By MICHAEL LUO

Published: April 21, 2007

(Virginia Tech shooting)

WASHINGTON, April 20 - Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective," as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice's order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia's Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include "determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority" that as a result of mental illness, the person is a "danger to himself or others."

Mr. Cho's ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. "We are going to fix this," he said.

TidbitsNews: Note - Had dually licensed permit holders, students or faculty, been allowed to carry their gun on the property of Virginia Tech - instead of 32 people being shot there maybe 2, 12 or more people would not have been shot if a permit holder had come upon the shooter Cho at any time. (See below for statistics on how licensed permit holders have decreased crime all over the U.S. in states that issue licenses to non-felon descent citizens. )

We cannot blame the GUN, only the Bureaucracy that is paid and elected to protect citizens.

No armed Nation can ever be taken over when the Citizens are armed.

And in every State where "right to carry" permits are issued, the crime rates have dropped drastically.

Florida, the first of the large States issued 775,300 permits in 14 years and only 142 were revoked (.00018%) and some were re-instated, during the 14 years. And not one "Texas Shootout" by permit holders.

If all laws were adhered to like that there would be no need for ANY Police in the United States at all.

The real players behind disarmament are the same people that started, spread and nurtured communism and now just have given it a new name (One World Government or New World Order).

Afghanistan defeated the Soviet Union and they had to leave, and we are not able to take Afghanistan or Iraq (which has been proven not to have any part in 9/11 or Weapons of Mass Destruction all that false information came from Israel).....this is why we went in.....so why not just GET OUT!! We had no more right to attack and kill over 663,000 Iraqi's..kill and wound our best young men, pay $418,152,655,452.00... than had we attacked Canada and did the same.

We are losing thousands of our best young men and running out of troops. We could use them better on our Northern and Southern Borders. And also  set up an area like Ellis Island, check Immigrants for communicable disease, return them if diseased, run criminal background checks, are registered, take classes in government & English, pass a citizenship test and know their whereabouts at all times, not allowed to go on welfare, or free medical care, (which only welfare recipients get in the U. S.) etc. This is the same as our forefathers had to do. If it was good enough for them it is good as well for anyone else that wants to become a U.S. Citizen.

Sir Peter Bonnell CJSJ

 

April 17, 2007

Capuano and Kucinich Come Clean About the Lobby

Why is the Peace Movement Silent About AIPAC? * American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

By JOHN WALSH  (For the complete article go to http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04172007.html )

"AIPAC!" was the forceful one-word answer of Congressman Michael Capuano when we asked him, "Why was the Iran clause forbidding war on Iran without Congressional approval taken out of the recent supplemental for the Iraq war funding?" I nearly fell out of my chair at his reply - not because this was news but because of who had just said it. Capuano is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi, her fixer and enforcer. That was last Friday morning when a small delegation from Cambridge and Somerville, MA, were visiting the Congressman, known for his bluntness, as part of the nationwide UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) home lobbying effort during the Congressional recess.

Later that day, Dennis Kucinich made an appearance at Harvard, where he was asked the same question, the reason for removing the Iran provision. "AIPAC," I volunteered out loud. Kucinich looked my way and said, "Exactly." Again my chair almost failed to contain me.

A few weeks earlier we had gone to the offices of Senators Kennedy and then Kerry to discuss the war. (My intention was to call their attention to www.FilibusterForPeace.org to which the Kennedy aide was sympathetic and the Kerry aide predictably hostile.) I raised the question of AIPAC directly with Kerry's aide, inquiring about its hawkish influence on Kerry and other Senators. Suddenly the aide was quite engaged. Leaning forward, he said: "That will never be discussed publicly. That will never be discussed publicly." Clearly even Kerry's office is unhappy with the pressure that comes from AIPAC.

It is widely acknowledged that the reps and senators are ticked at AIPAC, and their hostility seems to be growing these days. With upwards of 60% of their campaign contributions coming directly or indirectly from the Israel Lobby, the Democratic congressmen are not free to respond to their antiwar base. This opens them to an antiwar electoral challenge on the Left or Right from forces not subservient to AIPAC. And that could cost them their next election, a little thing which has them very worked up. Capuano's cry of "AIPAC" was no simple outburst of candor but a cri de coeur for his career.

So here we have even Congressmen and Senator's aides complaining publicly about AIPAC. AIPAC is being outed all over the mainstream media, largely thanks to the door opening work of Mearsheimer and Walt. AIPAC is skewered routinely by Justin Raimondo on Antiwar.com and by Alex Cockburn and many others here on CounterPunch. But there remains no anti-AIPAC campaign within the mainstream antiwar organizations, like UFPJ or Peace Action. (Even one supposed Congressional ally of the peace movement was announced as a celebrity guest at the recent colossal AIPAC meeting in Washington, where half the Congress shows up and Dick Cheney is a regular speaker. What gives?)

I have been told by leaders of the peace movement that AIPAC is a distraction from the main thrust of the antiwar movement. And so we should not engage it; AIPAC is to be immune. But with all due respect to the sentiments of that leadership, immunity for AIPAC is a prescription for disaster. To use a military analogy, which I do not especially like, suppose that we were trying to take a hill in Germany in 1944. And suppose we said that we would not attack one pillbox, which kept devastating our forces. Leave just that one pillbox alone! The result would be devastating; we would be cut down with every succeeding attempt at advance. So it is with AIPAC which campaigns relentlessly for war on Iraq, war on Iran, war on Syria, war on Lebanon and the slow genocide of the Palestinian people. AIPAC constantly puts the peace movement on the defensive while it is free to be on the offensive all the time.

AIPAC is not just an issue for Jewish Americans .......it is a major force,........In fact it is worse, because it sinks its teeth into the foreign policy establishment of both parties, perhaps the Dems more so than the Republicans. If the peace movement is to be worth its salt, then it must take action against AIPAC.

Joshua Ashenberg, tells me that the foregoing thought harbors a logical error. As he says: "A 'movement' that does not work against AIPAC is NOT a peace movement by definition.

In the Boston area, AIPAC appears to be especially powerful, and so we have a special responsibility to take it on. At the recent AIPAC conference in Washington, the delegates from Boston/New England were the most hawkish toward Iran. Just before the last election a notorious ad in the Boston Globe, cheering on the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, was engineered by the Jewish Community Relations Council, an arm of AIPAC here. Every major political figure in MA signed the ad, including our "liberal" governor, Deval Patrick, and supposed peacenik Congressman Jim McGovern.

So I have a modest suggestion. On Sunday, April 29, beginning at 6 pm, AIPAC has its annual fundraising dinner at the Westin Hotel in Copley Square in Boston. (Last year a good table for 10 went for a modest $10,000.) Show up at 5 pm to protest the machinations of AIPAC. Which peace organizations in our area will be there? Which ones will promote the rally? And which will maintain their silence?

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com.  (End)

TidbitsNews-Note: If a supposed Anti-War group you support or belong to does not go to Westin Hotel in Copley Sq. Boston, at 5PM Sunday, April 29th to protest they are most likely bought and paid for also by the Jewish Lobby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

*Sir Peter is an American and international news columnist Knighted for an "outstanding fight against world communism". He was promoted to Commander & Brig. Gen. in 1978, served as Ambassador of the Sovereign Order of St. John 1978-1980, appointed as Chairman of the Ohio Governor's Export Council to Central America in 1982. His political writings are sent to news services in the U.S. and other countries.

 

<Please forward this email column to a friend, group or organization.>

<You also may feel free to print this column and distribute it to others>

<Donation may be sent to Tidbits, P.O. Box 268, Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44222>

< All donations no matter how small help us to spread the TRUTH to an ever-increasing audience>.

<Please remember us in your will and in that way do your part to help save America and other free countries too stay that way>.

<If you wish to send a anonymous donation, you can purchase a Money Order at any convenient store, etc, and leave Sender blank, or write in Anonymous, make payable to: Tidbits>.

Unsubscribe: If you wish to "Unsubscribe" click on this email address: tidbitsnews@peoplepc.com and type in Subject line, "Unsubscribe", and you will be taken off our email mailing list.