get such a gross profit on the sale, Chuck?” After straightening out his false teeth and his wig, Chuck told the assemblage, “Cuz the dumb fucks don’t speak no English.” (Translation: The unwitting dupes did not have a comprehensive knowledge of the English language.)

I went home and made a few phone calls. Then, in the early afternoon, I returned to the dealership to announce my resignation. Gone was the mirthful atmosphere that permeated the business only a few hours earlier.

Chuck was sitting in a chair and his hairpiece was about 30 degrees off. “What’s wrong?” I asked. He replied, “When they went to the bank to get a loan on the difference between the down payment and the sale, the bank denied them the loan. We charged too much.” I grinned and asked, “Who’s the dumb fuck now?” Chuck opened his mouth a couple of times, yet said nothing. He scratched his head while he tried to understand what I had just asked him.

The car in question had a sales tag of $7,000. Chuck threw a bunch of figures together and upped the price to $14,000. In those days, a factory-recommended price did not have to appear on the car.

The “dumb fucks” were two Polish businessmen who came to San Diego to work with an international marketing firm. They gave a $7,000 down payment (the actual full price for the car) and went to get a loan on the remaining $7,000. The bank looked at its book of car values (the Kelly Blue Book) and saw they were conned.

The dealership had to sell the car to the Poles for $5,800 (slightly less than the dealer had to pay) so the bank would not press fraud charges. The Poles left the dealership with a new Renault Alliance and a $1,200 refund.

I bring up this story because of the attitude of many U.S. citizens is that if one does not speak English, he/she is dim-witted. For some reason, many Americans equate the lack of knowledge of the English language to stupidity.

We have seen ridiculous measures taken by U.S. politicians in attempting to cleanse the U.S. of non-English speakers:

  • U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced legislation that the U.S. national anthem be sung only in English. Alexander alleged that there have been 389 versions of the U.S. national anthem in differing musical styles, but a recent Spanish-language version was the first not to be in English. (I wonder how he came up with the figure of 389.)
  • The U.S. Senate passed two resolutions advocating the exclusivity of the English language in the U.S. It voted 63-34 to make English the national U.S. language. Later, it voted 58-39 to make English the country’s “common and unifying language.”
  • The legislature of the State of Michigan voted 73-32 to make English the official language of the state. Currently, in Michigan, the state driver’s exam is offered in 20 languages. The new legislation, if passed by the state senate, would enable Michigan to offer it only in English.

This recent surge in “English only” is nothing more than a bigoted response to immigrants living in the U.S. It has absolutely no merit and its results could be devastating as the millions of immigrants in the U.S. fall further behind in assimilating to U.S. culture.

Nationwide, the cuts in English as a Second Language (ESL) programs have been deep. And, who champions taking money away from the ESL programs? The same politicians who are strong supporters of “English only” in the U.S.

Before the Senate passed the two preposterous measures, maybe its members should have researched the matter. Currently, in the U.S. there are two official bilingual states and three bilingual territories: Louisiana (English and French); Hawaii (Hawaiian English and Hawaiian); Puerto Rico (Spanish and English); Guam (Chamorro and English); and American Samoa (Samoan and English).

In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau printed its questionnaires in six languages: English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese (in traditional characters), Vietnamese and Tagalog. The “English only” movement seeks to establish English as the only official language of the entire nation.

In Maine, there are thousands of French speakers who can trace their U.S. roots back to the 18th century. In my home state of Rhode Island, once you cross the city line into Woonsocket, French speakers outnumber “English only” speakers. Pennsylvania has many German speaking inhabitants. The list goes on and on. In fact, about 25% of U.S. households speak a language other than English as a first choice. These households consist of recent immigrants as well as citizens who can track their U.S. heritage back for generations.

There are hundreds of Native American languages spoken in the U.S. Unfortunately, many are close to extinction. Only recently have real efforts been made to revive them. For instance, the Jamul Band of Mission Indians is located about five miles from my house. The band consists of about 55 members. A few decades ago, there were more members of the tribe and all spoke the Jamul dialect of the Kumeyaay language. Today, there are seven speakers of the Jamul dialect left and only one is capable of teaching the language to others. He is 87 years old. Fortunately, in the early 1990s, a colleague of mine who is currently the head of the language section of the University of Florida, spent a few years chronicling the language and putting it in writing. It had been a spoken language previously and no one had ever written it.

According to language expert Edward Sapir:

Few people realize that within the confines of the United States there is spoken today a far greater variety of languages … than in the whole of Europe. We may go further. We may say, quite literally and safely, that in the state of California alone there are greater and more numerous linguistic extremes that can be illustrated in all the length and breadth of Europe. In 1978, I and my wife traveled to Cornwall. We were enchanted. Upon returning to London, I went to several libraries and gathered as much information as I could about the southwestern portion of Great Britain that we just visited. I discovered that the Cornish language at one time flourished (about 40,000 speakers), but it eventually became less-and-less utilized. In 1978, there were only 120 Cornish-speaking people left in the world. Today, after concerted efforts to revive the language, there are about 5,000. The success was, in part, due to the British government bringing attention to the fact that the language was dying. The government, and various other groups, put money and time into reviving the Cornish language.

In today’s U.S., just the opposite is occurring. The government is hell-bent on wiping out any diversity of language. If this program (and attitude) is prevalent for a decade or more, Native American languages will be dropping like flies. The American public will be deprived of the beauty and diversity of varying languages.

One thing really puzzles me. If people like Chuck think foreigners are stupid, why do they speak English so miserably? About a decade or so ago, the “English only” bandwagon began to roll. Today, it is moving ahead at full steam. During the same period, the U.S. public’s use and knowledge of the English language have plummeted. The English used by mainstream America today is horrible. Sentences end with !!!?! instead of a period. “It’s” is commonly used as the word to designate the possessive of the word “it.” The words “then” and “than” are used interchangeably. “Where’s it at?” is the most brutal and ignorant form of redundancy, yet it is common. And, when is the last time someone has asked for your “social security number?” Probably not for a few years. The question today is “what’s your social?” When asked this, I reply, “Social what? Social status? Meager.”

Overall, the U.S. citizenry butchers the English language into a derelict form that is almost impossible to understand. Yet, these same people who fracture the language are now calling for everybody to speak English only. If they have such an affinity for English, they should lead by example. Fat chance.

The current “English only” attitude in the U.S. reflects the government’s, and, unfortunately, the U.S. culture’s, desire to rule the planet. It can accurately be described as inguistic terrorism.

The full story in
http://uruknet.info/?p=m39250&hd=&size=1&l=e

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Inconvenient Truth – America’s Gulags

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

The Inconvenient Truth – America’s Gulags

Washington’s disregard for human rights appalls former president

Chris Gelken (chrisg)

What a great day for quotes.

“I’m going to speak an inconvenient truth: my own country — the United States — is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali,” announced former Vice President Al Gore to appreciative applause from delegates to a U.N. climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia.

 

Half a world away, former President Jimmy Carter had another inconvenient truth. He told his audience at the Carter Center that the United States should be “embarrassed” for its appalling disregard for human rights. He said the notorious detention camps in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq would one day have their place in infamy as historic places where human rights were abused — drawing comparisons to Argentina, Chile, Poland, South Africa and the former Soviet Union.

He was speaking as the House of Representatives were preparing to vote on a bill to ban the practice of waterboarding, or simulated drowning, during the interrogation of terrorist suspects by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The bill passed, and intelligence officials are now required to observe the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture.

However, in a quite astonishing development, the White House has threatened to veto the measure, saying it would prevent the United States from using lawful methods to conduct interrogations of senior al-Qaeda suspects. Essentially, George Bush wants waterboarding to be made legal, so intelligence officers can conduct lawful interrogations.

This from a president who has declared very clearly on a number of occasions, “The United States does not use torture.”

When a chief executive makes such a broad and sweeping — and given the evidence, patently ridiculous statement — then you know we are in trouble. Of course intelligence officers and policemen use varying degrees of torture. The only question is whether that torture is officially sanctioned. And in the case of the United States, apparently it is.

Author and United Nations correspondent, Matthew Lee told PressTV during an interview, “There are some people who always use this example of the ticking bomb. If you had a suspect who knew where a bomb was that would blow up a million people, would you be willing to waterboard him then?”

He said clearly the vote would go along partisan lines, but there are some in Congress who are in favor of waterboarding. Actually, 199 of them are indeed in favor of the process and voted against the bill, but the 222 who opposed torture carried the day by a simple, but small majority.

The interrogation techniques used against suspects reemerged as a controversial issue this week after it was revealed that video tapes — allegedly showing excessive torture during the questioning of terror suspects — had been destroyed by the CIA. Their excuse? The tapes might reveal the identities of the interrogators and compromise their security. No doubt.

Unfortunately for the CIA, a U.S. court had prohibited the destruction of evidence of detainee torture or abuse some three months before the tapes in question were destroyed. However, there is a loophole big enough to drive an elephant through. The court order only covered the prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq — and made no reference to the secret detention centers maintained by the United States in third countries.

“There’s a dispute,” says Lee, “There was a court order saying no tapes of interrogations in Guantanamo could be destroyed. But apparently the tapes they admitted destroying were filmed in these secret prisons that the U.S. has been running outside of the country.”

It could be argued, Lee said, that the tapes recorded the interrogations of individuals who were defendants in legal trials, and under normal circumstances the agents would have known it would be illegal to destroy them, whether or not they were covered by this particular court order.

“Obviously the decision to destroy these tapes came from very high up,” Lee said.

President Bush has publically acknowledged the existence of the secret prison system, but few details have since emerged.

How many of these detention centers are there and how many people are being detained? Well, we simply don’t know.

“There have been some reports in the Washington Post and elsewhere,” said Lee, “but really the impression is this is just the tip of the iceberg. Honestly, nobody knows how many people the U.S. is holding and where they are being held. That is a big problem.”

The U.S. government, he said, is certainly never going to give a full inventory of these secret prisons. “People find out about them, and I think for some of them the transit point for prisoners has been in the European Union,” Lee said, but whenever there is a report about the alleged location of a prison it breaks all sorts of local laws and conventions, “So I think the U.S. has to move these things further and further underground .”

And, of course, further away from public scrutiny and the eyes of the court system.

Strange that we are talking about the United States, because all of this does sound so much like Chile under Pinochet, or the Soviet Union under Stalin. And this is no conspiracy theory, it’s an admitted fact. Secret prisons, torture, destruction of evidence. A U.S. gulag archipelago stretching around the world. A scary thought, isn’t it?

Perhaps it has always been like this, and through the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration, we are only now beginning to discover the truth. Who knows?

There is still that question hanging, though. That moral dilemma. As Lee put it, if you had a suspect who knew where the ticking bomb was located, would you use torture to save innocent lives?

But before you answer, remember, it’s a slippery slope. How do you know you have the right man? Before you know it, you could be saying, “Better safe than sorry, torture them all.”

The full story in
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?no=381237&rel_no=1

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Fallacy of Terrorism

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Fallacy of Terrorism

Role of Canadian Intelligence Agencies to Terrorize Citizens

By Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.

12/16/07 “ICH” — – -Do cruelty, falsehood and wickedness have known faces and shapes? Only if you have experienced it, you will know it. If so, would you not strive to seek the protection of law and ultimate goal of justice? The quest for justice itself presupposes injustice. In Western democracies, manufactured “suspicion” and individual opinions, not the facts of life, are fast becoming the criterion measurement of legal provisions to prosecute innocent citizens as alleged terrorist across North America and Europe. Guatanama Bay could well be identified as the “Abu Ghraib” of America. The American led “ war of choice”: perpetual war creating perpetual fear contributing to perpetual profits, the mutual alliance of the governments and mass media networks to carve up images of Muslims and Islam as the focused creed of alleged terrorism. Eric Margolis (“ The big lie about ‘Islamic Fascism’”: Aug 28, 2006), a distinguished Canadian journalist quotes the observation of Sir Peter Ustinov: “terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.”

Canadian Maher Arar was the first victim. He was guilty of traveling thru JFK shortly after the 9/11 attacks, but Canadian intelligence agencies identified him as a fundamentalist and security risk. He was suspected to have been involved in something that later on Canadian establishments could not prove except they arranged third party torture and victimize him for long time. The political dictum of “suspicion” was used to imprison Maher Arar in Syria. How conveniently suspicion was transformed into accepted norm to arrest, imprison and torture Muslims throughout the Western world. “Suspicion” became the threshold for police actions, not the societal laws to use force to demonstrate the opinions and preconceived notions of the few minority elite against the citizens.. History was re-enacted not learnt from, when people of Japanese origin were interned in Canada and the US during the 2nd WW. It was suspicion implied as law of the land – a political, moral and legal injustice to the citizens of Canada and America who had no role to play in the making of the WW2. Half century later, both Canada and the US offered apology to those either in graveyards or their succeeding generations kept the harsh memory of sufferings alive. After the Maher Arar tragedy, it was Dr. Khawaja and his family, the next targeted victims of the “War on Terror.” According to the Globe and Mail (July 18, 2005), President Bush had instructed Paul Martin to “fix Khawaja.” On March 29, 2004, Canadian Intelligence armed brigade attacked the Khawaja family residence in Orleans and at gunpoint arrested his wife and school children were called out of the classroom under the guise of “bomb making” but found no evidence to support the accusation. The newspaper Citizens and CBC were instrumental to falsify the information base and articulated fear mongering fictitious episode to misinform the public. While this stunt was staged near the capital, the agency formally requested Saudi Arabia to detain Dr. Khawaja who was teaching in a university. What were the charges against as per the documentary evidence? He is father of accused Momin Khawaja, who since March 2004 is a political prisoner of conscience at a Canadian detention center without a trial on charges of “terrorism” involvement in the UK case of March 2004. The then Security Minister Ms. Anne McClellan denied ever requesting a foreign government to arrest the scholar. The real world events and documentary evidence provide a different picture that the Canadian Government was lying to safeguard its illegal action against its own citizen. Does a political Minister ever lie? Do agents of intelligence services ever lie? The honorable Judge presiding over the Maher Arar investigation clearly pointed out the history of misinformation and lies involving the official intelligence organizations. Consequently, the Chief of the one of the intelligence agency was asked to resign.

To poison the mindset of soft-hearted Canadian public thru the media screen, young Momin was chained to show the public that he is abnormal and dangerous to public interest, not that he has done anything wrong or illegal. Four years later, his case has not gone to trial because the government has no tangible evidence to prove the accusation in a public court. The prosecution uses dogmas, not facts that a secret trial should be conducted to protect the interest of the state. In a democratic valued society as Canada is, how ridiculous it seems that if the prosecution is sure of its claim, why not have an open public trial? Why to look for escape from the real world? After all, what is so secret about political terrorism? Does it mean that informed public will no longer trust in the official version and realize that it was a political trial, not a criminal case to start with? Consequently, the masses will point finger at the continuing failure of the intelligence services to use “suspicion”, and not the law of the land to prosecute its own citizens. Now the prosecution insists on a secret trial of Momin Khawaja whereas public opinions are questioning the official dictum. For Four years, Momin has been imprisoned for unproven allegations under the law of suspicion to have participated in some conspiracy to bomb making theory. The defense lawyer Mr. Greenspon argues to have access to secret files on terror suspect and clarifies that “MOMIN KHAWAJA IS AT RISK OF BEING WRONGLY CONVICTED…and “THAT HE COULD BE WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED FOR LIFE IF THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS ON WITHHOLDING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IT ADMITS IS RELEVANT TO HIS DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISM CHARGES.” Contrary to this, the prosecution claims that an open trial would harm the national security and relations with foreign governments. To defy logic and facts, the prosecution contends two distinct orders of TRUTH. Truth is One, not many, that it is a political trial as it is being identified by the Canadian Justice Department to be mindful of “security policy” and relations with foreign governments – as the reasoning to hold the secret trial. In democratic governance, the official opinion is flawed, secret trials are a negation of liberty, human rights, freedom and justice – justice delayed is justice denied. Momin and his family are continued to be punished, not because they are guilty of any crimes except on suspicion; they are being treated as guilty of crimes without committing any crimes. In several communication, Dr. Khawaja asked the Federal Minster, why he and his family are being systematically victimized? The Minister would only reply with “no comments.” Amnesty International asked the Canadian Government the same question but got abstract reply. Would the new Progressive Conservative Canadian Government review its policy and take initiative to apologize from the innocent victims of its inherited policy on terrorism? Would it free Momin Khawaja after four years of harsh ordeal at a detention center? Would the current Minister of Security with first-hand knowledge of the issues initiate action and facilitate measures to deliver justice and compensate the Khawaja family for the state sponsored terrorism against its own citizens? After all President Bush is leaving the White House soon and perhaps Canada needs to see its own policy interest and national priorities rather than blindly follow the American adventures to undo the world peace and harmony. Eric Margolis sheds more light on the media created images fostered by the governmental policy sponsorship: “ In the Western world, hatred of Muslims has become a key ideological hallmark of rightwing parties. We see this overtly in the United States, France, Italy, Holland …and most lately Canada.”

End cannot be assumed based on the notion of “suspicion”, and dogmas cannot replace truth to explain the facts of human life. When facts live in denial, dogmas construct dark illusions to assert the political agenda for encroachment of human rights, dignity and real freedom. The Canadian intelligence apparatus enjoys history of flawed record to victimize people under the “war on terror.” Given the obvious public mistrust, they seem to be overwhelmingly occupied in building castles over moving sand. British author and producer Adam Curtis (“Power of Nightmares re-awakened” BBC), made attempts to re-awaken the human conscience that the myth of international terrorism is a misleading political phenomenon to embark on American ambitions of global hegemony. Michael Meacher, MP and former UK Minister of Environment of Blair’s Cabinet points out to the same agenda (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus:”): “It seems that the so called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.” On the part of targeted victims of this war of choice is similar to those cases of the 2nd WW internment of people of Japanese, German and Italian origins in North America. The search for justice itself implies the pr-existence of injustice. Justice and societal harmony cannot be preached in the name of illegal detentions and systematic torture of the citizens. Targeted victims look to human conscience to stop the continued political cruelty, violations of human rights and travesty of justice. Those whose lives have been destroyed by the false official claims of terrorism, do ask the living and THINKING People of the globe, could there be two distinct orders of truth? Is there any legal stipulations in Canada to prosecute state sponsored terrorism and wickedness?

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja, the author is a political scientist with interests in strategic studies and comparative cultures and civilizations affairs of Muslims and the West, and author of several publications including: Muslims and the West: Quest for Change and Conflict Resolution and “Pakistan: Enigma of Change.”

The full story in
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18902.htm

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A funny list of dumb laws in the United States -Florida

Posted by musliminsuffer on December 17, 2007

bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

A funny list of dumb laws in the United States –Florida

• (SARASOTA) It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.
• Apparently with an exaggerated idea of the laws of thermal dynamics, the city council of West Palm Beach, Fla., once decreed that the roofs of all outhouses be fireproof.
• A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
• Big Pine Key: It is illegal to molest a Key deer; If caught one will be fined or will have to go to jail.
• Cape Coral: It is against the city ordinance to hang your clothes outside on a clothesline; It it illegal to park a pick-up truck in your driveway or in front of your house on the street (This law is limited to only those who do not own the house)
• Daytona Beach: The molestation of trash cans is banned; While intoxicated, being under influence of narcotics is prohibited; It shall be unlawful for any person to swim or bathe in that portion of the Atlantic Ocean within the corporate limits of the city when under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired;
• Don’t plan on using any of the celebratory Champagne bottle sizes known as Methuselahs, Salamanazars, Balthazars or Nebuchadnezzars. These very traditional Champagne bottle sizes are all illegal in Florida.
• Florida deals with its prostitution problem by giving prostitutes spending money, a five-year banishment, and a bus ticket out of town.
• Florida law forbids rats to leave the ships docked in Tampa Bay.
• Florida prohibits topless walking or running within a 150 foot zone between the beach and the street.
• Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.
• Hialeah: Ambling and strolling is a misdemeanor.
• If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.
• In Florida failure to tell your neighbor his house is on fire is illegal.
• In Florida it is illegal to fish while driving across a bridge.
• In Florida, a special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
• In Florida, men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
• In Florida, unmarried women who parachute on Sundays may be jailed.
• In Miami, Florida it is illegal for a man to wear any kind of strapless gown.
• In Miami, it is forbidden to imitate an animal.
• In Miami, it’s illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
• Miami Shores Village, Fla., has for years required that all goods made in Communist countries and offered for sale in Miami Shores Village be clearly marked as such. The ordinance notes that such goods are often marked in a “false, misleading or inadequate manner, to hide their Communist origins.”
• In Sarasota it is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.
• In Saratoga, Florida it is illegal to sing while wearing a bathing suit.
• It is considered an offense to shower naked.
• It is illegal to block any traveled wagon road.
• It is illegal to fart in a public place after 6:00pm on a Thursday.
• It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.
• It is illegal to skateboard without a license.
• It’s against a Key West, Fla., ordinance to spit on a church floor.
• It’s illegal in Florida for an unmarried man and woman to live together in “open and gross lewdness.” Connecticut once had a similar law, but only the woman was penalized.
• Key West: Chickens are considered a ‘protected species’.
• Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
• Miami: It is illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown; No person shall operate a bicycle unless it is equipped with a bell or device capable of giving a signal audible for a distance of at least 100 feet, but no bicycle shall be equipped with, nor shall any person use upon a bicycle, any siren or whistle.
• Oral sex is illegal.
• Penalty for horse theft is death by hanging.
• Pensacola: Citizens may not be caught downtown without at least 10 dollars on their person; It is illegal to roll a barrel on any street, fines go up according to the contents of the barrel; A women can be fined (only after death), for being electrocuted in a bath-tub because of using self-beautification utensils.
• Pinecrest: In order to operate a burglar alarm, a permit must be obtained.
• Sanford Stage: Nudity is banned, with the exception of “bona fide” theatrical performances. Violating this ordinance results in a $100 fine.
• Sarasota: If you hit a pedestrian you are fined $78.00; You may not catch crabs.
• Tampa Bay: It is illegal to eat cottage cheese on Sunday after 6:00 P.M.
• Under a 1959 ordinance, stubborn children were considered vagrants in Jupiter Inlet Colony, Fla.
• When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
• Women can be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer. The salon owner can also be fined for this horrible crime.
• Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner.
• You are not allowed to break more than three dishes per day, or chip the edges of more than four cups and/or saucers.
• You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.
• You may not kiss your wife’s breasts.

The full story in
http://www.bored.com/crazylaws/index.htm

===

-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »