concatenation of events

Waging war on journalists who lie. Exposing the truth about Jack Idema, whose story must be told.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Free Jack Idema Blogburst

As far as I know they’re still there, and as far as I know, the situation hasn’t changed in spite of numerous visits from Parliament and the fact that we keep anticipating that any day now there is going to be a press conference where these men will be exhonerated in front of the world, and will be told that a terrible mistake was made.

After all. When you’re tortured for the sake of detaining terrorists connected with Gulbideen Hekmatyar who is on the America’s most wanted list-and even the Karzai government is putting some distance between themselves and the new Parliament…and the fact that the guys were declared innoncent in a second trial…you just can’t keep relying on the first Taliban trial which ignored all the rules of Afghan law and say they ‘had a fair trial’. That is…unless you’re against the military and our fighting the war on terror and believe like so many of the leftist professors at our elitist universities that “there is no war on terror”.

In which case you guys should seriously get a reality check.

Please consider the Americans at Pulacharke prison at this moment, and think about it: It’s been over a year since they’ve been declared completely innocent by the Afghan appeals court, yet they’re still being held. The question is…why? If the Afghans admit that no torture occurred (which they did), there was no torture chamber (which they did) that they entered the country legally (which they did), then why has the American government turned its back on them?

Put aside the question as to whether or not Jack and his men are active-duty soldiers, because that’s not the question. The question is not whether he had an alleged “fraud conviction” (and that’s not what it was!) The question is–if you were abroad working in a country that signed agreements to honor basic human rights of people working there in order to receive financial assistance–and then you’re falsely arresting of something and thrown in prison for it–wouldn’t you expect your countrymen to take up arms, or pens, or telephones and make sure that the people who are pulling the levers of power would at least be AWARE of this situation?

Wouldn’t you agree–if more people were aware of this story something would have been done about it besides trying to sweep it under the rug?

Wouldn’t your friends and family–if you were arrested under circumstances like these in a foreign country–demand that something be done about it?

Well it’s time the American people did so on behalf of the Americans being held at Pulacharke. Certainly Karzai with all of the languages he speaks understands English!

It’s time to turn up the heat on all our elected representatives, because this absolutely should not stand. How on earth can someone remain in detention–remain in prison–after they’ve been declared innocent by the country where they’re being held? This whole affair is so convoluted it’s beyond description, and it defies REASON!

So what can we do? Well, anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I’d urge everyone to do this, as we’re still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao’s Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There’s also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack’s story.

You can also contact the following people and make your feelings known:

Secret US EMBASSY Fax: – 301-560-5729 (Local US Fax: Goes RIGHT TO Ambassador)
c/o US Ambassador Ronald Neuman
6180 Kabul Place
Dulles, VA 20189-6180

US Consul Russell Brown – 011-93-70201908 (Fired)

US Consul Addie Harchik- 011-93-70201908 (denied them water and mail at Thanksgiving)

US Embassy Translator Wahid – new – 011-93-70201902

US Embassy Translator Bashir Momman– 011-93-70201923

US Consul (friend of Jack’s Now fired) Dawn Schrepel– 011-93-70201908

Embassy of Afghanistan (Good guys, Northern Alliance)
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Ph: 202-483-6410, Fax: no. 202-483-6488

Ambassador Massoud Khalili (wounded with Massoud)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Embassy of Afghanistan
New Delhi, India

H.E. Said Tayeb JAWAD (Afghan Ambassador- powerful in US)
Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington
2341 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (+1-202) 483 6414
Fax: (+1-202) 483 9523

Mr. Jahed Hamrah, Consul General (pro-Taliban)
CONSULATE GENERAL OF
AFGHANISTAN IN NEW YORK
360 Lexington Avenue,
11th Floor New York,
New, York, NY 10017
Tel.: (+1-212) 972 2276 or 972 2277
Fax: (+1-212) 972 9046

Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E880
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Ph: (703) 692-7100
Fax: (703) 697-9080

Lt General William Boykin
Deputy Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E836
Washington, DC 20301
Ph: (703) 697-0170
Private Fax: (703) 697-9080

Stephen Cambone
Principle Deputy Secretary for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E
Washington, DC 20310-0100

General Peter J. Shoomaker
Chief of Staff, Department of the Army
200 Army Pentagon – Room # 3E528
Washington, DC 20310-0200
Ph: (703) 695-2077 / Fax: (703) 614-5268

The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director National Intelligence
New Executive Office Building
725 17th Street, N.W., Room 4203
Washington, DC 20503

The Committee
On Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Chairman Peter Hoekstra
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6415;
Office: (202) 225-4121 / Fax: (202) 225-1991
Toll Free: (877) 858-9040

M. Cherif BASSIOUNI
Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights
On the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Ph: +41(0)22 917 97 27 Fax: +41(0)22 917 90 18
Email

Senator Steven Saland (Jack’s Rep and Neighbor)
9 Jonathan Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack’s Rep)
United States Senate
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ph: 919.856.4630
Fax: 919.856.4053

Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack’s Rep)
United States Senate
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: 202.224.6342
Fax: 202.224.1100

Senator Richard Burr (of Interest)
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154 / Fax: (202) 228-2981

Senator Bill Nelson (in the fight on Jack’s Side)
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 716
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 / Fax: 202-228-2183
FL Fax 407-872-7165

Senator Dianne Feinstein (Bennett’s Representative)
United States Senate
Hart Office Building, Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3841

Representative Mike McIntyre (Jack’s Representative)
United States Congress
2437 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2731 / Fax (202) 225-5773

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (reference Captain Bennett- CA citizen)
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 / Fax: 916-445-4633

Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:

Acts of Aggression
Big Dog's Weblog
Cao's blog
Causes of Interest
concatenation of events
Devil's Kitchen
Freedom Folks
Irate Nate
Kender's Musings
Making Headlines
NIF
Red Hot Cuppa Politics
Right For Scotland
Rottweiler Puppy
Sacramento Boxing
The City Troll
The Lone Voice
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
Theodore's World

|

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Jack Idema Green Beret and Special Advisor

The information below is part of a post from Cao's blog illustrating how badly the MSM has distorted not only what happened in Afghanistan with their supposed 'conviction' -(they were declared innocent but their release is being blocked for some uknown reason by the state department). Luckily now Ed Caraballo is home but Brent Bennett and Jack Idema remain at Pulacharke today. By all appearances they backed their carefully constructed story in order to discredit the man and the Al Qaeda tapes. Did they bother to consult such honorable and accomplished men such as Admiral George Worthington (US Navy, Ret.) ? No, they'd rather depend on someone whose financial interests depend on 'burying' Jack Idema and further ruining his reputation like TP (toilet paper) Warrington...who was a Warrant Officer in SF. Did they even bother to research what a warrant officer does?

That would be too much 'work' and it wouldn't have the reader arrive at the desired conclusion.

Read this from a Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan:

Warrant officers are not "god's gift to special forces". In fact, a warrant officer in Special Forces drives fucking trucks, fixes parachutes, runs a kitchen and commands a radio repair team of puke support privates.
In fact, in our entire careers have you ever had a warrant officer above you? I havent. The only warrant officers I knew were that rigger friend, and XXXXX, who I put into SF. Warrant officers aret pogue pukes, holding the same position a First Lieutenant holds.

The false characterization of Idema as a "rigger" which can be seen on some message boards would much better fit someone like TP Warrington, as far as I can see.

Here is part of the piece at Cao's blog--


The media focuses on the fact that there was “no written contract”, but the fact is, a “written contract” would have put him into bureaucratic restraints and limited his ability to do what he set out to do–catch and defeat terrorists; which is his specialty. If you pull back and tune out all the noise, it’s obvious that Idema was connected at very high levels in both governments, had their approval, and they were perfectly aware of what he was doing.
Those of us who are either connected with military operations or who have family who is, understand the bureaucratic constraints these men are now under; unable to fight a very real enemy because of 'political correctness', watching them get released with a pat on the back, money and a pakol only to watch them turn around and commit more acts of terrorism. The policy of appeasement which the Karzai government has adopted and which the American government seems to sanction, IMO, is costing more American lives when in 2002-2002, we had WON and driven them from Afghanistan.

The elitist media, on many occasions, has referred to Jack Idema as a “former” Green Beret. Being that my background is mostly Marine Corps and second to that Army, I don’t have much personal knowledge as far as what a Green Beret actually is.

However. I have a some contacts, to whom I can pose the question: What exactly is a Green Beret, and why is it that the military people who write about him write as though he IS ONE RIGHT NOW?

Here is the explanation
at Wikipedia.

So it’s an AWARD, which means once you’ve received your training and receive the award, that’s what you are, and nobody can take it away from you. So if I understand this correctly, you’re never a “former” Green Beret, or “retired”.

From Dan in Iraq:

All other military headgear and uniforms are issued when you are assigned to a unit. Doctors are not called former doctors, Rangers are not called former Rangers, nor are SEALs called former SEALs, because these are awards which have specific requirements, such as graduating specific schools.

Marines, are former Marines. They say once a Marine always a Marine, and while that is true theoretically, it is not fact. You become a Marine by enlisting in the Marine Corps and when you leave, you are a former Marine, even though you may still be a Marine at heart.

In contrast, the Green Beret is a presidentially authorized award for specific service/achievement/qualification, which can never be taken from a person once they earn it. To quote President John F. Kennedy:

The Green Beret shall serve as ‘a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom.”

John F. Kennedy describing the Green Beret on December 10, 1961.

This became a Presidential Executive Order that would forever protect the Green Beret as the official award and headgear of a U.S. Army Special Forces Qualified soldier.

So that is the short answer.

Cao’s Note: Here is the long answer. I don’t know about you, but this is really cool and helps me to understand what the hell’s going on in the Idema situation.

I have taught at the Special Forces School and I am fairly versed on this subject having written many articles about this for the Army and other publications. This places the term ‘Green Beret” in the proper perspective related to factual, regulation, and historical considerations, and its status as a lifetime award.


The Navy SEALs Trident

When you graduate Navy SEALs (the BUDS course at Coronado) you are awarded the Trident (a qualification badge that is a gold eagle with a flintlock pistol and a trident, signifying the unconventional heritage of Rogers Rangers, etc, and the Trident, signifying unconventional warriors from the deep sea)- from then on, you are always a Navy SEAL (note: I believe you have to serve on a SEAL Team before your Trident can be worn, or that’s the way it was a few years ago).


The Ranger Tab.

When you graduate Ranger School you are awarded a “Ranger Tab” which, like the Trident, follows you everywhere and for the rest of your life, you are a Ranger and can wear the Ranger Tab. It is a cloth tab you wear on your left shoulder. These are actual awards just like Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, and Meritorious Service Medals.

They cannot be taken away, rescinded, or stripped from you or your military file.

Since 1961, the Green Beret has been the only uniform item (specifically headgear) authorized by the President of the United States. (Between 1952 and 1961 it was worn without authorization only in the field and in secret).

To this day, JFK’s presidential decree serves to protect the Green Beret from the conventional army officers and politicians who would seek to strip it from our elite unit, much as General Eric Shinseki stripped the Rangers of their Black Beret and gave to the entire Army even the Chief of Staff of the Army, or Joints Chiefs of Staff, or even Congress, have no authority to ever discontinue it, remove it, revoke it, or change it. Under JFKs Executive Order, it is an award non-rescindable even by future Presidents.

Up until the mid-80s the Green Beret was presented to you upon graduation of Phase I SFQC (Special Forces Qualification Course). Then you received your ‘Flash” to sew on your Green Beret when you completed all three Phases. This was called being ‘Flash Qualified.” At that point you were, and always would be, a Green Beret. While many people are assigned to Special Forces, such as cooks, truck drivers, clerks, doctors, radio operators, etc, only a very small percentage of those serving in Special Forces units are actually Green Berets. Riggers are not Green Berets, except in a rare circumstance where a Green Beret takes command, such as First Sergeant or CO of a Rigger Platoon. These are considered Support Personnel, and are assigned to Support Companies, such as Service Company, Rigger Platoon, Headquarters Company. Support personnel, such as Riggers, do NOT go into combat, recruit, train, and lead indigenous armies and take part in unconventional, covert, or clandestine operations. This is not to say that some Green Berets do not know how to pack chutes, many do, especially the Military Free Fall (MFF) Qualified Green Berets and sport skydivers. And everyone does external checks on their chutes, but I would rather jump a chute packed by a professional that does it all day long before I do it myself, because it is a technical skill which requires a high degree of proficiency. In fact, I watched Jack (Keith) Idema let someone else pack his chute at a Raeford Skydiving site years ago. Obviously he didn’t want to fuck with it.

Contrary to Blog lies and newspaper reports,
Jack Idema is not, and never was a Rigger.


Jumpmaster Wings

I do know for a fact that he is a Jumpmaster, and graduated Jumpmaster School at Fort Bragg which means he is qualified to do your equipment check, rig a plane or chopper, and throw you out of an airplane, but NOT qualified to pack your parachute which is what Riggers do. I know this because I first met him when I was a very young Ranger buck sergeant and he did my MACO briefing before a jump at SOT (it was SFs highly classified hostage rescue and counter-terrorist course at Mott Lake). I walked away thinking, this guy is a no joke bad ass. I have never changed that opinion. I have volunteered to help on the SuperPatriots website because I owe my career to Jack Idema. When I left SOT all I thought about was leaving Ranger Battalion and going to the Special Forces Course and doing the kind of stuff he was doing. I have not left Special Forces since I graduated the course about two years later. I met a Marine Lance Corporal once that left the Marine Corps and joined the Army to become a Green Beret. He did it because he met Jack Idema, his name was Orlowski. I can probably count a dozen people like that which I know. So imagine how many there really are.

But this is off point. The subject is the ‘Green Beret.” As a presidential authorized award, it is irrevocable. Not even God can take it away.


De Oppresso Liber

Nor do I suspect God would ever try because our motto is De Oppresso Liber: Subject to three Latin translations; the official, To Liberate the Oppressed, and the literal, We Liberate the Oppressed. Finally, the heraldic English translation, Free the Oppressed. SF has remained true to this motto since its inception by our founder, the legendary Jedburg (OSS WWII) team leader Aaron Bank forty-three years ago. The last time I saw Colonel Banks, with his wife and daughters, he was 99 years old and attending the SF and Task Force Dagger reunion at Fort Bragg in the summer of 2002, where he was sitting in his wheel chair privately speaking to two friends, Jack Idema and the Commander of Special Forces. Most of us could only watch from sidelines, such was the real history of Jack Idema in Special Forces.

I do not dispute that Idema is both loved and hated in Special Forces. And, there is no one in between. You are either at one end of the scale or the other. Those that hate him either never met him, never worked with him, never trained under him, or took a ration of shit from him at some point. Like Major Jim Morris said in your interview,

‘Jack doesn’t just call a spade a spade, he calls it a nasty, evil, shit-covered shovel.”

In my experience, I have found that those that hate him either fear him or are jealous of him, but those that love him would die for him. Aaron Banks died last year, and Idema did not attend that funeral, he was a POW (and the Afghan government has recognized them as POWs). One more thing during this regression from my original subject. I didn’t see any of these anonymous soldiers blogging about what a fake asshole he was say one word to his face at that reunion. But I am looking forward to seeing what happens at the next reunion, because I expect he will be there, and I bet all those pukes are kissing his ass or sitting on the sidelines once again. Back to the Green Beret:

In the 80’s a problem became identifiable in that once a Green Beret left his Special Forces unit he remained a Green Beret but was then “former Special Forces.” Navy SEALs carried their Trident with them for life, and wore it on their uniform regardless of where they were assigned. Army Rangers wore their Ranger Tab the same, forever. Paratroopers, even if they went to a non-Airborne infantry unit, wore their Jump Wings (Parachute Qualification Badge) forever, like the Tab, and Trident, it was an official award. But Green Berets removed their Green Berets when going to another unit that was not Special Forces, and carried no evidence of their status with them (uniform insignia that is, because Green Berets are still fairly recognizable in a unit, even in jogging shorts).

In many assignments, such as ROTC advisory assignments, the Pentagon, or Reserve advisors, which Green Berets are used for frequently because of their unsurpassed leadership and training skills, SF soldiers were refusing to remove their Green Berets and causing quite a bit of shit with the higher commands.

Finally, the Army took a step to correct this and established the SPECIAL FORCES Qualification Tab. It is a shoulder tab, like the Ranger Tab, which is Teal Blue and Aztec Gold (the colors of Special Forces) and is worn above the Airborne Tab and Arrowhead patch of Special Forces. The arrowhead has a dagger and three lightening bolts. The arrowhead stands for the ways of the Indians, improvision, and unconventional warfare. The 3 lightening bolts stand for our means of infiltration; air, land, sea, along with the speed and surprise of lightening and our ability, like lightening, to strike anywhere at anytime, and without warning.

Once the SPECIAL FORCES tab was authorized, it became the actual qualification badge of a Special Forces soldier (a Green Beret). Special Forces are Green Berets, and vice versa, there is no difference, and anyone that tells you they were Special Forces in the Navy, Marines, or Air Force is full of shit, they were Special Operations. There is only one American “Special Forces” unit and that is that. As an example, Delta Force is Special Forces, the actual unit designation is SFOD-D, Special Forces Operational Detachment- Delta, because there were already A-Teams (12 Men), B-Teams (company HQ), and C-Teams (FOBs and operational HQs). So D was the next logical choice, hence ‘Delta.”

Now, after another twenty so years of change and adaptation, and conventional Army interference, we are finally our own Branch of the Army, so you no longer have to transfer out of Special Forces for part of your career, and can stay there indefinitely, as I have done.

We now wear Crossed Arrows on our uniforms as our branch insignia, instead of an Eagle, which stood for being unassigned to any Branch of the Army (the true forefathers of Special Forces).

The Special Forces Qualification course is the most difficult course on the face of the earth, bar none. Including the British Special Air Service Course, which Idema also attended (he also taught the Special Forces Orientation and UW course to the British SAS). When Idema went through the course in the 70’s it was brutal. You can read about his course at the JFKSWCS school library. It was Colonel Charlie Beckwith’s (founder of “Delta Force”) attempt to make an impossible course, which would pale the SAS in comparison. 1225 people started, 16 finished. I think, but I might be off, that 3 died in the course, and dozens were hospitalized, most flunked out in the first few weeks, and the rest in the first few months. Like I said, you can read about it at the Museum and the Maraquat Library, although its been a few years since I did. The course lasted about a year (46 weeks) although Army TRADOC only credited it as a 16 week course. Now the Army acknowledges the course as a 48 to 56 week course, often longer. It is the most coveted respected school in the military, in the world, period. Ranger School is 8 weeks, Airborne School 3 weeks, do the math. Green Berets are also acknowledged as the most educated soldiers in the world, speaking multiple languages, and most having a degree or college education of some level.


Jack Idema (on the left) Graduation day, in 1975 outside USAIMA (aka United States Army Institute For Military Assistance, as it was called then) Student Barracks on Smoke Bomb Hill at Fort Bragg.

The average Green Beret has six years in the Army before he makes it to the course. The age average is between 27 and 35. Idema was 18. Is it no wonder he got shit from his peers??? Most of them were still living with mom and dad at the age that Idema was a fully qualified Green Beret. He was roughly seven years younger than the average soldier in his Special Forces class. That says volumes to me.

Most Special Forces soldiers frown on the term “Green Beret” complaining that a Green Beret is a piece of headgear, not an award, but when Idema went through the SFQC the Green Beret was the award, the SF Tab came 14 years later, and it was retroactively awarded to all those that earned the Green Beret, including Idema. The official designation was an “S” after your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). Now, our designation is a special branch identifier, of “18.” This is called the 18 Series.

To finalize this debate, you are in Special Forces when you are assigned to a Special Forces unit. You are Special Forces Qualified when you complete the “Q” course, now called Special Forces Selection and Assessment, and then the Special Forces School. You receive a Green Beret and a Special Forces Tab. You are forevermore, a Green Beret (aka Special Forces Qualified soldier), even when you retire. Just as a doctor retains the MD title after he stops practicing medicine, a Green Beret retains the title after he leaves Special Forces operational activities and assignment.

The thing about Idema is that he never left. While the last of his classmates retired last year (a Command Sergeant Major at SOCOM), Idema never stopped driving on. Had this Green Beret encountered his difficulties a year or two after 9/11 all Americans would have stood in outrage and support of him. Four years later, barely any Americans give a fuck about Idema, or the blood and pain he has endured for their sorry worthless asses. Or any of us getting shot up and blown up by the terrorists, and decimated by the bleeding heart liberal scumbag press. Excepting you of course, Cao, and your Wide Awake Blogger friends.

Dan Rather said it right on CBS 60 Minutes, ‘Jack Idema is a former Special Forces soldier, he IS a Green Beret.”

“Dan XXXXXXX”

From Iraq

Rangers Lead the Way

SF is already there.

Notes: for your acronym sensitive readers:

BUDS Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL course at Coronado

SFS Special Forces Schools, Fort Bragg, NC

SFQC Special Forces Qualification Course

JFKCENMA John F. Kennedy Center for Military Assistance

USAIMA United States Army Institute for Military Assistance

JFKSWCS John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School

SOT Special Operations Training, the school for Bluelight, forerunner to Delta Force

MOS Military Occupational Specialty

‘S” Special Forces Qualification designation

A-Team ‘ODA” The 12 man Operational Detachment Alpha (the backbone of SF).

B-Team Special Forces Company, 5 A-Teams (sometimes BNs are referred to as such)

C-Team Special Forces Command and Control Element ODA Charlie (FOB)

SFOD-D Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta

CO Commanding Officer, usually a Captain on an A-Team

FOB Forward Operating Base, where Support Elements provide logistical support to operational teams

USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command, the combat command

USASOC United States Army Special Operations Command, Rangers, and other SOF Units, including USASFC, Fort Bragg.

NAVSPECWAR Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado

SEAL Sea, Air, Land, plural is SEALs, the Navy Special Operations Forces

USSOCOM US Special Operations Command, SF, Rangers, CCT, SEALs, etc, McDill.

SOCOM Same as above, the short phrase

CCT Combat Controllers, the Air Force Special Operations, Hurley, Bragg, etc

SOF Special Operations Forces, in general

SAS British Special Operations Forces, the Special Air Service.

TRADOC The Training and Doctrine Command, which USED to oversee SFQC

OSS Office of Strategic Services, WWII forerunner to SF and the CIA

And lastly:

PD Plausible Deniability, the one phrase anyone writing about why the US government fucked Jack Idema, ought to know about first. Before they learn that they should learn the REAL meanings and differences between overt, covert, and most importantly, clandestine.






The SuperPatriots and Jack images on this site are used by concatenation of events with written copyright permission and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

More blogs about task force sabre 7.

|

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Free Jack Idema Blogburst

Ed Caraballo was released on April 30th from Pulacharke prison and walked out of the gates, wasting no time as he was escorted to the airport for home. We join his family to celebrate his freedom after two years of his unbelievable, horrible ordeal. In the case of Ed Caraballo, who Peter Bergen described as a ‘blameless journalist’ in this situation, it is important to note that not only did the American government leave this award winning journalist out in the cold, but so did his journalist peers.

The battle continues, as Ed appeared in court protesting the long wait to have their Habeas Corpus heard, and leaving most sentient Americans to ponder these circumstances: terrorists with plenty of pro bono assistance, Americans fighting the WOT barely any.

Because as Zacharious Moussaoi took advantage of the system for over two years, was declared ‘guilty’ and decided he wanted to do it again (he asked for a new trial), and as Sami Al-Arian was slapped with a meager 4-year sentence for his raising funds in the US for Palestinian Jihad…Lawyers offer their assistance gladly to jihadists, (who aren’t even citizens in many cases), taking advantage of a system that was originally intended for American citizens only…while completely ignoring our own citizens.

If you can imagine a terrorist gets his habeas corpus heard within 30 days, and in the case of Jack Idema and his men, the file was ‘lost’, and it wasn’t heard for over 9 months.

Brent Bennett and Zorro Banderas who are still at Pulacharke can’t even get someone to represent them like a terrorist can. That says volumes to me about where we are as a nation.

These are the sad facts today, ladies and gentlemen.

Ted Kavanau accompanied John Tiffany to Washington, D.C., where the three-ring circus was held. This is what he had to say:

Along with Ed Caraballo and his brother Richard, I accompanied Idema attorney John Tiffany, who brought this case to the Federal Court in Washington, DC …. Among things that Tiffany later said to the AP reporter…none of which was quoted in the AP story below…was that a multitude of American lawyers had rushed to do pro bono defense for the Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured and incarcerated in Guantanamo, but no one when asked by the Judge, would volunteer to defend an American(s) and an Afghani working with Idema, who had proof of innocence, and were incarcerated in Afghanistan.

Indeed, it is a sorry state of affairs when we can depend on lawyers to defend the Jihadists who are out to destroy our way of life, don’t recognize America law but in contrast recognize Sharia law only as the ruling law of this land, and who are working toward the horrifying goal of raising the flag of their moongod over the Whitehouse.

In the meantime, we have Parliament fighting over the continued incarceration of Brent Bennett and Jack Idema, as Jack turned down Karzai’s offer of ‘amnesty’.

It should be noted that if there are no Afghan charges, there can be no charges in the American courts, so stated the US Consul Sandra Ingram.

There is a clear possibility that the reason for the delay in this interim period since Ed Caraballo’s release, that Parliament will publicly announce their innocence and exhoneration. If this happens, as we hope it will, the American leftist lawyers will not be able to deliver on their threat:

….they will remain in prison and rot if we have our way. Or we can just try the bastard here in the US.

We should demand a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION, because as we’ve noted innumerable times in the past, Jack Idema and his men were found innocent in a trial de novo and at that point at least four of the Afghans who were with them were released. At that time, the court not only declared them ‘innocent’, but also ordered their release.

Why on earth would the American government stand in the way of due process? Why would they stand in the way of the Afghans reversing a decision made by a Court presided over by the Taliban which discounted Afghan law entirely? This is something many of us would like to know.

So what can we do? Well, anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I’d urge everyone to do this, as we’re still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao’s Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There’s also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack’s story.

You can also contact the following people and make your feelings known:

Secret US EMBASSY Fax: – 301-560-5729 (Local US Fax: Goes RIGHT TO Ambassador)
c/o US Ambassador Ronald Neuman
6180 Kabul Place
Dulles, VA 20189-6180

US Consul Russell Brown – 011-93-70201908 (Fired)

US Consul Addie Harchik- 011-93-70201908 (denied them water and mail at Thanksgiving)

US Embassy Translator Wahid – new – 011-93-70201902

US Embassy Translator Bashir Momman– 011-93-70201923

US Consul (friend of Jack’s Now fired) Dawn Schrepel– 011-93-70201908

Embassy of Afghanistan (Good guys, Northern Alliance)
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Ph: 202-483-6410, Fax: no. 202-483-6488

Ambassador Massoud Khalili (wounded with Massoud)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Embassy of Afghanistan
New Delhi, India

H.E. Said Tayeb JAWAD (Afghan Ambassador- powerful in US)
Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington
2341 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (+1-202) 483 6414
Fax: (+1-202) 483 9523

Mr. Jahed Hamrah, Consul General (pro-Taliban)
CONSULATE GENERAL OF
AFGHANISTAN IN NEW YORK
360 Lexington Avenue,
11th Floor New York,
New, York, NY 10017
Tel.: (+1-212) 972 2276 or 972 2277
Fax: (+1-212) 972 9046

Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E880
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Ph: (703) 692-7100
Fax: (703) 697-9080

Lt General William Boykin
Deputy Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E836
Washington, DC 20301
Ph: (703) 697-0170
Private Fax: (703) 697-9080

Stephen Cambone
Principle Deputy Secretary for Intelligence
1800 Defense Pentagon – Room # 3E
Washington, DC 20310-0100

General Peter J. Shoomaker
Chief of Staff, Department of the Army
200 Army Pentagon – Room # 3E528
Washington, DC 20310-0200
Ph: (703) 695-2077 / Fax: (703) 614-5268

The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director National Intelligence
New Executive Office Building
725 17th Street, N.W., Room 4203
Washington, DC 20503

The Committee
On Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Chairman Peter Hoekstra
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6415;
Office: (202) 225-4121 / Fax: (202) 225-1991
Toll Free: (877) 858-9040

M. Cherif BASSIOUNI
Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights
On the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Ph: +41(0)22 917 97 27 Fax: +41(0)22 917 90 18
Email

Senator Steven Saland (Jack’s Rep and Neighbor)
9 Jonathan Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603

Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack’s Rep)
United States Senate
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ph: 919.856.4630
Fax: 919.856.4053

Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack’s Rep)
United States Senate
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Ph: 202.224.6342
Fax: 202.224.1100

Senator Richard Burr (of Interest)
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154 / Fax: (202) 228-2981

Senator Bill Nelson (in the fight on Jack’s Side)
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 716
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 / Fax: 202-228-2183
FL Fax 407-872-7165

Senator Dianne Feinstein (Bennett’s Representative)
United States Senate
Hart Office Building, Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3841

Representative Mike McIntyre (Jack’s Representative)
United States Congress
2437 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2731 / Fax (202) 225-5773

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (reference Captain Bennett- CA citizen)
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 / Fax: 916-445-4633

Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:

<

Acts of Aggression
Big Dog's Weblog
Cao's blog
Causes of Interest
concatenation of events
Devil's Kitchen
Freedom Folks
Irate Nate
Kender's Musings
Making Headlines
NIF
Red Hot Cuppa Politics
Right For Scotland
Rottweiler Puppy
Sacramento Boxing
The City Troll
The Lone Voice
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
Theodore's World

|

Monday, May 08, 2006

trial de novo and Judge Abed

7. In December 2005, US Consul Russel Brown met with each member of the Appeals Court which was conducting a trial de novo. These included: Chief Judge Ismail Abed, Chief Religious Judge Saheeb Noor, Second Deputy Judge Latif, Senior Religious Judge Azzizullah, and several others. Brown requested that each judge show their allegiance and support for Ambassador Khalilzad, President Karzai and "America" by upholding the first court's guilty verdict. Initially each and every judge refused and in the first phase of the trial de novo and entered a verdict finding all Afghans not guilty, resulting in an order for thr elease of four Afghan citizens. Realizing the implications, US Consul Russel Brown met with each of the judges again. This time the judges refused again, except for Judge Abed, who resisted but was open for "suggestions". Judge Abed agreed to assist the US Ambassador if he could visit the United States. Abed also requested a cash incentive.
What a nice way of putting it. The old-fashioned term for this is a 'bribe'.

8. In February 2005, Abed was sent to the United States on a three-week all expense paid junket by the US Department of State and Department of Justice. This occurred DURING the trial de novo, and therefore Judge Abed was absent for that trial. Abed toured Durham, Washington, Fairfax, Reno, Los Angeles and other cities. During his first stop in Raleigh, North Carolina, Abed met with Master Sergeant Thomas R. Bumback, a retired Special Forces Intelligence officer who holds a Top Secret security clearance. Abed told Bumback that Jack Idema and the others were "completely innocent" and would be released in a few weeks. Over the next few days, Abed called Afghanistan and spoke to Jack Idema and the Court. Abed stated that he had already concluded they were innocent and requested they conclude the trial as fast as possible and release Idema and the others before his return and before pressure could be put on him to change his decision and the decision of the court.
Amazing. Abed accepted his all-expense paid trip, but also let Jack know what could happen upon his return.

9. Over the next few weeks, the US Consul Russel Brown, and other US government employees, contacted the Afghan Appeals Court and requested delays so that the Consul could attend the trial. Although he was given repeated delays, the Consul never did attend, instead sending an Afghan aide named Bashir Mamoon to be present. The US Embassy also requested the Court wait for the return of Chief Judge Ismail Abed. Just two days before Abed's return, the Appeals Court declared all men innocent and directed a press conference to convene upon Abed's return. However, when Abed returned he stated that although the men were innocent, they could not be released.
Must have been practicing Taqiyya in the previous paragraph, what? Abed is now a bat on a sticky wicket indeed.

This concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

everyone needs water, but there's more.

3. The US Embassy then advised prison authorities that they will not allow water deliveries to Idema and Bennett. When Afghan Commandants found out that Idema and Bennett were sick from drinking ground water treated with bleach, they called the Embassy and were told by Bashir Mamoon at the Us Consul's office that they didn't deserve drinking water because "they were probably bathing in it." There had not been a water delivery for months. Although these men have not had running water for two years, I can assure this Court that they are not bathing in the pitifully sparse stipend of water the Embassy occasionally delivers. It should also be noted that the Embassy does not provide this water from their precious budget. It is provided by the US Marines who would no doubt gladly make a monthly delivery if not prevented from doing so by the US Ambassador. Further, the US Consul's office has repeatedly threatened to have prison officials fired if they continue to abide by international guidelines for human rights and the Geneva Convention Protocols, and have had at least three commandants fired already for voicing their objection to the continued imprisonment of Idema, Bennett and Banderas, including one General who physically stepped in front of Adrianne Harchick's vehicle to sotp her from leaving without delivering water and money sent by Jack Idema's father. Apparently Harchick was upset that Idema and Bennett would not meet her alone, and then refused to give him money sent by his father when Idema politely asked her not to count it in front of Afghan officers and a Taliban inmate. When Harchick tried to leave with the water and money, the Afghan general stepped in front of the car. He was fired shortly thereafter. In spite of that, Afghan generals have refused to follow the Embassy's orders, but remain in fear of losing their jobs from U.S. pressure.
It is beyond the imagination that someone working in the capacity of serving American interests in a foreign country would act even worse than the hosting country.

4. In July 2004, US Consul Sandra Ingram directed Judge Abdul Basset Bakthyari to find all Petitioners guilty in return for a US Visa and US government protection. Richard Caraballo, brother to Edward Caraballo, has stated that Sandra Ingram told him that if there were no afghan charges there could be no US charges. Therefore, Ingram's statements were clearly indicating that the US was using the Afghan charges to hold the petitioners.
Indeed, this may still happen; the Americans may yet be vindicated and exhonerated publicly of the charges in their first trial because the second trial, mysteriously enough, when they were found innocent and ordered released, never hit the airwaves.
5. In August 2004, the US Counsel Sandra Ingram retained Wadir Safi, a former minister in the Soviet government to act as a translator during the trial. Ingram had direct knowledge that Wadir Safi was a former Deputy Director of the Soviet/Afghan KGB and had directed and led retaliation, assassinations, executions, and murders of Afghan resistance members and Mujahadeen resistance soldiers who were aligned with and working with the American CIA.
Another appalling fact is the Americans working with a known former KGB agent and leading him to do their bidding in the same style as would have happened under the old Communist regime.

6. US Consul Sandra Ingram provided ex-KGB officer Wadir Safi with a lengthy list of allegations and "propaganda points" which she requested Wadir Safi interject into the trial. Ingram offered Wadir Safi financial assistance, then upon information and belief, provided Wadir Safi with financial assistance from a special fund retained for no-oversight expenditures by Ambassador Khalilzad. The same fund was used to provide Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, Mawlawi Fazal Hadi Shinwari with $80,000 for his personal mosque after he supported the original conviction of Petitioners in their first trial.

1. Apparently at least one journalist also called the Minister of Justice and wanted to know why their phones were not confiscated.

2. As counsel to Jack Idema I fully agreed with his refusal to meet Harchick alone without a witness to what she might say, do, or allege. I have reviewed evidence which shows that Harchick has a propensity for altering the statement of Jack Idema during conversations.

3. Shinwari is an Islamic Fundamentalist who has been denounced by Amnesty International, the Union of Human Rights' Defenders, the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission, and other international groups. He is also the cousin of Appeals Court Ismail Abed, and an admitted friend and associate of known Hezb-i-Islami terrorist recruiter Mohammed Sidiq who works directly for Gulbideen Hekmatyar, a terrorist on the US government's most wanted list and one of the prime targets of idema and his task force during 2004.
Most of this horrible chain of events speaks for itself, requiring little commentary. It literally renders me speechless.

This concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

Sunday, May 07, 2006

tenacity and resolve

Reading over this documentation has my jaw dropping just about completely to the ground.
Respondents' Response as filed by opposing counsel to Petitioners' previously filed motion is disingenuous and misleading at best. Petitioners only recently received that response from the US Embassy in Afghanistan and have not been allowed to mail their reply through the embassy.
These men are not afforded mail privileges? Even terrorists at Guantanamo are afforded mail privileges! These men are in a foreign country which signed documents that they would uphold American Law. Khalilzad and Karzai are both American citizens, and have a full understanding of this. Sadly, this seems to be a form of despotism one would could imagine happening under a communist dictator....yet the American courts, and the US Embassy are complicit with the prolific propaganda producing journalists who are intent upon keeping them 'buried'.
Therefore several specific issues raised by Mr. Lev, and unsworn, unverified facts asserted by Mr. Lev in his pleading are not addressed herein. Be that as it may, they are unavailing at best and carry no weight in this matter absent a sworn affadavit or verification by his clients. As an example, Mr. Lev has no personal knowledge of any facts in Afghanistan, or surrounding Petitioners' incarceration, or related to any assertion regarding mail or conditions, or property, or the contested issues of an alleged "diplomatic pouch" address. In fact, the address that is contested is by no means a "diplomatic pouch" in any sense of the phrase, and the unsworn statements of Mr. Lev are unpersuasive and should assert little if any influence in this case. Other previous assertions by Respondents are contradicted by the recently received March 29, 2006 verification of Petitioners to the supplemental facts herein. Finally, Mr. Lev's direction to the Honorable Court to take notice of Petitioners' previous ability to get documents to the Court, after months of inability, or months of delay, is evidence of nothing other than Petitioners' tenaciousness and resolve. Quite frankly, Petitioners find it despicable that an employee of a country founded on Constitutional guarantees of liberty would claim that the absence of a liberty deprivation based upon a citizen's ability to furtively circumvent that liberty denial through great cost to family and friends.
Strange twisting of the facts Mr. Lev is using here. It certainly seems as though the government is stalling to force them to give up because of the time factor and to purposely precipitate an eventual lack of resources.
A paramount question for this Court should be, if a 16-month denial of mail and communication can be circumvented by smuggling mail or covert communication out of a prison system by spending thousands upon thousands of dollars, taking great personal risks, and convincing friendly foreign government officials to clandestinely bypass the US Embassy's illegal mail embargo, then is it still a liberty deprivation?
Well of course it is! Why is it necessary to ask such a stupid question? Is Ori Lev really this dumb? Or has our legal system deteriorated to the point where it is necessary to spell things out at the most elementary level for the simpletons who refuse to 'get it' for partisan reasons?
Is the First Amendment satisfied by the capacity of a citizen to pray surreptitiously in his barn to avoid persecution, or their ability to clandestinely publish an anonymous newspaper in the darkness of a basement to avoid arrest? Is the Eighth Amendment satisfied or its protections diluted just because a prisoner can survive corporal punishment or imprisonment without food or water? Did the existence of a covert Underground Railroad during the Civil War make the liberty deprivations foisted upon the oppressed any less important? Contrary to Mr. Lev's despotic rationale, Petitioners think not.
And the American public would think not if they knew about this. It is time to get the word out, folks. It is time to spread this like a wildfire because if this case is any indicator, our men fighting this war on terror, our military, all those involved in this struggle against Islamofascism, are in terrible trouble.

The terrorists get a free ride, and the Americans who defend our country wind up getting the shaft.

Addition to Motion; Supplemental Facts which occurred after the government was served with the first Motion in March of 2005. These are additional facts that were discovered from interviews with Afghan officials over the past two months.
1. Ed Caraballo was beaten and abused, allegedly at the direction of the US Consul by the AFGHAN NDS at the direction of American citizens.

2. According to Afghan officials, the US Ambassador, or persons acting on his behalf, directed President Karzai to confiscate Prisoners' phones and communication from all Petitioners. Karzai met with the Minister of Justice and ordered the phones confiscated. The Minister of Justics order the para-military Prison Authority to confiscate the phones, and to remove Idema, Bennett, and Bandaras from the Geneva Convention compliant officers' quarters, and house them with al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists. General officers from the United Front Military Forces interceded, and the Prison Authority refused. Shortly thereafter, Caraballo's phone was seized and Caraballo was again beaten by the NDS acting as agents of the FBI. Afghan generals refused to follow the orders to confiscate Idema's phone, or change his living conditions.
This sequence of events alone is an outrage. Caraballo is beaten and then there is an order to have Jack's phones taken from him and when that doesn't happen, Caraballo is beaten again.

Where is that New York journalist outfit who should have been pleading on Caraballo's behalf?

This entire story when taken as a whole seems like the storyline from a season of 24 instead of real life. The horrible story is that no one comes to the defense of Americans at Pulacharke whilst they rush to the defense of known terrorists and their lies; whether they're at Gitmo or running around free accused of horrible crimes.

THAT is the REAL story. And it must be told.

More to come on this...

This concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

This Habeas is Unique

According to the Law this Habeas Petition now contains facts that must be accepted, absent a response from the US Government for over a year. The government does not deserve an 'extension', which is in fact what it would get if Idema and his men filed an amended petition.

A verified Habeas Corpus is considered factual on its face absent a sworn affadavit or answer by the respondent. The factual issues are now admitted absent any opposition.

In short: This petition should have been answered within 30 days as it would be in the case of an Al Qaeda terrorist like Jose Padilla. It was not.

Unlike most 2241 petitions, this petitions is unique. There are multiple petitioners, citizens of two different countries, one of which is the United States. There are multiple respondents and distinctly difference causes of action relating to completely different liberty interests denied by completely separate persons exercising separate control over separate and distinct issues. An overview of these separate issues and Respondents, or their agents, combined into one habeas corpus includes:

a. Respondent Khalilzad - who is outside the territorial jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, and not a resident of any U.S. district.
i. Khalilzad denies mail, familial relationships, water, medicine, and access to Afghan and U.S. courts.
ii. Khalilzad continues to be included because, although he is the current Ambassador to Iraq, he continues to exercise clear control over Hamid Karzai and ongoing liberty deprivations outlined in the Petition.

b. Ronald Neumann--who is outside the territorial jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, and not a resident of any U.S. District.
i. Neumann continues to deny mail, familial relationships, water, medicine, and access to Afghan and U.S. courts, on behalf, and as successor of, Khalilzad. Petitioners assert he is added, not substituted for Khalilzad.

c. Russel Brown - who worked at the direction of Khalilzad, and is a resident of Montana, not the District of Columbia.
i. Brown was the ministerial officers who exercised day to day control over the Petitioners' mail, and violated their liberty interest as set forth in the Petition.
ii. When Khalilzad was transferred to Iraq, Russel Brown continued to exercise day to day control over Petitioners in Afghanistan.
iii. Russel Brown still continues to exercise control and direction over Petitioners through his replacement, Adrianne Harchick.

d. Adrianne Harchick - who works at the direction of Neumann, and is a resident of New Jersey, not the District of Columbia.
i. Petitioners' claim against Harchick is that she is the ministerial officer who exercises day-to-day control over Petitioners' mail, and violates their liberty interests through illegal search and seizures, and denial of medical care, relief parcels, water, access to the Courts, and financial resources.
ii. Harchick exercises day-to-day control over Petitioners in Afghanistan.
iii. Harchick, as US Consul, is the most recent US official that stopped Petitioners' release by the Afghan government after they were found innocent by an appeals court, and upon information and belief, she did this at the direct request of Khalilzad and Neumann.

e. Robert Mueller - who is a resident of Virginia and outside the District of Columbia.
i. Petitioners' claim against mueller is for the rendition of Petitioners, illegal search and seizeure, and the intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence belgonging to the Petitioners and held at the FBI office in Kabul and New York.

f. Pasquale J. Damuro - ASD in charge of the FBI's NY Office, is a resident of New York.
i. Petitioners believe that Damuro now has the missing evidence in his control.
ii. Upon information and belief, Damuro has sealed indictments and/or warrants against at least one Petitioner, brought in the SDNY.

g. Kevin Thuman - Special Agent with the FBI Afghanistan Task Force, believed to be a resident of New York, and attached to the FBI's office in New York, New York.
i. Petitioners have prima facie evidence that Thuman has property and evidence in his possession which is the rightful property of Petitioners and is highly exculpatory in nature. That the illegal search and seizure of this evidence was in violation of Petitioners' liberty interests and that this evidence, or at least some of this evidence is in New York, New York.

I. Rule 60 Provides For Reconsideration Based on Mistakes

The SDNY Court ientered its Order Denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss and transferring Petitioners' application for writ of habeas corpus to the District of Columbia on May 18, 2005, prior to receiving Petitoners' response.

Additionally, this Court stayed the Governments' response, ordered an amended petition filed, threatened to dismiss the Petition for failure to comploy with the rules of a "compliant" , and improperloy circumvented 2243, which requires an answer "within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed."

As stated in the text of the motion, Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides for the relief from a judgment or order based upon clerical mistakes, or errors arising from an oversight or omission by the court upon the motion of any party.

Additionally, Rule 60(b) allows for an order to be amended or reversed based on mistakes, such as inadvertence or exclusable neglect. On motion and upon such terms are just, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.

Petitoners respectfully request this Honorable Court either render a decision on the merits and applicable law quoted in their Petition, or, in the alternative, treat this Response as a Rule 60 Motion, amend its Order of January 19, 2006, and transfer this case back to the SDNY. If treated as a Rule 60 Motion, Petitioners respectfully refer the court to:

Rule 60-Relief From Judgment Or Order

(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with the leave of the appellate court.

(b) Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect []...etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party of a party's legal representative form a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ...
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

The case clearly warrants expediting by this Court and the appointment of counsel for the unrepresented Petitioners to assist with that directive. The 16-month delay in the case has and continues to oppress and prejudice Petitioners, subjecting them to repeated daily violations of their Constitution rights by US officials, or Afghan officials acting solely on behalf of Respondents. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel 479, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 1732-33 (1999); Cater V. Estelle 677 F. 2d 427, 449 (5th Cir 1982) cert. denied 460 U.S. 1056 (1983) (holding petitioner's constitutional rights are violated [when] the state and the courts have been given their 'fair opportunity' to resolve and rectify the delays, protect petitioner's constitutional rights, apply the law as written and decided and/or act in the interest of justice, but is allowed to languish in perpetual action). Montgomery v. Meloy, 90 F.3d 1200, 1205, 1206 (7th Cir 1996); Carter V. Estelle supra, 677 F. 2d at 440 and 449 n. 16 & n.15 (futility exists when the prejudicial attitude of the court to petitioner's claims is a foregone conclusion). O'Sullivan, supra, at 1732 citing: Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 240-250, 92 S. Ct 407 (___) (a petitioner shouldn't even have to invoke these extraordinary remedies and write to the standard review process), Lowe v. Duckworth, 663 F. 2d 42, 43 (7th Cir 1981) (over 17 months w/no ruling). Harris v. Champion (aka Harris I), 938 F. 2d 1062, 1065 (10th Cir 1994) (cannot penalize petitioner when delays are not caused or condoned by petitioner).

Petitioners have alleged due process violations and have asserted a separate violation of denial of equal protection of law. This also includes Respondents' refusal to treat these US citizens incarcerated abroad as is required under Respondents' own DOS regulations, and comparable to how other US citizens incarcerated abroad are trated. Montgomery v. Meloy, 90 F.3d 1200, 1205-06, cert denied 117 S. Ct 266 (1996) (held that inordinate delays open door to equal protection violations). Chitwood V. Dowd, 889 F. 2d 781, 785 (8th Cir 1989) cert denied 495 U.S. 953 (1990) (where Petitioner "has made a continual good faith effort to bring his petition before the proper forum and has faced roadblocks at every turn" while the "actual time" of sentence rapidly elapsed thereby "potentially motting his claim", officials "disregarded" petitioner's rights).
We will take this document piece by piece and examine not only the law cited behind it but the flagrant audacity of the schlemiels who are running not only our courts, but who are railroading these men in a barely literate exchange of excuses in this ludicrous sequence of events.

Why is it necessary to cite chapter and verse from the law to Ori Lev and the rest who are taking down comparatively enormous salaries and are completely skirting these issues? Why does the law not matter to them? Why is it that the government does not take any of these laws for these Americans seriously in spite of case law which punctuates their case and their reasoning?



I keep coming back to it; this concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

Friday, May 05, 2006

American sues U.S. over Afghanistan arrest

Idema's lawyer John Tiffany later said to the AP reporter...none of which was quoted in the AP story below: a multitude of American lawyers rushed to do pro bono defense for the Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners captured and incarcerated in Guantanamo, but no one when asked by the Judge, would volunteer to defend an American(s) and an Afghani working with Idema, who had proof of innocence, and were incarcerated in Afghanistan..

Thursday, May 4, 2006 · Last updated 10:36 a.m. PT
American sues U.S. over Afghanistan arrest
By TONI LOCY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- An American released Sunday after serving time in Afghanistan on charges of torturing people in an illegal jail appeared in federal court Thursday to press a lawsuit that accuses the State Department and FBI of instigating his arrest and conviction.

Edward Caraballo, a freelance cameraman, told U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan that he wants to act as his own lawyer in a lawsuit that challenges the U.S. government's role in the criminal case brought in Afghanistan against him and two other Americans.

Caraballo, who claims he was making a movie about the war on terrorism, served nearly two years in prison in Afghanistan after being convicted in 2004 by an Afghan court.

Jonathan "Jack" Idema, a former Green Beret who served prison time in the United States for fraud, and Brent Bennett, another former U.S. military member, also were convicted and remain incarcerated in Afghanistan.

During their trial in Afghanistan, the Americans maintained the U.S. government knew about their efforts to round up terrorists and authorized the jail run by Idema and Bennett. But U.S. officials denied those claims and said the jail was not part of the U.S. hunt for terrorists.

The three Americans and an Afghan who worked with them filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court here that also challenges the conditions of their confinement in an Afghan prison. Idema is serving a five-year sentence and Bennett is serving a three-year sentence.

Sullivan said Thursday that he tried but failed to find lawyers willing to represent Bennett and Zorro Rasuli Banderas, an Afghan who worked with the Americans, for free in their civil lawsuit here. Last year, an Afghan appeals court ordered Banderas' release. But he chose to remain in prison with Idema.

Sullivan said it is "a sad commentary on this country" that he could find no lawyers willing to take the case at the universities and legal clinics he contacted for help. The judge did not identify the schools or clinics he contacted.

During the brief hearing, Sullivan suggested that Caraballo's claims might now be moot since he has been released. But the judge said he won't decide until a U.S. government attorney and Caraballo have a chance to make their arguments on the issue.

Ori Lev, a Justice Department lawyer, said the government believes the judge has no jurisdiction to hear the case because the Americans were convicted and incarcerated by a foreign country.
Sullivan assured Caraballo he will be treated fairly. "You are in America now. You have rights," the judge said.

As Caraballo left the courtroom, Sullivan asked how long he had been away from the United States.

"Two years," Caraballo answered.

"Welcome back," Sullivan said.

|

Habeas docs filed

The Columbia University-run website has no coherent point to make; but I do; and for a brief time I may in fact be prolific.

Let us discuss the recent filings available through Pacer. More people than Cao are reading them, as they are publicly available documents.

Idema, Caraballo and Banderas motioned the court for a temporary restraining order Rule 60 and other relief after Caraballo was being held and threatened with beheading among other things-by terrorists.

Idema through counsel, Bennett, Banderas joined through their next friend and submitted a memorandum of Law, Points, and Authorities in Support of their previously filed Motion and Supplemental Facts show this:

They requested the Court to review their contemporaneously filed Affidavit of Supplemental Facts to their Original motion which occurred or came to light after the government was served with the original restraining order.

Does it not seem ridiculous that you would have to serve your own government a restraining order??? It should!

In this situation, sadly, it is understandable. This concatenation of events which the US government is using to clusterfuck our own citizens must end.

Day-to-day custodial control over Jack and Brent (and Caraballo until he was released this past weekend) is exercised by US citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of any court who are illegally denying the liberty interests of US citizens also outside the territorial jurisdiction of any US district Court. That alone, among other facotrs, completely distinguishes this case from Gherebi v. Bush, 374 F.3d 727, 739 (9th Cir. 2004) and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct. 2711-27 (2004) in every manner addressed by those cases by the US Supreme Court. Habeas corpus if far-reaching, and by no means as limited as the US government claims. Set forth below are points and authorities supporting each of their requests for relief in the previouslyfiled motion.

Facts of the Case

Respondents' Relations to Petition and SDNY Jurisdiction
Issues of Law-Points and Authorities
I. Rule 60 Provides for Reconsideration Based on Mistakes
II. The SDNY Court has Territorial Jurisdiction Over Respondents
III. THE SDNY Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Respondents
IV. Petition Should be Transferred Back to the SDNY in the Alternative-All District Courts have the Right to Review a Detainer
V. Petitioners Have a Right To, but should not be forced to Amend
VI. Petitioners Should be Granted a Temporary Restraining Order
VII. Respondents' Should be Barred from Further Dispositive Motions
Conclusion


If you don't understand legaleze, or are here to harrass and offend; get off my blog. These are serious facts which people like Mariah Blake, her bosom buddy AG Basoli, Carlotta Gall and all the rest of the affiliates with that Columbia University Journalism school have dismissed entirely.

This entails the supposed Constutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens in a foreign country which has entered into agreements with the US to ensure that our citizens would not lose these rights while they are there, and are protected by them.

What a shame Idema and his men don't work for Blackwater because this would all be a moot point--and none of this would have happened...Blackwater has the power and connections to protect its employees from this kind of government BS.


Had they worked for Blackwater...their mission of looking for the terrorists and interrogating them would have ended. Qanuni and other top officials in the Northern Alliance would be dead.

Excuse the colorful language you may see here as I parse through these legal documents. Grapple with and clench the recklessness, rudeness, thoughtlessness, and audacity of not only the Federal Government in this case...but the journalists who have been primarily responsible for this comedy of errors and misleading the public.

Indeed, sadly, this is--to put it mildly-an outrage. I am new at this blogger thing but with my programming background, I've managed to picked some of this up rather quickly, what?

We will get to the CJR documents soon.

This concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

Thursday, May 04, 2006

The drips have shut off commenting

Indeed the upper crusty Columbia University halfpints at the Stuporpatriots blog have begun to shut off comments on their posts. Amusing, what?



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

The Habeas is Unique

Unlike most 2241 petitions, this petitions is unique. There are multiple petitioners, citizens of two different countries, one of which is the United States. There are multiple respondents and distinctly difference causes of action relating to completely different liberty interests denied by completely separate persons exercising separate control over separate and distinct issues. An overview of these separate issues and Respondents, or their agents, combined into one habeas corpus includes:

a. Respondent Khalilzad - who is outside the territorial jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, and not a resident of any U.S. district.
i. Khalilzad denies mail, familial relationships, water, medicine, and access to Afghan and U.S. courts.
ii. Khalilzad continues to be included because, although he is the current Ambassador to Iraq, he continues to exercise clear control over Hamid Karzai and ongoing liberty deprivations outlined in the Petition.

b. Ronald Neumann--who is outside the territorial jurisdiction of any U.S. Court, and not a resident of any U.S. District.
i. Neumann continues to deny mail, familial relationships, water, medicine, and access to Afghan and U.S. courts, on behalf, and as successor of, Khalilzad. Petitioners assert he is added, not substituted for Khalilzad.

c. Russel Brown - who worked at the direction of Khalilzad, and is a resident of Montana, not the District of Columbia.
i. Brown was the ministerial officers who exercised day to day control over the Petitioners' mail, and violated their liberty interest as set forth in the Petition.
ii. When Khalilzad was transferred to Iraq, Russel Brown continued to exercise day to day control over Petitioners in Afghanistan.
iii. Russel Brown still continues to exercise control and direction over Petitioners through his replacement, Adrianne Harchick.

d. Adrianne Harchick - who works at the direction of Neumann, and is a resident of New Jersey, not the District of Columbia.
i. Petitioners' claim against Harchick is that she is the ministerial officer who exercises day-to-day control over Petitioners' mail, and violates their liberty interests through illegal search and seizures, and denial of medical care, relief parcels, water, access to the Courts, and financial resources.
ii. Harchick exercises day-to-day control over Petitioners in Afghanistan.
iii. Harchick, as US Consul, is the most recent US official that stopped Petitioners' release by the Afghan government after they were found innocent by an appeals court, and upon information and belief, she did this at the direct request of Khalilzad and Neumann.

e. Robert Mueller - who is a resident of Virginia and outside the District of Columbia.
i. Petitioners' claim against mueller is for the rendition of Petitioners, illegal search and seizeure, and the intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence belgonging to the Petitioners and held at the FBI office in Kabul and New York.

f. Pasquale J. Damuro - ASD in charge of the FBI's NY Office, is a resident of New York.
i. Petitioners believe that Damuro now has the missing evidence in his control.
ii. Upon information and belief, Damuro has sealed indictments and/or warrants against at least one Petitioner, brought in the SDNY.

g. Kevin Thuman - Special Agent with the FBI Afghanistan Task Force, believed to be a resident of New York, and attached to the FBI's office in New York, New York.
i. Petitioners have prima facie evidence that Thuman has property and evidence in his possession which is the rightful property of Petitioners and is highly exculpatory in nature. That the illegal search and seizure of this evidence was in violation of Petitioners' liberty interests and that this evidence, or at least some of this evidence is in New York, New York.

I. Rule 60 Provides For Reconsideration Based on Mistakes

The SDNY Court ientered its Order Denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss and transferring Petitioners' application for writ of habeas corpus to the District of Columbia on May 18, 2005, prior to receiving Petitoners' response.

Additionally, this Court stayed the Governments' response, ordered an amended petition filed, threatened to dismiss the Petition for failure to comploy with the rules of a "compliant" , and improperloy circumvented 2243, which requires an answer "within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed."

As stated in the text of the motion, Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides for the relief from a judgment or order based upon clerical mistakes, or errors arising from an oversight or omission by the court upon the motion of any party.

Additionally, Rule 60(b) allows for an order to be amended or reversed based on mistakes, such as inadvertence or exclusable neglect. On motion and upon such terms are just, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.

Petitoners respectfully request this Honorable Court either render a decision on the merits and applicable law quoted in their Petition, or, in the alternative, treat this Response as a Rule 60 Motion, amend its Order of January 19, 2006, and transfer this case back to the SDNY. If treated as a Rule 60 Motion, Petitioners respectfully refer the court to:

Rule 60-Relief From Judgment Or Order

(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with the leave of the appellate court.

(b) Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect []...etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party of a party's legal representative form a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ...
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

The case clearly warrants expediting by this Court and the appointment of counsel for the unrepresented Petitioners to assist with that directive. The 16-month delay in the case has and continues to oppress and prejudice Petitioners, subjecting them to repeated daily violations of their Constitution rights by US officials, or Afghan officials acting solely on behalf of Respondents. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel 479, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 1732-33 (1999); Cater V. Estelle 677 F. 2d 427, 449 (5th Cir 1982) cert. denied 460 U.S. 1056 (1983) (holding petitioner's constitutional rights are violated [when] the state and the courts have been given their 'fair opportunity' to resolve and rectify the delays, protect petitioner's constitutional rights, apply the law as written and decided and/or act in the interest of justice, but is allowed to languish in perpetual action). Montgomery v. Meloy, 90 F.3d 1200, 1205, 1206 (7th Cir 1996); Carter V. Estelle supra, 677 F. 2d at 440 and 449 n. 16 & n.15 (futility exists when the prejudicial attitude of the court to petitioner's claims is a foregone conclusion). O'Sullivan, supra, at 1732 citing: Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 240-250, 92 S. Ct 407 (___) (a petitioner shouldn't even have to invoke these extraordinary remedies and write to the standard review process), Lowe v. Duckworth, 663 F. 2d 42, 43 (7th Cir 1981) (over 17 months w/no ruling). Harris v. Champion (aka Harris I), 938 F. 2d 1062, 1065 (10th Cir 1994) (cannot penalize petitioner when delays are not caused or condoned by petitioner).

Petitioners have alleged due process violations and have asserted a separate violation of denial of equal protection of law. This also includes Respondents' refusal to treat these US citizens incarcerated abroad as is required under Respondents' own DOS regulations, and comparable to how other US citizens incarcerated abroad are trated. Montgomery v. Meloy, 90 F.3d 1200, 1205-06, cert denied 117 S. Ct 266 (1996) (held that inordinate delays open door to equal protection violations). Chitwood V. Dowd, 889 F. 2d 781, 785 (8th Cir 1989) cert denied 495 U.S. 953 (1990) (where Petitioner "has made a continual good faith effort to bring his petition before the proper forum and has faced roadblocks at every turn" while the "actual time" of sentence rapidly elapsed thereby "potentially motting his claim", officials "disregarded" petitioner's rights).
We will take this document piece by piece and examine not only the law cited behind it but the flagrant audacity of the schlemiels who are running not only our courts, but who are railroading these men in a barely literate exchange of excuses in this ludicrous sequence of events.

Why is it necessary to cite chapter and verse from the law to Ori Lev and the rest who are taking down comparatively enormous salaries and are completely skirting these issues? Why does the law not matter to them? Why is it that the government does not take any of these laws for these Americans seriously in spite of case law which punctuates their case and their reasoning?

I keep coming back to it; this concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

Carlotta Gall was sitting in the front row




Carlotta Gall was sitting in the front row when Idema and his men first appeared in court--and they were still showing obvious effects of their beatings and torture when they first appeared there. It was so extreme, that she was ordered out of the courtroom.

Apparently the media didn't believe anyone would closely examine their pictures of these men (like Cao obviously did) -because it is obvious in this shot that Idema was recovering from something horrible.

In 2002, the inimitable Ms. Gall received an award from Columbia University on her knack for propaganda...excuse me...for "international journalism" for her Afghan war reporting. David Klatell, was acting dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and was the man who announced it.
A judges' panel described Ms. Gall as ''always bold and yet fair and meticulous'' in describing injustices, whether committed by American forces or by warlords in Afghanistan.
Judging from what is known about this case thus far and her part in this early on, this is indeed questionable.

This concatenation of events must end.



Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|

The Habeas and new docs filed

The Columbia University-run website has no coherent point to make; but I do; and for a brief time I may in fact be prolific.

Let us discuss the recent filings available through Pacer. More people than Cao are reading them, as they are publicly available documents.

Idema, Caraballo and Banderas motioned the court for a temporary restraining order Rule 60 and other relief after Caraballo was being held and threatened with beheading among other things-by terrorists.

Idema through counsel, Bennett, Banderas joined through their next friend and submitted a memorandum of Law, Points, and Authorities in Support of their previously filed Motion and Supplemental Facts show this:

They requested the Court to review their contemporaneously filed Affidavit of Supplemental Facts to their Original motion which occurred or came to light after the government was served with the original restraining order.

Does it not seem ridiculous that you would have to serve your own government a restraining order??? It should!

In this situation, sadly, it is understandable. This concatenation of events which the US government is using to clusterfuck our own citizens must end.

Day-to-day custodial control over Jack and Brent (and Caraballo until he was released this past weekend) is exercised by US citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of any court who are illegally denying the liberty interests of US citizens also outside the territorial jurisdiction of any US district Court. That alone, among other facotrs, completely distinguishes this case from Gherebi v. Bush, 374 F.3d 727, 739 (9th Cir. 2004) and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct. 2711-27 (2004) in every manner addressed by those cases by the US Supreme Court. Habeas corpus if far-reaching, and by no means as limited as the US government claims. Set forth below are points and authorities supporting each of their requests for relief in the previouslyfiled motion.

Facts of the Case

Respondents' Relations to Petition and SDNY Jurisdiction
Issues of Law-Points and Authorities
I. Rule 60 Provides for Reconsideration Based on Mistakes
II. The SDNY Court has Territorial Jurisdiction Over Respondents
III. THE SDNY Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Respondents
IV. Petition Should be Transferred Back to the SDNY in the Alternative-All District Courts have the Right to Review a Detainer
V. Petitioners Have a Right To, but should not be forced to Amend
VI. Petitioners Should be Granted a Temporary Restraining Order
VII. Respondents' Should be Barred from Further Dispositive Motions
Conclusion


If you don't understand legaleze, or are here to harrass and offend; get off my blog. These are serious facts which people like Mariah Blake and Carlotta Gall have completely swept under the rug and/or dismissed entirely.

This entails the supposed Constutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens in a foreign country which has entered into agreements with the US to uphold that our citizens would not lose these rights while they are there.

Too bad Idema and his men don't work for Blackwater because this would all be a moot point--and none of this would have happened...Blackwater has the power and connections to protect its employees from this kind of government BS.


Had they worked for Blackwater...their mission of looking for the terrorists and interrogating them would have ended. Qanuni and other top officials in the Northern Alliance would be dead.

Excuse the colorful language you may see here as I parse through these legal documents. Grapple with and clench the recklessness, rudeness, thoughtlessness, and audacity of not only the Federal Government in this case...but the journalists who have been primarily responsible for this comedy of errors and misleading the public.

Indeed, sadly, this is--to put it mildly-an outrage. I am new at this blogger thing but with my programming background, I've managed to picked some of this up rather quickly, what?

We will get to the CJR documents soon.

This concatenation of events must end.


Technorati Search for Jack Idema

|