My exchange with Robert Steinback of the Miami Herald
The following is an exchange I had with Mr. Steinback of the Miami Herald, who, in 1977 graduated from the University of Rochester (which is also my hometown in upstate New York). I am posting his original piece and the subsequent exchanges in order as they were written. His first sentence brings into light the hypocracy with which has given to so much division in these times. I am reminded of a quote, which I have found to be the Presumption of innocence: 'Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.'
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in many modern nations. It states that "no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court".
This right is so important in modern democracies that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions.
By Robert Steinback
12/27/05 "Miami Herald" -- -- If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?
-----Original Message-----
From: jack 2019 [mailto:jxxxu@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:00 PM
To: Steinback, Robert
Subject: hey robert
you do a great dis-service to your countrymen by supposing and writing that
bin laden attacked america.
wake up and get your head out of your ass.
tuckett
www.subbionic.com
Mr. Tuckett,
You aren't much of an advocate for your own position if this is the language you
need to use to make your case.
I'm aware of some of the alternative theories about what happened, but why not
simply present yours, instead of berating me for not believing you in advance?
And if I disagree with your conclusions, well, that's just the consequences of
debate and discussion. I haven't often run into a person who is angry that
someone doesn't agree with him before he even bothers to make a case.
Robert Steinback
Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/robert_steinback/
-----Original Message-----
From: jack 2019 [mailto:jxxxxu@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:44 PM
To: Steinback, Robert
Subject: RE: hey robert
Robert,
Then perhaps you haven't come across many people who would fight without
worrying what is to be lost, rather than what can (and should) be gained.
And I hope to continue reaping the fruits from all my losses...
Besides the words, 'bin Laden's attack', your article was mature and
beautiful... for a baby boomer. Let's at least agree that we can do better
in our communication skills - - for even Osama said he did not plan the
attack - - 'I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent
attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.' -
OBL (9/17/01) {al-jazzera}
My language was meant to provoke a response from someone who seemingly sits
in a position of power that too many people today do dream of having. Let
us be precise. I do understand your position... and again, we must do
better - - to find Answers to Questions that deserve our Time.
http://tuckett.blogspot.com/2005/04/flight-93-flight-93-y.html
jt
Jack,
Thank you for the kind words regarding the column. Perhaps you shouldn't rely on
"presumptions" about what people in my position do. I've received close to 200
e-mails in response to my column, and I'm making an effort to reply to them all.
I don't need to be spoken down to in order to "provoke a response."
First of all, I'm not inclined to take the words of an avowed terrorist who
claims innocence. That doesn't make him guilty; it just means his protestations
alone are meaningless to me. I'm still be interested in hearing your case for
the fact that he isn't responsible for 9/11, beyond what he himself has to say.
I've heard some of the arguments in the past; so far, I haven't found them
particularly compelling. But you evidently know more on the subject, so I'm
willing to be enlightened.
Just curious -- you said my column a mature and beautiful "for a baby boomer."
Am I somehow limited by my generation, and is there another generation to whose
greater capabilities I should defer?
Robert
Robert,
If someone wrote to you an email that said, ‘Robert, the 9-11 attack that killed 3,000+ of our countrymen was not what it appeared to be…’ and then persuaded the best of you to see the fiction in the official story, I am sure that one day you will admit to having believed it an ‘absurd fantasy’. I am slightly dismayed, yet inspired to share this moment with you.
Your article professes disillusionment with man - and fittingly, a sadness that, so many lay complacent in the face of weak men.
What do you know about the man that you accredit 9-11 to- to have done so?
I am not sure what you mean when you say that you ‘are not inclined to take the words of an avowed terrorist’. Perhaps you are referring to a quote attributed to him, which has found diverse translations, and goes something like:
‘If the instigation for jihad holy war against the Jews and Americans…is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal.’
By replacing the word ‘criminal’, with ‘terrorist’, one can understand then what you refer to when you say that he is an ‘avowed terrorist.’ Yet, what has become of the words ‘Freedom’ and ‘Democracy’ when elections are stolen, and political campaigns are funded by the ‘business’ of corporations? And how about the majority of people outside of this country who openly consider the real terrorist as being George W. Bush (and not to speak of those who believe the same here in this country)? And how can one regard Israel as the only ‘Democracy’ in the Middle East when it doesn’t even have a constitution by which a democratic constitution obliges the state to treat all of its citizens equally?
Do you know that the above quote attributed to OBL appeared in Time Magazine – which, I shouldn’t need to say – is a magazine started by a Yale graduate and Skull and Bones member named Henry Luce.
Bin Laden is precise with his words, as those who have taken the time to read them will clearly ascertain- and then one can also find that he has not declared war on ‘Jews’, but instead, more precisely, he has declared war on ‘Jews in the Holyland.’
But who are we to label him a terrorist? –for history will show us that he, like George Washington, has taken a stance For the betterment of their fellowman. And who are we to cast stones and daggers in our comfortable homes, free from the threat of Israeli bulldozers? I do believe that the limitations we impose (and allow to be imposed) upon ourselves- for our supposed preservation- to be the manifestation of our understanding of man and the world in which we live. And so, how limited our understanding if we allow the destruction to continue.
Regarding 9-11, it is enough for me to see the direction in which George Bush points- to know that it is the direction where I shouldn’t go- for what cheerleader is ever a good quarterback? His actions have unmistakably showed No Regard for human life, and human life has no nationality.
With regards to OBL’s culpability for the event of 9-11, not one single piece of evidence has surfaced outside of what This government has claimed that connects OBL to 9-11. There was the video tape that surfaced days after 9-11 where Bin Laden is supposedly talking or laughing about 9-11, yet Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up:
"The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."
Let’s look at ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, former investment banker, now ex-CIA executive director, who, in some capacity after having served as Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown (which became in 1999 Deutsch Bank, the largest bank in Europe) joined the CIA in 1998, and was promoted to CIA Executive Director by Bush in March of 2001:
A part from the obvious insider trading ‘put’ options bought through Deutsch Bank shortly before 9-11, that I am sure you are well aware of, and the historical ideological connection between the CIA and the Nazi’s and the Bush’s and the Dulles Brothers and Vietnam and the JFK – RFK – MLK- assassinations, etc., let’s look at what ‘Buzzy’ said this year…
He said he viewed Bin Laden ‘not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist. Let’s say you wanted to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, “Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy.” I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communication are just too difficult.’
Robert, what is an investment banker doing as chief executive officer of the CIA?
What plane debris did you see from Flight 93?
(Flight 93 was the supposed ‘plane’ where ‘it’ and all its passengers were 'cremated upon impact' except for two bibles which were retrieved.)
The coroner, who arrived hours after that particular crash said that the crater looked like, ‘someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.’ And once he was able to absorb the scene, he said, ‘I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there.’
How did everyone from Flight 93 just disintegrate, and why, four years later do they claim to have found body parts still? And why did not one single family member from the 44 victims collect the average $2 million dollar settlement from the Victims Compensation Fund set up after 9-11? - - and yet, they were all Americans…
Why was the hole in the Pentagon covered with an American flag after the event when the administration likes to scare people? Could it be that the size of the hole was too…
Oh, computer models show that it couldn’t have been a 757 that hit the building…
And why were the inner columns to the walls not pushed in, the way a plane on impact would’ve pushed the walls inward?
Have you ever seen a picture from this?
And why was video from nearby surveillance cameras confiscated shortly thereafter, never to be released – if there was such a plane – to dispel us ‘conspiracy theorists’?
If you still would like to know what my rationale for believing that which I and so many others do -in further detail, and beyond instinct and the intrinsic, I think myself, like others have written and researched enough to rewrite history the way it should be told to our children and enough for one to come to a very well educated conclusion as to the true nature of the events behind September 11th. And more importantly it must be said, that if one is not willing to look into his or her own being, his or her own faith, first, that understanding can be quite a laborious, long and unacceptable reality.
…So as to our humanity.
May your search be rewarding Robert,
Your Friend,
Jimmy Tuckett
p.s. - in 1977, I was 3 years old in Rochester, NY.
///
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in many modern nations. It states that "no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court".
This right is so important in modern democracies that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions.
By Robert Steinback
12/27/05 "Miami Herald" -- -- If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?
-----Original Message-----
From: jack 2019 [mailto:jxxxu@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:00 PM
To: Steinback, Robert
Subject: hey robert
you do a great dis-service to your countrymen by supposing and writing that
bin laden attacked america.
wake up and get your head out of your ass.
tuckett
www.subbionic.com
Mr. Tuckett,
You aren't much of an advocate for your own position if this is the language you
need to use to make your case.
I'm aware of some of the alternative theories about what happened, but why not
simply present yours, instead of berating me for not believing you in advance?
And if I disagree with your conclusions, well, that's just the consequences of
debate and discussion. I haven't often run into a person who is angry that
someone doesn't agree with him before he even bothers to make a case.
Robert Steinback
Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/robert_steinback/
-----Original Message-----
From: jack 2019 [mailto:jxxxxu@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 6:44 PM
To: Steinback, Robert
Subject: RE: hey robert
Robert,
Then perhaps you haven't come across many people who would fight without
worrying what is to be lost, rather than what can (and should) be gained.
And I hope to continue reaping the fruits from all my losses...
Besides the words, 'bin Laden's attack', your article was mature and
beautiful... for a baby boomer. Let's at least agree that we can do better
in our communication skills - - for even Osama said he did not plan the
attack - - 'I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent
attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.' -
OBL (9/17/01) {al-jazzera}
My language was meant to provoke a response from someone who seemingly sits
in a position of power that too many people today do dream of having. Let
us be precise. I do understand your position... and again, we must do
better - - to find Answers to Questions that deserve our Time.
http://tuckett.blogspot.com/2005/04/flight-93-flight-93-y.html
jt
Jack,
Thank you for the kind words regarding the column. Perhaps you shouldn't rely on
"presumptions" about what people in my position do. I've received close to 200
e-mails in response to my column, and I'm making an effort to reply to them all.
I don't need to be spoken down to in order to "provoke a response."
First of all, I'm not inclined to take the words of an avowed terrorist who
claims innocence. That doesn't make him guilty; it just means his protestations
alone are meaningless to me. I'm still be interested in hearing your case for
the fact that he isn't responsible for 9/11, beyond what he himself has to say.
I've heard some of the arguments in the past; so far, I haven't found them
particularly compelling. But you evidently know more on the subject, so I'm
willing to be enlightened.
Just curious -- you said my column a mature and beautiful "for a baby boomer."
Am I somehow limited by my generation, and is there another generation to whose
greater capabilities I should defer?
Robert
Robert,
If someone wrote to you an email that said, ‘Robert, the 9-11 attack that killed 3,000+ of our countrymen was not what it appeared to be…’ and then persuaded the best of you to see the fiction in the official story, I am sure that one day you will admit to having believed it an ‘absurd fantasy’. I am slightly dismayed, yet inspired to share this moment with you.
Your article professes disillusionment with man - and fittingly, a sadness that, so many lay complacent in the face of weak men.
What do you know about the man that you accredit 9-11 to- to have done so?
I am not sure what you mean when you say that you ‘are not inclined to take the words of an avowed terrorist’. Perhaps you are referring to a quote attributed to him, which has found diverse translations, and goes something like:
‘If the instigation for jihad holy war against the Jews and Americans…is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal.’
By replacing the word ‘criminal’, with ‘terrorist’, one can understand then what you refer to when you say that he is an ‘avowed terrorist.’ Yet, what has become of the words ‘Freedom’ and ‘Democracy’ when elections are stolen, and political campaigns are funded by the ‘business’ of corporations? And how about the majority of people outside of this country who openly consider the real terrorist as being George W. Bush (and not to speak of those who believe the same here in this country)? And how can one regard Israel as the only ‘Democracy’ in the Middle East when it doesn’t even have a constitution by which a democratic constitution obliges the state to treat all of its citizens equally?
Do you know that the above quote attributed to OBL appeared in Time Magazine – which, I shouldn’t need to say – is a magazine started by a Yale graduate and Skull and Bones member named Henry Luce.
Bin Laden is precise with his words, as those who have taken the time to read them will clearly ascertain- and then one can also find that he has not declared war on ‘Jews’, but instead, more precisely, he has declared war on ‘Jews in the Holyland.’
But who are we to label him a terrorist? –for history will show us that he, like George Washington, has taken a stance For the betterment of their fellowman. And who are we to cast stones and daggers in our comfortable homes, free from the threat of Israeli bulldozers? I do believe that the limitations we impose (and allow to be imposed) upon ourselves- for our supposed preservation- to be the manifestation of our understanding of man and the world in which we live. And so, how limited our understanding if we allow the destruction to continue.
Regarding 9-11, it is enough for me to see the direction in which George Bush points- to know that it is the direction where I shouldn’t go- for what cheerleader is ever a good quarterback? His actions have unmistakably showed No Regard for human life, and human life has no nationality.
With regards to OBL’s culpability for the event of 9-11, not one single piece of evidence has surfaced outside of what This government has claimed that connects OBL to 9-11. There was the video tape that surfaced days after 9-11 where Bin Laden is supposedly talking or laughing about 9-11, yet Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up:
"The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."
Let’s look at ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, former investment banker, now ex-CIA executive director, who, in some capacity after having served as Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown (which became in 1999 Deutsch Bank, the largest bank in Europe) joined the CIA in 1998, and was promoted to CIA Executive Director by Bush in March of 2001:
A part from the obvious insider trading ‘put’ options bought through Deutsch Bank shortly before 9-11, that I am sure you are well aware of, and the historical ideological connection between the CIA and the Nazi’s and the Bush’s and the Dulles Brothers and Vietnam and the JFK – RFK – MLK- assassinations, etc., let’s look at what ‘Buzzy’ said this year…
He said he viewed Bin Laden ‘not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist. Let’s say you wanted to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, “Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy.” I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communication are just too difficult.’
Robert, what is an investment banker doing as chief executive officer of the CIA?
What plane debris did you see from Flight 93?
(Flight 93 was the supposed ‘plane’ where ‘it’ and all its passengers were 'cremated upon impact' except for two bibles which were retrieved.)
The coroner, who arrived hours after that particular crash said that the crater looked like, ‘someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.’ And once he was able to absorb the scene, he said, ‘I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there.’
How did everyone from Flight 93 just disintegrate, and why, four years later do they claim to have found body parts still? And why did not one single family member from the 44 victims collect the average $2 million dollar settlement from the Victims Compensation Fund set up after 9-11? - - and yet, they were all Americans…
Why was the hole in the Pentagon covered with an American flag after the event when the administration likes to scare people? Could it be that the size of the hole was too…
Oh, computer models show that it couldn’t have been a 757 that hit the building…
And why were the inner columns to the walls not pushed in, the way a plane on impact would’ve pushed the walls inward?
Have you ever seen a picture from this?
And why was video from nearby surveillance cameras confiscated shortly thereafter, never to be released – if there was such a plane – to dispel us ‘conspiracy theorists’?
If you still would like to know what my rationale for believing that which I and so many others do -in further detail, and beyond instinct and the intrinsic, I think myself, like others have written and researched enough to rewrite history the way it should be told to our children and enough for one to come to a very well educated conclusion as to the true nature of the events behind September 11th. And more importantly it must be said, that if one is not willing to look into his or her own being, his or her own faith, first, that understanding can be quite a laborious, long and unacceptable reality.
…So as to our humanity.
May your search be rewarding Robert,
Your Friend,
Jimmy Tuckett
p.s. - in 1977, I was 3 years old in Rochester, NY.
///
posted by jackdeluxe at 7:09 PM
0 comments
