Skip to content

Dash Cam Video Reveals Police Tried to Cover Up Misconduct in OK EMT Incident

June 14, 2009
Kurt Nimmo
June 14, 2009

A recently released police dash camera video reveals the truth about a May 24 “altercation” between Oklahoma Highway Patrolman Daniel Martin and EMT worker Maurice White on May 24.

The video, released by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, clearly shows Martin assaulting White on the side of the road in Okfuskee County, Oklahoma. A cell phone video of the assault posted on YouTube received well over a million views and was the second most-watched video on May 30.

Fox 23 in Tulsa filed a Freedom of Information request for the dash cam but the OHP stonewalled the request. Late on June 12, the department finally released the video. It was posted on YouTube on June 13. Earlier reports in the media claimed police had turned off the dash cam before Martin assaulted the EMT worker.

“We’ve been well aware of the fact that this incident has drawn enormous attention, but made the decision to protect the integrity of the investigation, any and all relevant evidence, as well as the rights of the department employees,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol spokesman Capt. Chris West told Fox.

In fact, police did not release the video because it shows Martin assaulting White without provocation. After threatening White and putting him in a chokehold, Martin called for backup. He repeatedly threatened the EMT operators, unleashed obscenities, and pinned White against the EMT vehicle.

The police video confirms what witnesses on the scene reported — Martin was out of control and assaulted the EMT worker.

Police initially said the EMT vehicle failed to yield and this was the reason Martin confronted White, assaulted him and threatened to arrest him. But the police video reveals that the EMT was unable to immediately yield due to a car pulling over in the breakdown lane on the side of the road.

“He slowed down, and as the car was getting over, that’s when he passed us,” Kenyada Davis told News 9 in Oklahoma City. The EMT was transporting Davis’ elderly mother to the hospital when the incident occurred.

Martin claims the paramedics not only failed to yield but they also flipped him off. White and EMT driver Paul Franks said it was a gesture of surprise and Martin misunderstood.

Martin claimed he was responding to a stolen car report. It was later revealed his wife was in the police car. After the cell phone video appeared on YouTube and the OHP came under withering criticism, Martin was put on paid leave.

The Okfuskee County District Attorney’s Office initially said it would charge White with obstructing a police officer. On June 5, however, Okfuskee County decided not to charge the EMT or the trooper and announced the case would be dropped. The dash cam video clearly shows White did not obstruct Martin and the cop assaulted the EMT worker.

“After careful consideration off all fact and circumstance, it does not appear it would be appropriate to file charges against (Maurice) White or any other person involved. Although, I do not condone their actions, I do not believe that filing charges at this time would serve the best interests of the public or interests of justice. It has been my experience that emergency service providers generally work well together, and it was disappointing to see a situation where that clearly did not happen,” district attorney Max Cook told KTUL 8.

The OHP attempt to stonewall requests for the police video demonstrate the lengths the state will go to cover up the violent behavior of police officers who are nothing more than jackbooted thugs ruthlessly preying on not only emergency workers but the public at large. Increasingly, police departments around the country are hiring thugs – many veterans of the war in Iraq – who are expected to act like brownshirted gangsters and react violently when citizens question or resist their criminal behavior.

Trooper Daniel Martin needs to be fired and a message sent that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. If you believe Martin should be fired, sign the “Fire Oklahoma Highway Patrolman Daniel Martin” petition and send the OHP and police around the country a strong message.


Major 9/11 Truth Breakthrough!!! KBDI Denver Airs 9/11 Press for Truth

June 8, 2009


June 06, 2009

It was a big big day at the KBDI Five Points Media center for 9/11 Truth.

Having developed a relationship with the Denver metro area local PBS broadcasting station for over the last 3 years by simply taking donation phones calls, in exchange for a few minutes to talk to the audience about the 9/11 cover up, Colorado Visibility 9/11 has succeeded in making history.

KBDI aired the groundbreaking documentary film 9/11 Press for Truth June 4, 2009 during prime time with well over an hours worth of interviews with film producers Kyle Hence and Ray Nowosielski, and also powerful testimony from Bob McIlvaine.

Station managers and VP were extremely pleased as to how well this documentary was received and should be commend for doing what no other station has done in the nation and air a controversial film exposing the cover up of the 9/11 tragedy by our government.

The station Press Release reflects the excitement and enthusiasm of the Colorado’s 9/11 Truth community hailing this a major step forward and encouraging other stations to air this incredible documentary film.

This is being touted as one of the most successful fund raising events in station history and proves that people are dying for real answers about that day.

The Way to World Government

June 5, 2009

We are experiencing an economical crisis which is – like the one in and after 1929 – created by the biggest sharks of the Wall Streets It seems that no one can or will stop the crisis – as though it is to be allowed to crash the world economy completely – in order to give a larger proportion of our money to those behind the crisis as well as more political control of the world. Let us see how they are managing to do so.

Demanding the end of national currencies, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR´s) “Foreign Affairs” May/June 2007 wrote: Globalization and monetary nationalism are a dangerous combination, a cause of financial crises and geopolitical tension. The world needs to abandon unwanted currencies, replacing them with dollars, euros, and multinational currencies as yet unborn

Reuters March 17, 2009: The day before he returned to the U.S. Treasury for six weeks to help the understaffed Obama administration, Edwin Truman published a proposal to give the International Monetary Fund more firepower to fight the financial crisis: a one-off $250 billion allocation of  Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to IMF member states. It could be sort of a global central bank printing money which could lead to inflation.

Think of the Special Drawing Rights as you like. Some see them and by and by the dollar, too, in this way.

The CFR supports the IMF solution cautuiously . In 2007, CFT Alan Greenspan suggested the euro to take the role of international reserve valuta instead of the dollar

March 26, 2009 Paul Watson, Prison planet: One day the US Secretary of the Treasury telles Congress that he opposed to a new World reserve currency, the next day he tells the elitist CFR that he is open to it!

But what is behind this?

Pres. Sarkozy and Prime Minister Gordon Brown as of Oct. 2008 called for the IMF to be the international money control organ demanding it to be reinforced by another 250bn dollars so as to have 500bn dollars at its disposal. In the meantime , Mr. Brown demands an 450bn instead – and US Secr. of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, an 750bn dollars more for the IMF.  Now the Chinese Central Bank chief has joined the demand: The Telegraph 27 March 2009:  The Chinese proposal, outlined this week by central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan, calls for a “super-sovereign reserve currency” under IMF management, turning the Fund into a sort of world central bank. The idea is that the IMF should activate its Special Drawing Rights. These SDRs would expand their role over time, becoming a “widely-accepted means of payments“.

Now in The Times on March 27, China´s Vice-Prime Minister, Mr. Wang Qishan, confirmed Chinas readiness to support such an upgraded IMF financially.
Wall Street Journal 25 March confirms Mr. Zhou Xiaochuan´s proposal. “the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar’s role in the short term.” Like China, Russia recommended that the International Monetary Fund might issue the currency – and emphasized the need of a new super reserve currency. But Russia now demands gold in the currency basket of the IMF – a titbit for Rothschild in particular.

Read entire article

Yep, It’s Thermite! So Much for the “Oxygen” Excuse

June 3, 2009


Above Tob Secret

March 6, 2009

Unlike our anonymous GL’s, I took it upon myself to contact Dr. Jones and ask
about the reasoning for the presence of oxygen during the DSC testing.

It turns out that our GL’s know nothing about this DSC testing and are simply
blowing smoke. 24 knot smoke at that

This is my message to and from Dr. Jones received only minutes ago:

Dr. Jones,

I read through your thermite dust study and found it quite fascinating.
You, and the other scientists have ruffled many feathers in the loyalist

The most popular excuse is that the experiments are invalid because
oxygen was present during the DSC testing.

Aside from other proof such as the chemical signature, mircoscopic images
and energy release compared to the control sample, what is the proper
response to those who use the ‘oxygen’ excuse in a debate?

My thought thus far is that the control sample was also tested in air, yet
the “chip samples” were able to produce a higher energy peak over a shorter
duration of time – proving explosive, and energetic material is present in the dust.

Is this accurate?

Thanks again for your quick reply!



Your answer is a good start — more importantly, we find that iron oxide has been reduced to iron in the process, as we find spheres in the ignition residue which have more iron than oxygen.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres shows the thermite reaction because:
1. elemental iron is produced, and
2. very high temperatures were reached, beyond that which can be reached by burning hydrocarbons, to produce molten iron and iron oxide — as shown by the formation of spheres.

We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite — see Fig. 29 in our paper.

Further discussion on the nanothermite discovery can be found here:…

— a discussion between Swedish nanoscientist Prof. Nilsen and myself at the bottom. I have responded to him as you will see, and await a further response from him Here is the start of that discussion:

Attachment from Nilsen (grey) with comments from Jones (white) :

I wish to thank you for a careful reading of the paper. I will answer and comment point by point after initial comments.

You write: “If one first assumes that the red scales are of paint, and on metallic iron. Then it is easy to assume that the paint may be some sort of corrosion inhibition layer.”

We have learned the composition of the “corrosion inhibition” or primer paint actually used on the WTC towers from a NIST document; see attached paper by Prof. Niels Harrit (Univ. of Copenhagen and first author on the paper). We find that zinc, chromium and magnesium are significant components of the paint used – yet these elements are ABSENT from the red material, as demonstrated in Figure 7 of our paper. Thus, the red chips cannot be the primer paint used.

On the other hand, the elements which are present in the red chips, namely aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon (Fig. 7) – are precisely those expected in formulations of nano-thermite as described in the literature and delineated in the paper.

Furthermore, iron oxide is found in grains approximately 100 nm across and aluminum in plate-like structures about 40 nm thick – and these particles appear quite uniform and intimately mixed across the four separate samples. It is this ultra-fine, nano-scale structure of the Al and iron oxide in the red material that is emphasized in the paper, which we expect for nanothermite, and that we ask Prof. Nilsen to address. (The term “nano” does not yet appear in your comments to us, perhaps an oversight.)

Best wishes,

Steven Jones

“Just A Child With A Temper”

June 3, 2009

William N. Grigg
Pro Libertate
May 31, 2009

Caveat lector: This post contains some subject-appropriate unsavory language.

He’s drunk again, it’s time to fight; she must have done something wrong tonight….

“Hey, it’s no big deal — I just slipped and hit my face on a doorknob,” said Joy by way of explaining the huge contusion discoloring her face.

This wasn’t the first time she had shown up to work with a black eye or other suspicious injury she insisted was the product of some bizarre accident growing out of her incurable clumsiness. Curiously, Joy was not noticeably maladroit when tending to her duties as a waitress for a chain restaurant where I worked while going to college.

A plain but very nice woman on the wrong side of 35, she was easy to work with and put in long hours to help keep her household afloat. She lived with an unemployed, live-in “fiance,” or what I called a “degenerate freeloader.”

Whenever Joy would come to work bearing the visible evidence of a beating and urging us to believe some elaborate tale of innocent self-inflicted misfortune, none of us believed her. But none of us had evidence sufficient to justify prying into her domestic affairs, and she reacted so badly to the broad hints several of us dropped that we didn’t persist.

Just tell the nurse you slipped and fell; it starts to sting as it starts to swell….

Unlike many episodes of suspected domestic abuse, there is no ambiguity in the case of Irma Marquez, a 45-year-old woman from Yonkers, New York. She was physically assaulted, in public, in front of several witnesses; the incident was captured clearly on a surveillance videotape.

 The abuse resulted in “a head injury with related loss of consciousness, memory loss, jaw fracture, two black eyes, facial contusions, severe swelling and bruising, hemorrhaging in both eyes, lacerations to the nose, chin and mouth, neck and back pain, bruising and/or lacerations about the back, arms, hands, right knee, right leg, right hip, [and] right breast….”

Were we to take seriously a verdict by a federal jury, the injuries sustained by Marquez were immaculately inflicted. No other human being is responsible — according to that jury — for the wounds that disfigured the 44-year-old home health worker. That’s because she was injured at the hands of a police officer, who was never charged with criminal assault.

On Wednesday (May 26), a federal jury ruled that Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes didn’t
violate Marquez’s civil rights when he lifted her from her feet and slammed her face-first into the floor of the La Fonda restaurant on March 3, 2007.

Simoes was one of several police officers dispatched to deal with a drunken melee at La Fonda. When they got there, Marquez — who had obviously had a bit too much to drink — was concerned about her niece, who had been injured in the brawl.

The aftermath of the non-abuse experienced by the oddly unfortunate Irma Marquez.

As medical workers attended the young woman, Marquez — out of understandable concern, but with dubious judgment — stooped down to get a better look. She was pushed away, stumbling into a couple of officers, including Simoes.

Marquez, who was unsteady on her feet and visibly uncooperative, should have been escorted out of the room. There was no reason to arrest her. A generation ago a conscientious police officer would have displayed sufficient patience and self-restraint to remove her from the room without strong-arm tactics.

Simoes, on the other hand, clearly subscribes to a doctrine of more recent vintage under which any lack of immediate, servile compliance by a civilian is to be treated as a criminal offense and grounds for arrest — if not potentially lethal force, as in eletro-shock torture administered via Taser.

The videotape shows Simoes starting to jack Marquez’s arm behind her back in order to handcuff her. Given the lack of legal justification for the arrest, this was an act of criminal battery.

He then compounds that offense by bear-hugging her from behind, shifting his footwork under perfect control, and then picking her up and face-slamming her to the floor. This was a move Simoes had probably practiced on many occasions, and most likely was simply dying to use on someone. What better subject than a small, drunken, middle-aged female?

Nothing to see here — just move along: Irma Marquez, who was not abused by Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes, recuperates from the non-abuse she didn’t experience at his hands. At the time this photo was taken, in fact, Marquez stood accused of “disorderly conduct” and second-degree obstruction of governmental administration.

Notice the reaction — or the lack thereof — by the other police officers on the scene: A woman has just been violently face-planted into the floor, and she lies bleeding at their feet, yet none of them moves to render aid, or to rebuke her assailant. Simoes followed up his attack on Marquez not by checking to see if she was all right, but by placing his knee in her back and handcuffing her.

Testifying at the trial, Officer John Liberatore stated that Simoes clearly used excessive force against Marquez. He also recalled asking his partner, Officer Todd Mendelson, “What the f*** just happened?” Mendleson’s reaction was an indifferent shrug.

When the defense pointed out that Liberatore hadn’t offered the same account to internal affairs investigators prior to the trial, he replied, quite plausibly, that he was reluctant to “point a finger at a fellow officer.” It’s hardly surprising that Liberatore’s reluctance disintegrated when he was compelled to testify under oath and liable to perjury charges if he withheld the “whole truth.”

Captain Edward Geiss, the on-scene commander, testified that although he didn’t “think he intended to hurt her the way he did,” his first reaction after seeing Marquez’s bloodied face was to summon an Internal Affairs team to the scene.

Simoes‘ defense counsel, which mocked the prosecution’s case as a matter of “just press play,” enlisted the help of “expert witness” Grant Fredericks, a former FBI analyst, whose job was to provide a “narrative” for the video compatible with the defense’s argument. In plainer terms, his job was to obfuscate what was clearly shown by laying down a dense fog of double-speak.

Fredericks insisted that the video’s capture speed was inadequate to capture critical details; this was essentially an invitation to accept his word that he discerned evidence of “things unseen” that prove Simoes had slipped and dropped Marquez, rather than throwing her to the floor.

After planting that suggestion, Fredericks broke down the video clip into into more than one hundred still photos, insisting as he reviewed them that the demonstrated that the officer had lost control once he had taken Marquez off the floor. But neither he, nor any other defense witness, explained why Simoes had picked the woman up in the first place.

Leaving aside the fact that the video clearly shows that Simoes was sure-footed during the entire attack, once he had placed violent hands on Marquez and removed her from the floor, he became responsible for whatever happened to her as a result of his actions. That’s how the matter would have been treated if it had involved someone who didn’t wear a state-issued costume.

Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes

Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes

The prosecution countered Fredericks with its own FBI-trained “expert” video analyst, Alan Fuller. Furthermore, the trial judge, Kenneth Karas, instructed the jury to disregard Fredericks‘ assessment of Simoes‘ actions. This effectively left the defense without a case.

Nonetheless, the jury of twelve good men and true — actually, eight men and four women — acquitted Simoes on the basis that they couldn’t determine his intent to injure Marquez on the basis of his documented actions. Again, it’s impossible to believe that the jury would have been inclined to draw such sophistical pseudo-Kantian distinctions if the accused had been anyone other than one of the state’s consecrated agents of holy violence.

“I have always had faith in the justice system,” smarmed Yonkers mayor Phil Amicone following the trial. “In this case, a verdict was rendered by twelve people who found that there was no act of excessive force.”

With that in mind, look at Irma Marquez’s face once again. Apparently, the injuries she sustained were the product of proportionate force, used to deal with a distraught woman whose “offense” was to take excessive interest in the well-being of her niece.

This brings us to the crowning injury inflicted by Simoes on his victim: While Marquez was bleeding at his feet, Simoes was preparing to file criminal charges against her for “disorderly conduct” and second-degree “obstruction of governmental administration.”

The former isn’t a crime, in anything other than a positivist sense, unless it interferes with the rights or property of another individual; the latter is quite frequently a moral obligation. Beating a woman bloody is not “proportionate” force for dealing with those “offenses,” either jointly or separately.

Even though Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore didn’t see fit to file criminal charges against the bully who face-planted Marquez, she zealously prosecuted the victim on spurious criminal charges that were quickly disposed of by a jury in May 2008.

High-gloss hypocrite: Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore.

High-gloss hypocrite: Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore.

Before becoming D.A., Janet DiFiore “lectured extensively” on, inter alia, domestic violence. She also served as a family court judge and served on the County Commission on Domestic Violence.

In fact,  her campaign literature boasted of the fact that as a family court judge DiFiore had presided over “hundreds” of domestic violence cases.

I sincerely doubt that any of those previous domestic violence cases involved prosecuting the victim for supposed offenses against the assailant.

She looks at you, she wants the truth; it’s right out there in the waiting room;With those hands lookin‘ just as sweet as he can….

As is so often the case when men abuse women, Simoes reserved all of his sympathy for himself. During his trial he was frequently seen weeping — not over what had happened to Marquez, mind you, but rather over his own predicament as a poor, misunderstood public servant.

Simoes wept again following his acquittal, his chronic lachrymosity yielding to bile as he assailed those unspecified people he held responsible for “all the garbage you guys put me through.”

Take Simoes out of his official costume or his well-tailored suit, put him in a wife-beater, and move the scene of the crime from the backroom of a restaurant to the kitchen of a private home, and imagine how that self-pitying statement would be received. No, he wasn’t drunk in the conventional sense when he assaulted Irma Marquez, but he was certainly intoxicated with a sense of his own power.

All of this happened in Westchester County, New York — Hillary Rodham Clinton country, a haven of progressive enlightenment and exquisite sensitivity to “sexism.”

It’s entirely likely that there are men from that part of New York who have been convicted of, and imprisoned for, domestic abuse charges that don’t involve anything nearly as serious as the injuries inflicted on Irma Marquez. There are certainly plenty of such cases elsewhere in this country. But they’re different, you see, because the accused in each case wasn’t an agent of the state’s divine will.

Wayne Simoes, petty thug and unpunished abuser of women, prefers to be called by the supposedly exalted title “Officer.” Assuming that there is anything innately honorable in that designation, the term can be appropriately (if somewhat awkwardly) worked into a paraphrase of an entirely  appropriate lyric from one of my favorite workout songs:

[Officer]’s a name you haven’t earned yet
You’re just a child with a temper
Haven’t you heard `Don’t hit a lady’?
‘ your ass would be a pleasure.

Today We Are All Prisoners in the USA

June 2, 2009
Papers, Please!
June 2, 2009

As of today, June 1, 2009, even U.S. citizens are officially prisoners in the USA, or exiles barred from entering our own country without the government’s permission.

We are now forbidden by Federal regulations from leaving or entering the USA, anywhere, by any means — by air, by sea, or by land, to or from any other country or international waters or airspace — unless the government chooses to issue us a passport, passport card, or “enhanced” drivers license (any of which “travel documents” are now issued only with secretly and remotely-readable uniquely-numbered radio tracking beacons in the form of RFID transponder chips), or unless the Department of Homeland Security chooses to to exercise its standardless “discretion” to decide — in secret, with no way for us to know who is making the decision or on what basis — to issue a (one-time case-by-case) “waiver” of the new travel document requirements.

If you’re in the USA without such documents — even if you were born here, or are a foreigner who entered the USA legally without such documents (a Canadian, for example, who entered the USA by land yesterday when no such documents were yet required), or your document(s) have expired or have been lost or stolen — you are forbidden to leave the country unless and until you procure such a document, or unless and until the DHS gives you an exit permit in the form of a discretionary one-time waiver to leave the country — but not necessarily to come home, unless they again exercise their discretion to “grant” you another waiver.

If you are a U.S. citizen abroad without such a document (for example, if you entered Canada legally without it yesterday by land, when it wasn’t required, or again if your document(s) are expired, lost, or stolen) you are forbidden to come home unless and until you can procure a new document acceptable to the DHS, or unless and until the DHS gives you permission to come home in the form of a discretionary one-time waiver.

The DHS admits, at the top of its propapganda website, that it might take “several weeks” to obtain such a document if you don’t have one already or if it expires or is lost or stolen.  A temporary paper drivers license without a photo, or even a standard photo licnese or state ID, won’t suffice — only an extra-fee EDL with an RFID chip, which also takes several weeks to obtain in those few states that issue them at all.  Backlogs for even “rush” passport issuance can be even longer, as we pointed out in our comments to the DHS.  It doesn’t matter if your next-of-kin is dying in Canada or Mexico.  (Suppose a relative gets sick or injured, and needs you there to make medical decisons or escort them home, but you were’t going on the trip with them, and don’t have a passport.) You can’t go unless the U.S. government  approves your papers or approves a standardless discretionary “waiver” for you to leave the U.S. — which won’t guarantee that they’ll let you come back.

This is the final stage, effective June 1, 2009, of implementation of the so-called “Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative” (WHTI).

You don’t need us to tell you what’s wrong with this picture. But if you want it spelled out, you can read the comments here and here that we submitted to the DHS when they proposed the WHTI regulations imposing these ID and exit and entry permit requirments, first for airports and seaports and then for land border crossings.

We shouldn’t have needed to point out to the DHS that the WHTI travel document requirements are in flagrant violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), one of the most important human rights treaties which the U.S. has signed and ratified. Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees that, “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own,” and “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

This article of the ICCPR has been interpreted by the U.N. Human Rights Committee (and by the U.S. when it has criticized other countries such as Cuba for their exit restrictions on their citizens) as making those rights near-absolute. The WHTI document rules are also in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the NAFTA Implemdentation Act, by imposing a barrier to Canadians and Mexicans wishing to come to the U.S. to compete for business — the requirement for a passport or enhanced drivers license (EDL) — that doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens doing business within the U.S.

And that’s not to mention the incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution of these restrictions on travel, movement, and assembly.

DHS APIS regulations already require airlines to obtain individualized prior permission from the DHS before they allow anyone (even a U.S. citizen) to enter, leave or transit the U.S. by air, and the the Secure Flight scheme will require the same for domestic flights as soon as the travel industry can build the elaborate and expensive infrastructure needed for such a real-time travel surveillance and control program.  Meanwhile, the DHS is exapnding their assertion of similar and increasingly intrusive powers of search, seizure, interrogation, and above all surveillance (monitoring and logging) and control of travel and movement within the U.S. through warrantless, suspicionless checkpoints on roads that don’t cross any border and are up to 100 miles from coasts or borders, and at airports for passengers on domestic flights.

Previous court decisions upholding government discretion in whether or not to issue passoports has been premised on the assumption that passports were useful to facitlitate travel, but were not required for travel or for the exercise of any other rights. Those decisions will, obviously, need to be revisited in light of the fact that government-issued documents are now explicitly required as a condition of the exercise of those aspects of the right to travel — the right of anyone to leave the U.S., and the right of U.S. citizens to return to our own country — that are most explicitly guaranteed by international treaties to which the U.S. is a part, and which under the U.S. Constitution are “the supreme law of the land”. The DHS is cleverly saying that at first they will only issue warnings and waivers, in most cases, to U.S. citizens seeking to enter or leave the U.S. without the newly-required travel documents.  Presumably, they hope that the new ID and permission-based travel control regime will become a well-established fait accompli before anyone is able to bring a court challenge of a DHS decision to bar someone from leaving the U.S., or barring a U.S. citizen from entering the country.

Carter Breaks with Obama: Probe Bush Officials

June 2, 2009

David Edwards and Stephen Webster
Raw Story
June 1, 2009

Former president apparently lends support for “Truth Commission” on prisoner abuse, says torture is a crime “against our Constitution”

Former President Jimmy Carter, speaking to CNN on Monday, said he disagrees with President Barack Obama’s decision to withhold photos of prisoner abuse. He added that Obama appears to be resolved against resurrecting the past by punishing those in the Bush administration guilty of what Carter himself considers “crimes against our Constitution”

“I respect what his decisions are,” he told CNN’s Campbell Brown. “I don’t have the responsibility to deal with the consequences. But I think that most of his supporters were hoping he would be more open in the revelation of what we’ve done in the past.

“But, ah, he’s made a decision with which I really can’t contend, that he doesn’t want to resurrect the past. He doesn’t want to punish those that are guilty of perpetrating what I consider crimes against our own laws and against our constitution.”

Carter added that while releasing the images may cause “further animosity” toward the United States, the public knowledge that the photos simply exist already serves that cause, whereas instead of seeing them for what they are, the imagination can tend to fill in its own details.

And while Carter repeated several times that he will not criticize Obama for his decision, he did seem to lend support for the so-called “Truth Commission” that’s been discussed in the House and Senate.

Saying that “prosecution is too strong a word,” he added that what he would “like to see is a complete examination of what did happen, the identification of any perpetrators of crimes against our own laws or against international law,” said Carter. “And then after all that’s done, decide whether or not there should be any prosecutions.”

Brown’s interview with Carter will air on CNN, Monday night at 8 p.m. EST.

This video is from, broadcast June 1, 2009.