Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional impingement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled in a decision released Friday.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practices. She also ordered the government to cease enforcing the gag provision in any other cases. However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Good stuff - wargames, pre-attack warnings, the WTC7 collapse, the Mineta testimony - this is a solid initial introduction to the deficiencies in the official story, and the suggestive reasons why Cheney personally warrants reinvestigation for his lies and his probable role in facilitating the attack. You could have a lengthy thread here covering Cheney's relationship to the instigation of Continuity of Government (see Peter Dale Scott's THE ROAD TO 9/11), his determination to unleash unshackled executive power after the Iran-Contra hearings, his decades-long interest in war-for-profiteering, his role in the Team B propaganda group during the Carter admin under the steerage of Bush Sr, etc etc, and still not uncover all the ramifications that Cheney's presence in the administration likely means to the real story behind 9/11. Equally, I expect that Cheney’s activities after the event were probably instrumental in keeping a tight lid on the story, and maintaining the complicity of the domestic media.
In March 2009, Seymour Hersh mentioned during his University of Minnesota speech that "the Bush administration ran an executive assassination ring that reported directly to Vice President Dick Cheney". A Democracy Now episode interviewed Hersh and replayed the audio.
A few months later The Guardian followed up the lead, reporting that Cheney had arranged for the concealment of CIA assassination squads overseas. The squads were set-up to hunt down and kill 'al-Qaida operatives in friendly countries' without informing the governments concerned.
Those pesky al-Qaida figures – designated, I’m sure, through evidence that was rarely, if ever, released to the public - could have been anywhere, I guess. A week or so after the Guardian article, Wayne Madsen asserted that the Cheney assassination team in question - JSOC (the Joint Special Operations Command) - worked hand-in-hand with Israeli commando personnel from the Mossad's 'Kidon' department, which was reportedly 'responsible for conducting assassinations and kidnappings'.
(I'm aware of the difficulty of referencing some of Madsen’s claims when he simply links them to unnamed ‘intelligence sources’, but am putting the info here for reference). Madsen notes:
"During the time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of the Pentagon, his neoconservative subordinates, including Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, authorized the entrance into the Pentagon of top Israeli Defense Force and Mossad officers, including Kidon personnel, according to information obtained by WMR. There were no records maintained of the Israeli visits or the identities of the visitors in what was described by Pentagon officials as a complete violation of Pentagon security procedures.... The operations of the JSOC-Mossad team were coordinated by the Office of Special Plans... The Cheney joint Pentagon-Israeli team goes to the heart of covert activities conducted by the Bush-Cheney administration."
The overseas JSOC activities listed by Madsen include various covert actions against Iran, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that Mossad personnel would have been given the go-ahead to co-operate in activities that they found beneficial to their goals. Nonetheless, a joint Pentagon/Mossad covert action team set-up “during the time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of the Pentagon” (i.e presumably before 9/11) is suggestive for reasons that don’t need to be belaboured. Searching for a link to add at this point, I find the best one is from a piece printed here on 911Blogger in 2007, following a much vaunted Christopher Ketcham Counterpunch article that addressed the issue in a perhaps more superficial manner:
Whether you concur with Ketchum or the more accusatory Crimes of the State blog piece reprinted on 911Blogger just above, there is ample evidence of an Israeli covert action team hard at work prior to and circa 9/11. I don’t find the later revelation that Cheney had the ability to cover the tracks of a black-ops/assassination group, to hide it from congress, and to make it answerable only to him, particularly reassuring. The domestic anthrax attacks, presumably in preparation before 9/11, and later linked to a US government lab, reconfirm that the forces behind 9/11 felt little compunction against declaring the American public the enemy. Cheney’s oversight and control of an assassination team that may have itself been complicit in the 9/11 attacks would give him ample muscle – if any more were needed – to target and remove domestic elements that were problematic, and to put the word out for the requirement of silence to anyone lower down in the administration who was paying attention. It would have then been an elegantly cynical move to later push that black-ops team forward (in conjunction with JSOC) to help wage war against a phantom enemy that was itself created by the CIA.
As an aside, Cheney’s long-time cohort Rumsfeld was suggestively active with NATO at the same place, and during the same time, that the 1970’s Gladio attacks – later attributed to NATO by Italian investigative authorities - were at their height. Rumsfeld would eventually leave his duties with NATO to join Cheney in the Ford administration. A biography of Lyman Lemnitzer, who headed the Joint Chiefs in the early 1960’s when they drafted the seminal Cold War false flag proposal Operation Northwoods…
…later places Lemnitzer right next to Rumsfeld and Cheney in the Team B group that agitated for an arms build-up and aggressive stance towards Russia, and which cynically manufactured intelligence to reach that goal - see the Adam Curtis documentary THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES for much more on this. I’m sure the three of them had plenty to talk about.
THIS IS THE YEAR WE MAKE IT HAPPEN!
In spite of the fact that the 9/11 truth message has been censored by many in the media, ignored by Congress and the President, and shunned by most academic institutions, polls still show that more than 30% of US citizens doubt the official story about 9/11. Let’s reach out to the rest!
The terrifying specter of drone strikes on US civilians, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act… these are just a few disturbing consequences that continue to follow widespread acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative.
NOW… MORE THAN EVER… it’s time to expose the facts that undermine that narrative, get this message out, and empower the people…
Operation Tip the Planet (OTP), the first ever global, trans-media 9/11 Anniversary event, capitalizes on reaching 2000 Architect and Engineer Petition Signers!
With your support, we’ve already raised close to $100,000 in matching funds, almost half of the $200,000 we need for our billboard, subway, and grassroots-to-global multi-city campaign!
By the March 31 deadline, you create and submit the ultimate slogan or ad to be seen all around the world this September. Not a creative type? No worries. Help out by voting on April 1st! Or donate to help pay for more ads in more cities!
We’re looking for provocative, compelling, tasteful, slogans or full ads to help jumpstart the most massive 9/11 Truth campaign ever!
We’re taking this worldwide… to hundreds of cities – in subways, on billboards, storefronts, bumper stickers, posters, tee shirts and more. But we need your genius to make it work!
Together, let’s generate enough media coverage to finally bring widespread attention to the 2,000+ architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the 3 WTC skyscrapers on 9/11.
We challenge YOU to come up with a memorable, innovative concept that will intrigue 9/11 Truth newcomers and give mainstream media a story they can’t resist.
This “pull out all the stops” viral, trans-media campaign is supported by a coalition of like-minded 9/11 Truth organizations, including:AE911Truth NYC CAN 9/11 Truth and Justice in Canada The 9/11 Consensus Panel We Are Change groups Citizens Aware and Asking
We anticipate support from many celebrity sponsors, including famed actor Ed Asner.
Our month-long global advertising and grassroots action campaign beginning on September 1, 2013, will coincide & synergize with:AE911Truth reaching 2,000+ architect and engineer petition signers “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out” airing all across the world AE911Truth petition & DVD copy of ESO delivery to Congress members 2013 Washington DC 9/11 Truth conference
We are counting on these simultaneous actions to have a multiplier effect that captures the attention of the public, and the media, and finally tips the entire planet toward 9/11 awareness.
An Important Message From Ed Asner
It’s been twelve years since 9/11. Isn’t it time that people around the world know what really happened? In spite of mainstream media’s refusal to cover this story, millions of people everywhere are becoming aware. Surveys reveal that more than 30% of US citizens doubt the official 9/11 hypothesis.
Now we’re at a turning point, thanks to years of grassroots outreach, and with your help, are finally ready to “Tip the Planet.”
Fast forward to September:
For the entire month… a single message appears all around the world – on billboards, subways, and highway overpasses… On lawns, office windows, storefronts, bulletin boards, tee shirts, bumper stickers, and even televised sporting events… On Facebook, Twitter, YouTube… In places like New York City, Washington, D.C., Woburn Massachusetts, La Mesa California, Tokyo, Madrid, Montreal, Buenos Aires, London – and countless other cities…
This is the concept behind Operation Tip the Planet, the first-ever global 9/11 Truth anniversary event. Be sure your city is included!
Join me in making 2013 the year of 9/11 truth.
Preface: This is not a partisan post. We have repeatedly documented that Obama is as bad or worse than the Bush administration.
In the run up to the Iraq war – and for several years thereafter – the program of torture carried out by the Bush administration was specifically specifically aimed at establishing a false justification for war. Dick Cheney is the guy who pushed for torture, pressured the Justice Department lawyers to write memos saying torture was legal, and made the pitch to Congress justifying torture. (The former director of the CIA said Cheney oversaw American torture policies).
The type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions (see this, this, this and this).
According to NBC News:Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured.” One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was not even allowed to read The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on third-hand accounts of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.
As the 9/11 Commission Report itself states:
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these “detainees” have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.
In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.
The Commission didn’t really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report – Ernest May – said in May 2005:
We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.
New York Times investigative reporter Philip Shenon Newsweek noted in a 2009 essay in Newsweek that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees:
The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.
The panel raised no public protest over the CIA’s interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.
That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission’s final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain. [That's what top military interrogators say.]
And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission’s report may have been subjected to “enhanced” interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission….
Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel’s report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda. [Remember the names "KSM" and "Abu Zubaydah" - we'll get back to them below.]
Footnotes in the panel’s report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report’s footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.
Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel’s behalf.
The commission’s report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had “no control” over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information “with documents and statements of others.”
But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?
Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission [one of the 9/11 Commissioners], told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking. …
The Washington Post documents that Abu Zubaydah was literally crazy – as he head suffered a serious head injury years before 9/11 – and that the FBI agent involved in interrogating Abu Zubaydah and reviewing documents at his house (Daniel Coleman) said that everyone knew that Abu Zubaydah was an unreliable source for information.
“This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.”
Indeed, the government has since backed away from all claims that Abu Zubaydah had any role in Al Qaeda or 9/11. For example – in September 2009 – the U.S. government admitted in writing in a court proceeding that Abu Zubaydah had never been a member or associate or supporter of al-Qaeda, was not involved in 9/11, and had no prior knowledge of 9/11:
The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.
Respondent [The United States Government] does not contend that Petitioner was a “member” of al-Qaida in the sense of having sworn a bayat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either Petitioner or al-Qaida may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaida. Nor is the Government detaining Petitioner based on any allegation that Petitioner views himself as part of al-Qaida as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology, or worldview.
The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner had any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Government has not contended that Petitioner had any personal involvement in planning or executing either the 1998 embassy bombings… or the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Kevin Ryan – who has interviewed 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton, Abu Zubaydah’s attorney and other knowledgeable people – documents how central Abu Zubaydah is to the 9/11 Commission Report (footnotes omitted; see original for documentation)
The 9/11 Commission (falsely) called Zubaydah an “al Qaeda lieutenant.” The Joint Congressional inquiry did the same, calling him “al-Qa’ida leader Abu Zubaydah,” and the “Bin Ladin lieutenant captured in March 2002.” As late as 2006, the Justice Department’s Inspector General report on the 9/11 attacks called Zubaydah a “Bin Laden lieutenant.”
When Zubaydah was captured, in March 2002, U.S. government officials touted him as the biggest catch of the War on Terror, at least until the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that Zubaydah’s capture would help deter future attacks. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Zubaydah could provide a treasure-trove of information about al-Qaeda. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that Zubaydah was “a man who knows of additional attacks”, who has “trained people to do this”, and was a big fish who had a fountain of knowledge.
The extensive allegations against Zubaydah went on and on, and included that he was:along with KSM, one of “Al Qaeda’s top operational managers” – “Counterterrorism Czar”Richard Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies “sinister” and “there is evidence that he is a planner and a manager as well. I think he’s a major player.” – Former State Department director of counter-terrorism, Michael Sheehan “extremely dangerous” and a planner of 9/11. – State Department legal advisor John B. Bellinger III in a June 2007 briefing. a trainer, a recruiter, understood bomb-making, was a forger, a logistician, and someone who made things happen, and made “al-Qaeda function.” – Former CIA station chief, Bob Grenier “a close associate of UBL’s [i.e. Bin Laden], and if not the number two, very close to the number two person in the organization. I think that’s well established.” -Donald Rumsfeld “a very senior al Qaeda official who has been intimately involved in a range of activities for the al Qaeda.” – Donald Rumsfeld a “very senior al Qaeda operative.” – Donald Rumsfeld a “key terrorist recruiter and operational planner and member of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer someone whose capture was a “very serious blow” to al-Qaeda and therefore one of al-Qaeda’s “many tentacles” was “cut off.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer “one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.” –President George W. Bush “one of al-Qaeda’s top leaders” who was “spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al Qaeda, plotting and planning murder.” –President George W. Bush “al Qaeda’s chief of operations.” – President George W. Bush “one of the top three leaders” in al-Qaeda. – President George W. Bush someone whose interrogation “led to reliable information”, a “prolific producer” of information, with whom originated roughly 25 percent of the information on al Qaeda that came from human sources. – [National Security Agency Director] Michael Hayden one of three individuals “best positioned to know about impending terrorist atrocities.” – Michael Hayden
As the myth of Zubaydah grew, it was reported that he was –“worth a ton of guys at Gitmo.” a “senior bin Laden official” and the “former head of Egypt-based Islamic Jihad.” “played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks.” listed as a “trusted aide” to bin Laden with “growing power.” an aide of bin Laden who ran training camps in Afghanistan and “coordinated terror cells in Europe and North America.” a “key terrorist recruiter, operational planner, and member of Osama Bin Laden’s inner circle.” “bin Laden’s CEO”, and “a central figure in Al Qaeda” Bin Laden’s “travel planner.” “one of a handful of men entrusted with running the terrorism network in the event of Osama bin Laden’s death or capture.” a senior bin Laden lieutenant who was believed “to be organizing al Qaida resources to carry out attacks on American targets.” the fourth ranking member of al Qaeda behind Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Muhamed Atef. someone who knew the identities of “thousands” of terrorists that passed through al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan a colleague of Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber. one of bin Laden’s top planners of terrorist operations who knew of al Qaeda plots and cells. the “connection between bin Laden and many of al-Qaida’s operational cells.” the source of information that UAL Flight 93 was intended to hit the White House.
Because we now know that Zubaydah was never an al Qaeda operative, or even an al Qaeda associate, we are forced into the stunning realization that all of this was false. The questions that should arise from that realization include: How much of what we know about al Qaeda, and how much of the War on Terror, was built on the torture testimony of a man who clearly could not have known anything about al Qaeda at all? [We've already documented that Cheney, Rumsfeld and the boys are guilty of war crimes for falsely using 9/11 as a justification for the Iraq war, and noted that Cheney admits that he lied about 9/11.]
But as we know now, the CIA reportedly told Abu Zubaydah during his interrogation that they discovered he was not an al-Qaeda fighter, partner, or even a member. Still, KSM and Bin Alshibh were caught and tortured too.
Given the apparent “mistakes” related to Zubaydah being represented as an al Qaeda leader, there appears to be some serious revision required in the official account of 9/11. However, realistically, at this late date the information attributed to Zubaydah cannot likely be untangled from the official myth behind the War on Terror and the associated actions of the U.S. government. That’s because the torture of Zubaydah was used in support of unprecedented policy changes and actions.President Bush personally used the perceived value of Zubaydah’s capture and torture to justify the use of the CIA’s torture techniques as well as the detention of suspects in secret CIA prisons around the world. The U.S. government used the questionable intelligence obtained from Zubaydah in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. Officials stated that the allegations that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked through training people on the use of chemical weapons came from Zubaydah. There was no independent verification of these claims. Zubaydah’s torture testimony was also used to justify the use of military tribunals, moving the trial of alleged al Qaeda suspects out of the open civil courts. President Bush asked Congress in a speech in September 2006 to formulate special rules in order to try Abu Zubaydah via military commission in Guantanamo Bay. In fact, in late April 2002 less than one month after Abu Zubaydah’s capture, Justice Department officials stated Abu Zubaydah “is a near-ideal candidate for a tribunal trial.” Ironically, Zubaydah may be the only leading suspect to never face trial. In addition to justifying the use of illegal torture techniques, the Bush administration used Zubaydah’s capture as justification to accelerate its domestic spying program. The claim was that it would allow quick action on the phone numbers and addresses seized during Zubaydah’s capture.
How can the 9/11 Commission Report stand when one of the main sources for information was crazy, was tortured with a specific technique aimed at extracting false confessions, was never allowed to speak (first or second-hand) to the Commissioners, and was not even affiliated with Al Qaeda or 9/11?
The other main source for the Commission – KSM – the self-confessed “mastermind” of 9/11, also confessed to crimes which he could not have committed.
He later said that he gave the interrogators a lot of false information – telling them what he thought they wanted to hear – in an attempt to stop the torture. We also know that he was heavily tortured specifically for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11 – specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.
So the two main sources for the 9/11 Commission investigation were wholly unreliable.
Moreover, certain government personnel went to great lengths to cover up how unreliable the information was.
For example, the CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.
9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread. And Susan J. Crawford – the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantánamo – told Bob Woodward:
We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.
Indeed, 90 of the 92 videotapes that the CIA destroyed related to Abu Zubaydah.
Postscript: The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation” The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
And the Co-Chair of the official Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11 – and former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee – has called for a new 9/11 investigation.
Very high-level intelligence officials have also called the Commission’s findings into doubt:A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials, and who has for years been a tireless anti-war advocate and critic of imperial foreign policy (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke” Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11 Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence”
Some other examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include:An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:
Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements As reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
Nice job. Even those who avoid 9/11 as a topic would be hard-pressed not to see the relevance of what's discussed here.
I would like to point out a couple of things though:
On page 6, it says the attack on the USS Cole took place in 1993. In fact, it took place in 2000. The first WTC attack, on the other hand, did occur in 1993.
Also, on page 24, there is a reference to:
'the alleged attacks by foreign terrorists on September 11, 2001'
Whereas I think it would be much better to say, 'The attacks allegedly by foreign terrorists....' (or 'allegedly carried out by foreign terrorists....') To those who think the difference may be moot, I would point out that the Tonkin Gulf incident of August 4, 1964 was an 'alleged attack' that turned out not to have even occurred--whereas there's no denying that attacks were carried out on 9/11. It's the who and the how of 9/11 that's alleged, not the attacks themselves.
With that out of the way, here's a link to an article covering another part of the same basic story that is outlined in this paper (which readers here may already be familiar with):
And something else that seems relevant to mention in this context--It occurs to me that around the same time Habermas was writing about contemporary 'legitmation crises,' the Trilateral Commission came out with a report called 'Crisis of Democracy,' in 1975. The chapter on the U.S. was provided by none other than Samuel Huntington, who fretted over an 'excess of democracy' and the threat this posed to elite goals.
For a journalist, when something cannot be said, the silence is the most important story. Many people believe that Amy Goodman, host of the popular public radio and TV show Democracy Now!, is among the best when it comes to confronting people in power and asking hard questions. She may be one of the best, but her silence about 9/11 is stunning. For example, she has yet to tell her audience or her readers that nearly 2,000 architects and engineers – all verified and vetted – are calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, citing evidence of controlled demolition. That should be headline news for a journalist whose self-described role is to report on alternative voices excluded by the mainstream media.
Goodman is an accomplished author and syndicated columnist, and Democracy Now! airs on more than 1,000 television and radio stations in 35 countries. She is the first journalist to receive the Right Livelihood Award, widely known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize” for “developing an innovative model of truly independent grassroots political journalism that brings to millions of people the alternative voices that are often excluded by the mainstream media.” Goodman was also an eyewitness to the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11; video footage from that tragic day appears to show her ducking for cover with other bystanders as WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration. However, she won’t report about the calls for a real 9/11 investigation that have been made by thousands of technical professionals and over 100 family members of 9/11 victims.
Last fall, Goodman launched a 100-city tour promoting her new book, The Silenced Majority, along with her co-author, Denis Moynihan. As they describe their book, it is “intended to provide a vivid record of the events, conflicts, and social movements that are shaping our society today. The book gives voice to ordinary people standing up to corporate and government power across the country and around the world. Their writing and daily work at the grassroots public TV/radio news hour Democracy Now! casts, in stark relief, the stories of the ‘silenced majority.’ These stories are set against the backdrop of the mainstream media’s abject failure, with its small circle of pundits who know so little about so much, attempting to explain the world to us and getting it so wrong.”
[AE911Truth activists brought this poster to Amy Gooodman’s book signing to call attention one of the most silenced news stories in America]
On September 26, the book tour came to the University of Connecticut with a presentation, followed by a book signing, at the UConn Student Union. During Goodman’s presentation, she mentioned that all news about the conflict in East Timor was obliterated from the media and was not mentioned once from 1975 until she was assaulted and beaten in 1989 (which made the news). She mentioned how the police have been militarized since 9/11 and gave personal examples of how this has affected journalism. She mentioned 9/11 many times as being a significant event that has precipitated the loss of our civil liberties, but not once did she mention anything about the overwhelming body of evidence questioning the official story of what happened on 9/11.
In advance of this event, our local AE911Truth Action Group researched Amy’s history of reporting on 9/11 and found out that she did have an “interview” with producers of the 9/11 Truth documentary Loose Change in 2006, which included the surprise addition of two editors of the Popular Mechanics series, “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” The interview pitted the professional “hired guns” from the Hearst Corporation, owner of Popular Mechanics, against the courageous young filmmakers in an ill-matched debate.
As Amy Goodman talks with some of her fans, AE911Truth Congressional Outreach Team leader Wayne Coste (left) prepares to deliver an important message to her
The only other time Goodman has dealt with the 9/11 Truth issue on her show was in August 2011, when she interviewed the head of the Internet Archive about the BBC news report in which Jane Standley reported the fall of WTC7 – 20 minutes before it occurred.
AE911Truth supporters and WeAreChange activists have asked Goodman about the 9/11 evidence on many occasions, and she has given a lukewarm response, sometimes claiming that she supports a real investigation and sometimes ignoring the question altogether.
To highlight her reluctance to speak out about the 9/11 tTruth issue, we developed a quarter-page flyer and a large 30-in x 40-in poster that said:
“Newscasting is the art of the Story and the Silence; When something cannot be said, the Silence is the most important Story;
Amy Goodman cannot say: “Nearly 2000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center Towers on September 11th, citing evidence of controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives.”
Why can’t Amy say this? Certainly … 2000 architects and engineers … opposing fraudulent engineering reports … should be worth reporting ... because that fact is important.”
We handed out the quarter-page flyer until we were told to stop because “canvassing or soliciting” within or around the UConn Student Union was not allowed without a permit. I was told I could not display the poster so that the text and image were visible, because that was also considered to be soliciting or canvassing. Following this warning, I grudgingly joined the “silenced majority.”
During the book signing, I brought the poster back out and ignored warnings from Student Union security personnel to turn the poster around so that the text and image could not be seen. When the security officer said that it would be necessary to call the campus police, I responded, “I am here with Amy; we are breaking the silence together!” Denis Moynihan waved off the security staff, indicating that they were not to call the campus police, so I remained visible with the poster until it was time to get my copy of the book signed.
When I asked Amy to sign my book, I introduced myself. I told her,
“You were one of my heroes… but I hold AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, as an even greater hero, since he works tirelessly to get out the truth out about what really happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11.”
Then I gave her a boxed copy of 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. I let her know that the story about 9/11 Truth was breaking and that Experts Speak Out became the #1 viewed and the #1 shared video on the national PBS website during last year’s 9/11 anniversary.
In the end, Wayne was allowed to approach Amy Goodman and display his informative poster, even though she sidestepped any discussion of 9/11 Truth
Using a sticky note like everyone else, I asked Amy to write “Wayne, keep trying to break the silence.” (As a volunteer who commits many hours per week to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, breaking the silence about 9/11 is my focus.) However, all she wrote was “Wayne, Democracy Now!” I guess she does not want me to break the silence about what really happened on 9/11, but perhaps she will watch Experts Speak Out and somehow find the courage to take a stand.
Goodman appears to have fallen more in line with the mainstream media by ignoring the 9/11 Truth issue, but don’t let her inaction stop you from taking action. Join us by signing our petition, becoming a member, and volunteering on one of our many vital teams, and help us continue to break news barriers around the world.
March 9, 2013
Episode 261 – International Law?
James Corbett on 911blogger!!!
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=7047
Truth. Justice. Accountability. The idea of an international rule of law appeals to our innate sense of justice, but the most horrific plans are often cloaked in the most beautiful lies. Just as the ideals of international law are used to cloak the imperial ambitions of the globalists, so too is the idea of seeking justice in these controlled courtrooms a phoney pipe dream. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we explore the only real solution to this problem: removing the bodyguard of lies from the power elite and to withdrawing ourselves from the systems that seek to legitimize their rule.
League of Nations: Introduction
Time Reference: 00:16
Episode 234 – How To Carve Up The World
Time Reference: 04:35
James Perloff explains the CFR origins of the League of Nations
Time Reference: 04:46
Nuremberg: Tyranny on Trial
Time Reference: 07:37
Murray Bernays and Edward Bernays (see footnote #22)
Time Reference: 12:43
CFR history page admits CFR supported League of Nations
Time Reference: 13:43
The Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law by Henry L. Stimson
Time Reference: 14:06
Historical Roster of CFR Directors (including George H.W. Bush)
Time Reference: 16:52
Bush delivers NWO speech on 9/11/1990
Time Reference: 17:27
Angelina Jolie speaks at the CFR
Time Reference: 22:18
I.C.C. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo: Gaddafi Personally Ordered Mass Rape, Bought Containers of “Viagra-Type” Drugs for Troops
Time Reference: 25:07
US Intel: No Evidence of Viagra as Weapon in Libya
Time Reference: 25:23
"Legal Imperialism" and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection and Colonization
Time Reference: 26:23
James Petras on The Corbett Report
Time Reference: 30:39
UN demands prosecution of Bush-era CIA crimes
Time Reference: 37:32
Italian court finds CIA agents guilty of kidnapping terrorism suspect
Time Reference: 42:03
The Court System Song
Time Reference: 49:36
Vancouver-bound author James Douglass on JFK and the Unspeakable
by Adrian Mack on Mar 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Theologian and peace activist James Douglass, author of JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters
Last Christmas I was standing in line at Chapters with a copy of the book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters when the man behind me commented, “That’s the best book on the subject.”
RFK Jr says no lone gunman
He might have been right. If it’s not the best, it’s one of them, partly because of the clarity author James Douglass brings to an event that can be overwhelmingly complex in its fine details. Indeed, JFK and the Unspeakable achieved a rare consensus inside the assassination research community for its wise and lucid organization of the known data. If you’re new to the subject, there isn’t a better primer.
But Douglass’ book is important because it also introduces a fresh and ultimately very rewarding way of viewing the assassination.
A Christian theologian and peace activist, Douglass employs the Trappist monk Thomas Merton’s concept of the Unspeakable to understand the events of Dallas, using the record of Kennedy’s presidency to demonstrate that JFK, particularly after the Cuban missile crisis, made a “turn toward peace.” This in turn put him at odds with his own national security apparatus.
It’s also an aspect of his presidency that official history seems determined to forget. Happily, and in contrast to most books on the subject that don’t hew to the Warren Commission’s version of events, JFK and the Unspeakable managed to gain some traction after it was published in 2008.
I mentioned this at the top of a phone interview with the B.C. born author, who comes to Vancouver this weekend to conduct a talk at the Canadian Memorial United Church (1825 West 16th Avenue) on Friday (March 8) called JFK, Gandhi, and the Unspeakable in 2013, followed by a workshop on Saturday.
And on Saturday night, there will be—get this!—a read through of Noah’s Ark, a play based on Douglass’ book that’s been arranged rather serendipitously by Nina Rhodes-Hughes, a Bowen Island resident who witnessed the assassination of Robert Kennedy and who has volunteered to assist Sirhan Sirhan’s new defense team. “It’s a great coming together,” Douglass exclaimed. “It’s dynamite stuff!” (More info here)
Georgia Straight: Given the topic and your perspective on it, JFK and the Unspeakable has actually done very well, hasn’t it?
Jim Douglass: Well, it’s a best seller. But that’s not because any print reviews have saturated the field. They’ve been quite light, but there have been some key moments, like when Oliver Stone went on Bill Maher’s show and promoted it. And the fact that Simon & Shuster, to my great astonishment, took it on as a paperback, that gives it a huge distribution even though it’s unreviewed in major print media.
How did Bill Maher react to Stone talking about the book?
He did not want to go there…
Right. Which reminds me that RFK Jr. made some extraordinary comments about the assassination in Dallas recently. But we haven’t been allowed to hear what he said.
That was remarkable, but again, this is Charlie Rose who’s asking the questions, and Charlie Rose, or his network, or Charlie Rose incorporated, whatever it is, they will not release that interview. I know people have been trying to get it to get the exact words, because it’s very, very important. He’s out there saying that his dad didn’t agree with the Warren Report, which isn’t a secret, but this is the first time RFK Jr or a member of the family is saying that. That is big news, except that it’s no news.
The reports that did surface excised RFK Jr’s remarks about “rogue CIA.”
Yeah, exactly. And his reference to JFK and the Unspeakable—which I knew he was supporting but this is the first time he’s said it publicly—the only report that actually mentioned that was a Dallas online thing, and most of it was devoted to a dismissal of the book by a guy who’s sort of notorious for his comments. It’s still a difficult subject, let’s put it that way.
What is the Unspeakable?
It comes from Thomas Merton, from his great book, Raids on the Unspeakable, in which he is suggesting a kind of systemic evil that includes such realties as the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, the nuclear arms race, and these assassinations. When he gets to the point where he’s actually describing it, he describes it as a “void,” an emptiness, a lack of compassion and responsibility, and when I was reading that description, I thought, ‘Warren Report.’
How would you describe JFK’s confrontation with the Unspeakable?
I would describe it as his encounter with that void in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, where the world was on the verge of a total nuclear war. If that isn’t the void, I don’t know what is. And he and his greatest enemy in the world, in terms of ideology, Nikita Khrushchev, encountered that void simultaneously. And what was remarkable and what led to Kennedy’s assassination was that in that moment, when it reached the darkest point possible, and Kennedy felt he was losing power to his generals who were going to push through an opportunity for victory—because they had the dominant power; in their terms, for example, ‘We’ll get them for 150 million, they’ll only get 40 million on our side’; that’s victory to that kind of insanity; they actually talked that way—in the midst of all that, what Kennedy does is totally outrageous. He turns to Nikita Khrushchev, the enemy.
In the book you describe how Robert Kennedy was dispatched to speak to the Soviet ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, telling him that the president is losing power to his generals.
This is in Khrushchev’s memoirs, and it was in his son Sergei Khrushchev’s book about his father—I’m not inventing this. So then Dobrynin wires to Khrushchev that there’s this secret communication, and Khrushchev turns to his foreign minister, Gromyko, and he says we have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him. And at that moment the whole shebang turns upside down, and Khrushchev and Kennedy are closer to each other than either is to his own military command. And you know, this is not simple, there are many conflicts that continue between Khrushchev and Kennedy, but in essence from that point on they are moving, moving, moving toward an end to the Cold War. The major marks from Kennedy’s standpoint are his extraordinary June 10, 1963 American University address in which, as Norman Cousins says, Kennedy is calling for an end to Cold War. If you read the thing, you can see what he’s saying.
And then, as you point out, he manoeuvres around his generals to secure the test ban treaty.
And then he’s doing a back channel with Castro. And if Khrushchev isn’t the devil, then Castro is. So there he’s becoming even more of a heretic and a traitor. And then he signs National Security Action Memorandum 263 to end the Vietnam War—I mean, he’s off the charts in terms of what he’s doing. He’s out ahead of the peace movement. It’s an astonishing story, and it’s untold. And the reason it’s untold, of course, is because it’s the Unspeakable. Why was he killed? Simple. He turned from global war to a strategy of peace. That’s the why of his assassination. And given the Cold War dogmas of his government, his murder followed as a matter of course. It was a transparent act of state, and has been ever since, and nobody wants to go there, whether it’s Bill Maher or Henry Kissinger or President Barak Obama. Nobody wants to go there.
The Unspeakable seems to have an enormous support system. You mention back channel communications with Khrushchev and Castro, and his Vietnam policy, which was actually consistent with his foreign policy elsewhere—all of this is on the record. And yet it seems that most people would still describe JFK as a cold warrior. Why is that?
You ever heard the term, the Mighty Wurlitzer? That’s why. It’s the enormous propaganda that is put out through the media. The Mighty Wurlitzer is alive and well, to mix metaphors, and it pumps out this stuff through intermediaries, and for that to be happening 50 years after the assassination is itself a mark of what we’re faced with. It’s a question for all of us: what is going on here? It took me 12 years to write the book. [Bob] Woodward could have turned it out in six months with the resources he has, so what’s going on here? What’s going on is the Unspeakable. If they do that, that’s the end of their access inside the Beltway. They lose all access to all their future best sellers. They are, as the term goes, marginalized. That’s the nice, conventional term for the Unspeakable.
Oliver Stone barely survived his marginalization.
Exactly. He’s still wounded from what happened 20 years ago. When he talks about what happened he still shakes his head. They were attacking him two years before the film comes out and they don’t even know what’s in it. But they really do know… In the case of Martin Luther King I went to the only trial ever held for his assassination, for three weeks, 70 witnesses. And a jury—six black and six white—come back and say, ‘You know, he was killed by a conspiracy that includes government agencies.’ That’s explicitly in the verdict, so this is supposed to be headlined around the world the next day. Well—not quite.
JFK and the Unspeakable fleshes out and names many of the facilitators of the plot—people largely from the right wing, CIA-Cuban exile milieu– but how do we wrap our heads around the actual sponsors?
I approach it as what in the peace and justice movement is called consensus. I don’t think there had to be one grandmaster, say one of the Rockefellers or one of the other multi-trillionaires, I don’t think that’s the way it works. I think you have a process of propaganda, of ideology, of subverting one’s own conscience that’s going on on a very large scale, and certainly it is to the benefit of those at the very top of the pyramid, to put it mildly. But I think that process is so overwhelming, whether it be the Cold War, or the war on terror, which is the war of terror, it’s so overwhelming that when someone comes along and says, ‘I’m the president of the United States, and I’m going to turn toward peace,’ then you’ve got a consensus decision. Intolerable. This guy goes. And I don’t think it’s a question of somebody having to mastermind a plot; Fletcher Prouty describes the process wherein Allen Dulles is putting people in all these key positions year after year after year, whether it’s Secret Service or the White House—McGeorge Bundy for that matter is on record for having been working for the CIA when he was a dean at Harvard—so this isn’t very mysterious. When it comes time to stop all of this, they’re all working together. It’s a consensus decision. And for those at lower levels, it’s just overwhelming. People ask, ‘Why didn’t Robert Kennedy do anything?’ Robert Kennedy wasn’t any dummy. He knew a few things about this system. He and John Kennedy were very well informed. I think even they would be overwhelmed by a total understanding of what was really going on, and they were extremely sophisticated people. So Robert Kennedy was of course biding his time. ‘Until I become president of the United States, I can’t do anything.’ Well, I think that’s an illusion. The best thing possible for him would have been to become Gandhi, but of course, he wasn’t Gandhi, he didn’t believe totally in “truth force”, and if he had, the day after he would have said, ‘The CIA killed the president.’ And we would have had, as [Vincent] Salandria has analyzed, a major civil war on our hands. But it would have been better than the 50 years of millions of people being downed by this process.
Not to mention 50 years of illegitimate government.
To put it mildly. And fraud after fraud after fraud. But if you don’t deal with the origin of this—not the only origin but certainly a key one, which is the assassination of a peace-making president by his own national security state, done with impunity—if that’s not an origin of subsequent problems, I don’t know what is.
And that’s why it still matters.
As we say down in the south where I happen to live nowadays, ‘Amen, brother.’
So Cheney should have given the shoot-down order, but when the news about a plane-crash arrived in the bunker, what did he say according to Eric Edelman?
"I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7b_zofzXU (time-index: 1:50)
Those inside the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House learn that an aircraft is down in Pennsylvania. (This turns out to be Flight 93.) Many of the people in the PEOC wonder whether military fighters shot it down. [Washington Post, 1/27/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 41] National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice later claims that, like her, Vice President Dick Cheney initially thinks, “it must have been shot down by the fighters.” [Hayes, 2007, pp. 339] However, Eric Edelman—Cheney’s national security adviser, who is also in the PEOC—will later recall: “The vice president was a little bit ahead of us.… He said, sort of softly, and to nobody in particular, ‘I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.’” [CNN, 9/11/2002; CNN, 9/14/2002] Yet the Pentagon does not confirm that Flight 93 was not shot down until after midday (see (Shortly After 12:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001). [Newsweek, 12/31/2001] And the phone calls from Flight 93 that indicated a passenger revolt took place are only reported later on. [Washington Post, 1/27/2002]
I think, that I even saw Cheney saying that ("act of heroism" at Flight 93) during a television-interview. But I cannot find it anymore.
Here is an update on the UK court case regarding the BBC's coverage of 9/11 that I wrote about in a recent post here, "Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage". The court date was Monday, February 25, 2013.
In short, it was a huge victory for the 9/11 Truth community because a court finally had to face the facts and couldn't do it. Rather than having a 3 hour hearing full of evidence including testimony by Prof. Niels Harrit the judge took the easy way out as described in the letter.
Everybody who was involved in this event or supported it deserves our thanks, especially Tony Rooke, Peter Drew, Prof. Niels Harrit, and Tony Farrell.
By the way there are excellent videos of Tony Rooke and this court hearing in the comments to the earlier message, "Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage".
Following in this message are two letters:
#1) Peter Drew's March 6, 2013 letter to Trustees of the BBC Trust and the Members of Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Peter is the UK Facilitator - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a personal friend of mine.
#2) Peter Drew's March 4, 2013 letter to Tony Hall, The Director General of the BBC.
March 6, 2013
Court case involving the BBC's alleged support of terrorism and cover-up of 9/11
Dear BBC Trustees and Parliamentary Media Committee
Please see the attached letters that have been sent to the BBC Director-General on the above issue. I apologise for the need to communicate with you on this matter rather than going through more appropriate channels, however every single other option has been pursued on this matter with no answers being able to be achieved on a matter of serious national security.
You may or may not be aware of the court case involving the BBC which took place in Horsham, West Sussex, on February 25th where there were more than 100 people in attendance as well as numerous independent journalists from all over the UK and Europe. This court action was taken by Mr Tony Rooke as a last resort in a lengthy process to hold the BBC accountable for what are absolutely clear cut and gross breaches of its Editorial Guidelines on an issue of national security, namely the withholding of officially confirmed evidence surrounding critical events to do with the attacks of 9/11. The BBC is covering up clear evidence of terrorist activity by parties other than those so far implicated. Evidence that has been admitted by the official investigators themselves which proves that other terrorist elements were involved in 9/11, but the BBC refuses to show this evidence to the public and instead continues to intentionally deceive the public with what has been admitted by the official investigators to be false information.
As described in detail in the attached letter to the Director-General, Mr Rooke presented overwhelming evidence to the judge confirming the allegations of BBC complicity in covering up and withholding absolutely vital evidence, much of it that has actually been confirmed and announced by the official investigators themselves. The judge in this trial, having looked at the detailed evidence, gave a decision which essentially said that Mr Rooke was morally in the right with his claims and gave him a 'conditional discharge' for his refusal to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, which makes it a crime to provide funds which could be used to support terrorism.
In addition to the judge giving Mr Rooke a favourable outcome at this trial, the West Sussex Police also stated that they are going to launch an investigation into the allegations of BBC support for terrorism and withholding of vital information and evidence about terrorist activity.
The evidence against the BBC on this issue is absolutely incontrovertible, especially relating to point 3.4.26 of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines where the BBC have refused to adhere to their requirements to correct an error that they made in 2007 relating to an absolutely crucial piece of evidence about the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 (not hit by a plane). However, when the official investigators subsequently confirmed in 2008 that the BBC were wrong and that they have given the public a false impression of events, the BBC have simply refused to correct their error as they are required to do, and they have refused to inform the public about the incredible announcement and confirmation by the official investigators that World Trade Centre Building 7 did indeed collapse at free fall acceleration, which can only occur through controlled explosive demolition, meaning other terrorists were involved. There is much much more evidence that the BBC has deliberately withheld which further supports this, some of which is detailed in the attached document and which the judge in this court case was able to assess. This includes over 100 eye witness accounts from the fire fighters, police officers, and public verifying that explosives were going off in the three towers, including in the basements and lobbies of the towers, and including explosives going off before the first plane hit. Despite these eye witness accounts being forced to be released through the freedom of information act, the BBC has refused to show this evidence to the public. They have instead done everything they can to block this information and have blatantly and deliberately misrepresented the events of 9/11 according to the evidence that is now available. Using the word treason here would not be misplaced.
As has been stated, every possible avenue has been tried to get the BBC to show this information to the public, and the system simply seems to be such that it is not possible to actually hold the BBC to account if it decides to breach its operating requirements and provide false information to the public about an issue of national security. Here is a summary of that process that we have gone through to attempt to get the BBC to show this information:
1. 2011 BBC shows two documentaries about 9/11 which are in gross breach of their editorial requirements on an issue of national security
2. Three members of the public follow standard processes and lodge formal complaints with the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) detailing the clear breaches by the BBC on an issue of national security
3. The ECU rejects the complaints on every point, including stating that it is not within the remit of the ECU to assess the issue of the BBC failing to correct their blatant and officially confirmed error about the free fall of WTC Building 7, which is a clear and gross breach of 3.4.26 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines. If it is not the remit of the ECU to assess something like this, then whose remit is it??
4. The three complainants get four world leaders on 9/11 scientific evidence to submit supporting evidence to the ECU. The ECU ignores all this evidence
5. The complainants, the four world experts, and more than 500 members of the public send letters to the BBC Trust and Parliamentary Media Committee asking for the BBC to adhere to its stipulated editorial requirements and show the evidence and information to the public as they are required to do
6. The BBC Trust requests the three complainants to ask the public to stop sending letters to the BBC Trust because so many letters is causing an inconvenience and they should be sent to the ECU instead. The BBC is in gross breach of its editorial requirements on an issue of serious national security and the ECU is doing absolutely nothing about it, so what else are the public supposed to do?
7. The Parliamentary Media Committee make a statement that it is not within their remit to assess such requests from the public and that his can only be done by the public approaching their local MP
8. Several dozen members of the public do as the Parliamentary Media Committee suggest and contact their local MP about this issue
9. The local MPs inform their constituents that the BBC has a formal complaints process in place through the ECU and that they should use this process to deal with such issues. And so we have gone full circle and are back to square one with the ECU who will not acknowledge or accept that there has been any wrong doing.
So my question to the BBC Trust and the Parliamentary Media Committee is, if you were to hypothetically accept that what we are stating here about this evidence is correct and that the BBC is deliberately withholding vital information on an issue of national security, and the ECU refuses to address the situation, could someone please explain to me and the 500 other people, what the process would be for holding the BBC accountable? Because the 9 points listed above have provided a real life demonstration that there is actually no way for the BBC to be held accountable if it were to decide to engage in an act of treason such as has been outlined here.
This is why the public now feel that there is no other option but to pursue this through legal channels as Mr Rooke did in Horsham last week. This will not be the last court case of this nature against the BBC and their cover up of 9/11 evidence. Many other individuals will now be following suit with legal challenges either through the Terrorism Act as Mr Rooke has, or by withholding their TV licence fee due to the BBC's clear breaches of their Editorial Guidelines, or through direct criminal charges against the BBC for withholding evidence of terrorist activity. The West Sussex Police have already stated that they will be looking into matters in this way.
So my request of you is to please look at the attached information that has been sent to the BBC Director-General and please could either the BBC Trust or Parliamentary Media Committee explain to me and all the other 500 plus members of the public who have written in on this matter, how the BBC can be held to account for such clear and gross breaches of their operating requirements in a way that directly supports the cover up of some of the most serious terrorist activity ever unleashed on the world.
Thank you very much for your time.
UK Facilitator - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
4th March 2013
The Director General
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ
Court Case in Horsham Regarding The BBC’s Alleged Cover-Up Of 9/11
And Support Of Terrorism
Dear Mr Hall
I would like to draw your attention to and seek your thoughts on the issues highlighted in the title above.
On February 25th, 2013 a unique court case took place in Horsham, West Sussex, which involved the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 and support of terrorism. The enclosed document provides more details about this case, but in summary, the evidence that has been produced to support this claim is extremely detailed, powerful, and overwhelming. It was also backed up by a formidable defence team including a former UK Intelligence Analyst, former UK Counter Terrorism Officer, and a leading Professor of Chemistry from Copenhagen University who is an expert in explosives.
This court case involved the defendant refusing to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act. The outcome of the case was that the judge was favourable to the evidence that he saw, and whilst the judge was legally obliged to find the defendant guilty of the charge of refusing to pay his TV licence fee, he found morally in favour of the defendant and gave him a ‘conditional discharge’ as well as imposing the minimum possible court fee. In addition, as a result of this trial, West Sussex Police have stated that they will be launching an investigation into the BBC’s alleged support of terrorism.
Public interest in this issue is huge. More than 100 people attended this trial from all over the UK. Independent journalists attended from all over the UK and from across other parts of Europe, and more than 500 members of the public wrote to the BBC in 2012 asking the BBC to address this situation. The awareness of this case amongst the public, and the outrage that they have, is such that the precedent and inspiration that this court case has now set is certainly going to result in many more similar legal challenges being made against the BBC.
The enclosed document provides more details about this court case, the evidence against the BBC, and the implications for the BBC. I draw the attention of the BBC to this case in the hope that they will begin to take significant actions to remedy the situation and begin to show the public the true information and evidence that they possess about this issue, as is their job and moral responsibility.
Court Case Regarding The BBC’s Alleged Cover-Up Of 9/11 And Support Of Terrorism
Wide Interest In Horsham Court Case
This trial generated a large amount of interest from the public and from independent media all over the world, with over 100 members of the public attending the trial from all over the UK and numerous independent media attending from across the UK and from around other parts of Europe. See enclosed media stories about this case, including the Daily Mail.
Court Case Involving BBC Likely To Be Repeated
This court case involving the BBC is now very likely to be repeated by other members of the public in either the same manner or similar manner, unless of course the BBC adequately addresses the significant problems highlighted in this case. Because on the issue of 9/11, the BBC can be shown to be in clear and gross breach of paragraph 44 of its ‘Agreement’ (requirement to be impartial and accurate) and point 3.4.26 of its Editorial Guidelines (requirement to correct errors)
Tony Rooke Refused to Pay TV Licence Fee
This court case involved Mr Tony Rooke refusing to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, which states that it is illegal for someone to provide funds to something which is supporting terrorism. The claim by Mr Rooke was that the BBC has manipulated the way that it has presented important information about 9/11, and has deliberately withheld vital evidence and vital information from the public which proves conclusively that the official story of 9/11 is impossible and that other terrorist elements must have been involved in some way. By manipulating that information and by withholding that vital evidence and vital information from the public, not only is the BBC grossly in breach of its editorial requirements and in breach of public trust, but it is also helping to cover up the true facts of 9/11 and is in effect assisting an element of the 9/11 terrorists to get away with the crime.
Overwhelming Evidence Produced By Formidable Defence Team
Mr Rooke was charged with a crime for not paying his TV licence and was granted a Magistrate’s hearing on February 25th to defend himself against the charges. He submitted detailed and powerful evidence in his defence, showing exactly how the BBC has supported an element of the terrorists involved in 9/11, and he formed a formidable defence team to help present this evidence, including the following individuals:
Tony Farrell – former UK Intelligence Analyst
Ray Savage – former UK Counter Terrorism Officer
Professor Niels Harrit – Professor of Chemistry, Copenhagen University
Ian Henshall – leading UK author on 9/11
Adrian Mallett – former UK fire fighter and qualified Civil Engineer
Peter Drew – UK Facilitator for ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
Richard Gage AIA – CEO and founder of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)
Erik Lawyer – founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’ (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)
Dwain Deets – former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)
Jake Jacobs – veteran US airline pilot who has flown the same airliners as allegedly involved on 9/11 (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)
Paul Warburton – Civil Rights Lawyer (provided legal consultancy)
The Judge Sided With Mr Rooke
The pre-trial evidence that was put forwards to the judge and prosecution from the individuals above was detailed, powerful, and comprehensive against the BBC’s coverage of 9/11, to say the least. The judge is now aware of this evidence and whilst he stated that he had no option but to technically find Mr Rooke guilty of not paying his TV licence fee, he ‘conditionally discharged’ the conviction against Mr Rooke and imposed the minimum possible court fees permissible. So this essentially represented the judge deciding not to convict Mr Rooke on the basis that he had justifiable moral grounds for doing what he did. This is after Mr Rooke had accused the BBC of supporting terrorism. So the finding by the judge is a very big statement.
West Sussex Police Are Launching An Investigation Into The BBC’s Support Of Terrorism?
On the basis of the trial in Horsham, West Sussex Police Department have stated that they will be launching an investigation into the claims made by Mr Rooke about the BBC’s support of terrorism. So my question to you is, what is the BBC going to do about its very clear breaches of its Agreement (paragraph 44) and Editorial Guidelines (3.4.26)? Because if the BBC does not adequately address these points then further legal action is surely going to be coming for the BBC on this.
A Vital Point Of Evidence Proving the BBC’s Cover-Up Of 9/11
There are a huge number of points of complaint from the public about the BBC’s coverage of 9/11 which has led to these accusations of supporting terrorism, but one of the most obvious and significant points relates to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines 3.4.26 whereby the BBC is required to correct mistakes. The BBC is in clear and gross breach of this point on the absolutely critical issue of confirmed Free Fall of World Trade Centre Building 7.
The issue of Free Fall is so critical because if Free Fall of a high rise tower is confirmed, then according to the basic laws of physics and the basic law of gravity, the only way that this can occur is through very carefully and precisely controlled, explosive demolition. For many years following 9/11, literally thousands of professional scientists, architects, and engineers had all been saying that according to the scientific analysis, WTC Building 7 collapsed at Free Fall acceleration, meaning controlled demolition. However, in 2007 in the BBC’s documentary ‘The Conspiracy Files: the truth behind the third tower’ the BBC went out of its way to tell the public that all these scientists and professionals were wrong and that Free Fall of WTC Building 7 did not occur. But in 2008, due to the continued work and pressure from these scientists, NIST, the official investigators into the collapse of the three towers, officially conceded that WTC Building 7 had indeed collapsed at Free Fall acceleration for at least part of its collapse (See the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48, which states: “A more detailed analysis of the decent of the north face found….(2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds….).
This was a huge announcement by NIST because it was essentially official confirmation that WTC Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. This means that there were other terrorists involved in 9/11 other than the alleged Al Qaeda hijackers.
Why Is The BBC Deliberately Misleading The Public On Such An Important Point?
According to the BBC’s Agreement and Editorial Guidelines, the BBC should have publicly corrected the error that it made in 2007 on an issue of absolutely enormous public relevance and importance. It should have informed the public about this bombshell announcement by NIST and looked into the enormous implications of this announcement. However, nearly 5 years after NISTs official announcement about the Free Fall of WTC Building 7, the BBC has still not corrected its error of 2007 and has still not informed the public about this hugely important announcement by the official investigators of 9/11. Why is that? By withholding this information from the public and maintaining a position with the public that has now been officially exposed as absolutely false, the BBC is effectively covering up the information that other terrorist elements were involved in 9/11.
Evidence Of The BBC’s Deliberate Obstruction
Tony Rooke’s defence team has evidence available of e-mail exchanges with the BBC asking for the BBC to adhere to their Editorial Guidelines and correct their error about Free Fall that they made in 2007. The BBC’s response to this request was that this was not within the remit of the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit. So we have a confirmed breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on an issue of huge importance to the public and which is an issue of National Security, and we have the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit informing us that addressing that issue is not part of its remit. One would have to ask the question then, what is the role of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit and whose responsibility is it to hold the BBC accountable to serious breaches of public trust on an issue of national security?
Having had that response from the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit, more than 500 members of the public sent letters of complaint directly to the BBC Trustees instead. The response from the BBC Trust was that these letters should be sent to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit rather than the BBC Trust, and that all those letters were proving an inconvenience for the BBC Trustees. The defence team has the e-mail exchanges proving all of this.
Perhaps you can see how the public has gotten to the end of their tether on this issue and now as a last resort are launching the kind of legal action seen here by Tony Rooke in Horsham.
Other Important Points Of Evidence Of The BBC Supporting Terrorism
Here are several other key points of evidence that the BBC has either completely withheld from the public or failed to adequately explain, are as follows:118 eye witness accounts from 9/11 first responder fire fighters, police officers, and members of the public about seeing and hearing explosives going off in the towers, including explosions in the basements of the buildings, and including explosions going off before the first plane hit. This information was only made available to the public by the New York Times forcing them to be released through the ‘freedom of information act’. But the BBC has refused to show this damning eye witness evidence to the public or even inform them that it exists. Instead the BBC maintains the blatantly false line that no evidence of explosives exists. Why?
So to summarise the three points above, we have the BBC inadvertently reporting the demolition of WTC Building 7 26 minutes before it actually happened, we have NIST, the official investigators, informing us that WTC Building 7 did in fact collapse at Free Fall acceleration, which is only possible through controlled demolition, we have 118 eye witness accounts of explosives going off, we have the owner of WTC Building 7 admitting on camera that he gave the order to ‘pull’ the building, and we have that same person receiving $5 billion compensation instead of having to pay $1 billion. Why is the BBC withholding this information from the public and is instead demonising and discrediting those who are trying to bring this information forwards to the public?
Why has the BBC not informed the public about all these points above and numerous other crucial pieces of information and evidence about 9/11 that we can confirm the BBC has in their possession? Why has the BBC not adhered to its requirements and ‘seriously challenged officials’ over the incredible points above? Instead the BBC has withheld this information and has actively attempted to discredit those individuals attempting to have this information brought forwards to the public. As Mr Rooke has rightly stated, this is wilful complicity and support for terrorists, and the judge at Horsham seems to have at least somewhat agreed with Mr Rooke.
Huge Support From The Public For the BBC To Tell Truth About 9/11
As previously stated, there were more than 100 people present at the Horsham trial and more than 500 people have written to the BBC asking them the same questions as Mr Rooke asked the judge in Horsham. With the level of public outrage at this situation and the level of damning evidence available against the BBC, other legal challenges such as this will no doubt soon be coming from other members of the public.
Over one million innocent civilians have died so far from the illegal wars waged on Iraq and Afghanistan on the back of 9/11 and the subsequent supposed global war on terror. Our British troops are still dying in Afghanistan on the basis of a proven lie, and the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and around the world continue to be stripped away on the back of the proven lies of 9/11. Lies which the BBC has been knowingly supporting and promoting. Is it any wonder that the public have had enough of the BBC on this issue and are taking these kinds of drastic legal actions as a last resort? If you doubt the feeling of the public on this, just check the 360 comments from the public underneath the Daily Mail article about Tony Rooke’s court case. The vast majority of them were totally supportive of Mr Rooke and were scathing towards the BBC on this issue.
In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming to support the claim that the BBC is in gross breach of its editorial requirements and that it is supporting terrorism. This has now been tested in a UK court of law and the judge has been favourable towards supporting this evidence. The public have supported this issue in mass with more than 100 people attending the trial and more than 500 people writing to the BBC.
So in the interests of the BBC, and in the interests of public trust, I am asking you to consider this matter seriously and to start considering taking some appropriate actions that will mean that the public do not have to initiate further legal action of this kind. There are numerous excellent documentaries available that the BBC could begin showing to the public which provide excellent scientific analysis and eye witness accounts of the points described here. The public should be allowed to see this information so that they can make up their own minds about what really did happen on 9/11. It is the public’s right to see this information and it is the legal and moral responsibility for the BBC to show the public this information.
All Members of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee
All BBC Trustees
Tony Rooke – defendant at Horsham
Tony Farrell – former UK Intelligence Analyst
Ray Savage – former UK Counter Terrorism Officer
Professor Niels Harrit – University of Copenhagen
Ian Henshall – UK author on 9/11
Adrian Mallett – former UK fire fighter
Paul Warburton – Civil Rights lawyer
Richard Gage AIA – founder and CEO of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
Erik Lawyer – founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’
Dwain Deets – former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Jake Jacobs – veteran US Airline pilot
Help us reach 1 Million Signatures!
Looking for a quick, easy way to support the 9/11 family members’ call for a real WTC investigation?
Do you have just 20 seconds to support the family members of the 9/11 victims in their quest for truth? Do you have just 20 seconds to support restoring the civil liberties that were taken from the American people as a result of the official story about 9/11? Do you have just 20 seconds to support preservation of liberty for the generation to come? Do you have just 20 seconds to promote a lasting peace that will come from the end of the 9/11 wars?
|Sign the 9/11 Family Petition Now! It will take only 20 seconds to sign. Sign It, Tweet it, and Post it on your Facebook Page!!|
Let’s act in unison – right now – by signing the 9/11 Family Member Petition!
This petition beseeches President Obama to watch 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, review the evidence presented, and call for a scientific investigation.
(The 9/11 Family Petition is not to be confused with the AE911Truth Petition. If you haven’t already done so, please sign the AE911Truth official petition as well.)
After you have signed this petition, please make sure to tweet it and/or post it your website and your Facebook Page.
9/11 Family Member Petition Description
Why should this film matter to you, 11 years later? How will it help for President Obama to see this film?
9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, which became the #1 most watched and most shared video on PBS.org, challenges the roots of the policies that gave rise to (1) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have already cost more than a million lives and $1.3 trillion and have substantially contributed to our financial crisis; and (2) legislation such as the Patriot Act and NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], which have severely impacted our civil liberties.
9/11 family members Jane Pollicino, Bob McIlvaine, and Josef Princiotta sponsored this documentary, produced by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This nonprofit organization represents more than 1,700 architects, engineers, and other technical experts – including Lynn Margulis, National Medal of Science winner – who are calling for a new scientific investigation into the destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11.
The scientific and forensic evidence challenging the official version of events surrounding the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers is overwhelming and must be acknowledged in order for our country to move forward. To learn more, watch the trailer and the film.
|Watch the powerful documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, if you haven’t already. It’s now available on iTunes, Hulu, and Amazon.|
There has been a virtual media blackout on this subject, and without the free flow of information, the truth of what happened on that day will never come to light. Signing this petition will demand public accountability at the highest levels.
This was arguably the most outrageous criminal act in US history. President Obama owes it to the 9/11 family members, the nation, and the people of the world to soberly evaluate the scientific evidence and, by doing so, honor his sacred oath to protect the Constitution and the people of the United States.
To: President Obama
We support 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine, Jane Pollicino, and Josef Princiotta, who are asking you to review the crucial information in the documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, regarding the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.
These family members of 9/11 victims, along with more than 100 others represented by NYC CAN, 1,700 technical and building professionals from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis, have re-examined the facts and call for a new, independent scientific investigation.
We request that you consider the evidence presented in the film and task appropriate members of your staff to meet with 9/11 family members and Richard Gage, AIA – architect and producer of the film, and Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – to discuss the need for a new investigation.
Passionate Pleas From The 9/11 Family Members
Don’t Let them Down!
Lorie Van Auken
“Our urgent requests were denied. This was not the ideal formula for an independent investigation. The 9/11 families were looking for a real investigation with scholars and experts from the appropriate fields and evidence to back up the work. We had wanted true independence from politics. We had fought so hard to get this commission, and we didn’t want someone with such huge conflicts of interest to be running the investigation. The minders in the room during witness testimony looked to us more like tactics to control witnesses rather than an open search for the truth.
With the passage of time, more evidence has come to light showing that the commission’s report was less than a complete investigation. Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, old questions linger and new ones have arisen. A real investigation into 9/11 has never been done. This is incredible, considering the direction we have taken as a country. The passing of the Patriot Act, entering two wars, and our entire foreign policy has all been based on the official account of 9/11. The proper place for the 9/11 proceedings would be a courtroom with subpoena power, rules for swearing in witnesses, and established protocols for handling questioning, cross examination and evidence. And ultimately, real accountability for the acts that lead to the deaths of so many.”
Jane Pollicino passed away on February 21, 2013. Our deepest condolences go to her family.
“My husband, Steve, was killed on September 11. I have no identification. Why is that? It seems to me that we should know why, for over a thousand victims, there are no traces for and no identification. We should know why there were over 700 bone fragments, less than a half an inch long, found on the top of the Deutsche Bank building. I want the officials who are in power to ask the questions. I want answers. We need a real investigation. We deserve to know the truth!”
“I’m from right outside the Philadelphia area. I’m the father of Bobby McIlvaine, who was killed in the lobby of the north tower on September 11, 2011. Bobby was one of the first ten bodies found. We took him home that week. We were one of the few. I finally found the doctor who examined him. His injuries were in his face; the front of his face was blown off. He had massive cuts in his chest, and his right arm was blown off. To me that means explosion. And the explosions were brought up many a time, talking to firemen, talking to medics, talking to everyone. Everyone talked about these explosions.
Please look at Architects & Engineers. People all around the world – scientists all around the world are questioning this. When you bring science into the equation, that’s so important because you can’t argue against science. And there’s some deep, deep explaining to do.”
“My cousin, Vincent Princiotta, was a firefighter in New York on September 11 2001: Engine 16, Ladder 7. He died in the ‘collapse’ of the South Tower. He was 39. Another family member was Sal Princiotta, F.D.N.Y. Engine 33, Ladder 9. He was a first responder to the World Trade Center on 9/11. He contracted ‘WTC Disease.’ He died in Arizona in May of 2007. Because of these connections, I have been more than interested in learning the truth and details of the related events of 9/11. I ASK ANY PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER TO PRESENT A SCIENTIFIC, MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATION – BASED ON THE PHYSICS OF GRAVITY – FOR THE ‘EXPLOSIVE’ EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE. All that I am asking is … do the math.”
Americans Are Acting Like Slowly Boiling Frogs
In the classic history of Nazi Germany, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer writes:
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
The German citizens were boiling frogs … the water heating up so gradually that they didn’t realize they had to jump out of the pot to safety.
The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.
There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).
The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.
For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:
And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:
Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.
And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.
The 2nd Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.
But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …
The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Hey … we’re still honoring one of the Amendments! Score one for We the People!
The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Senator Rand Paul correctly notes:
The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy.
Paul introduced a bill to “protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones.”
Emptywheel notes in a post entitled “The OTHER Assault on the Fourth Amendment in the NDAA? Drones at Your Airport?”:
As the map above makes clear–taken from this 2010 report–DOD [the Department of Defense] plans to have drones all over the country by 2015.
Many police departments are also using drones to spy on us. As the Hill reported:
At least 13 state and local police agencies around the country have used drones in the field or in training, according to the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group. The Federal Aviation Administration has predicted that by the end of the decade, 30,000 commercial and government drones could be flying over U.S. skies.
“Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy,” Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said during a congressional forum in Texas last month.
He argued police should only fly drones over private property if they have a warrant, information collected with drones should be promptly destroyed when it’s no longer needed and domestic drones should not carry any weapons.
He argued that drones pose a more serious threat to privacy than helicopters because they are cheaper to use and can hover in the sky for longer periods of time.
A congressional report earlier this year predicted that drones could soon be equipped with technologies to identify faces or track people based on their height, age, gender and skin color.
Even without drones, Americans are the most spied on people in world history:
The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American. [And see this.]
Some also claim that the government is also using facial recognition software and surveillance cameras to track where everyone is going. Moreover, cell towers track where your phone is at any moment, and the major cell carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011. (And – given that your smartphone routinely sends your location information back to Apple or Google – it would be child’s play for the government to track your location that way.) Your iPhone, or other brand of smartphone is spying on virtually everything you do (ProPublica notes: “That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker“).
As the top spy chief at the U.S. National Security Agency explained this week, the American government is collecting some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all types per year.
He says that the government has collected all of the communications of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10 years.
He further explains that he set up the NSA’s system so that all of the information would automatically be encrypted, so that the government had to obtain a search warrant based upon probably cause before a particular suspect’s communications could be decrypted. [He specifically did this to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.] But the NSA now collects all data in an unencrypted form, so that no probable cause is needed to view any citizen’s information. He says that it is actually cheaper and easier to store the data in an encrypted format: so the government’s current system is being done for political – not practical – purposes.
He says that if anyone gets on the government’s “enemies list”, then the stored information will be used to target them. Specifically, he notes that if the government decides it doesn’t like someone, it analyzes all of the data it has collected on that person and his or her associates over the last 10 years to build a case against him.
Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that would give them the ability to record and store private conversations….
The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and other cities with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in some cases ….
The IP audio-video systems can be accessed remotely via a built-in web server (.pdf), and can be combined with GPS data to track the movement of buses and passengers throughout the city.
The systems use cables or WiFi to pair audio conversations with camera images in order to produce synchronous recordings. Audio and video can be monitored in real-time, but are also stored onboard in blackbox-like devices, generally for 30 days, for later retrieval. Four to six cameras with mics are generally installed throughout a bus, including one near the driver and one on the exterior of the bus.
Privacy and security expert Ashkan Soltani told the Daily that the audio could easily be coupled with facial recognition systems or audio recognition technology to identify passengers caught on the recordings.
Street lights that can spy installed in some American cities
America welcomes a new brand of smart street lightning systems: energy-efficient, long-lasting, complete with LED screens to show ads. They can also spy on citizens in a way George Orwell would not have imagined in his worst nightmare.
With a price tag of $3,000+ apiece, according to an ABC report, the street lights are now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and Pittsburgh, and may soon mushroom all across the country.
Part of the Intellistreets systems made by the company Illuminating Concepts, they have a number of “homeland security applications” attached.
Each has a microprocessor “essentially similar to an iPhone,” capable of wireless communication. Each can capture images and count people for the police through a digital camera, record conversations of passers-by and even give voice commands thanks to a built-in speaker.
Ron Harwood, president and founder of Illuminating Concepts, says he eyed the creation of such a system after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He is “working with Homeland Security” to deliver his dream of making people “more informed and safer.”
Fox news notes that the government is insisting that “black boxes” be installed in cars to track your location.
The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)
And Verizon has applied for a patent that would allow your television to track what you are doing, who you are with, what objects you’re holding, and what type of mood you’re in. Given Verizon and other major carriers responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011, such information would not be kept private. (And some folks could be spying on you through your tv using existing technology.)
And the spying isn’t being done to keep us safe … but to crush dissent and to smear people who uncover unflattering this about the government … and to help the too big to fail businesses compete against smaller businesses (and here).
In addition, the ACLU published a map in 2006 showing that nearly two-thirds of the American public – 197.4 million people – live within a “constitution-free zone” within 100 miles of land and coastal borders:
The ACLU explained:Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches. The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.” But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States. As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit. Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts. However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing. The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.
Computer World reports today:
Border agents don’t need probable cause and they don’t need a stinking warrant since they don’t need to prove any reasonable suspicion first. Nor, sadly, do two out of three people have First Amendment protection; it is as if DHS has voided those Constitutional amendments and protections they provide to nearly 200 million Americans.
Don’t be silly by thinking this means only if you are physically trying to cross the international border. As we saw when discussing the DEA using license plate readers and data-mining to track Americans movements, the U.S. “border” stretches out 100 miles beyond the true border. Godfather Politics added:
But wait, it gets even better! If you live anywhere in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones encompass the entire state.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have a “longstanding constitutional and statutory authority permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border and its functional equivalent.” This applies to electronic devices, according to the recent CLCR “Border Searches of Electronic Devices” executive summary [PDF]:
The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and longstanding, and courts have not treated searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits. However, we do think that recording more information about why searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has implemented this change beginning in FY2012.
Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment rights.
The ACLU said, Wait one darn minute! Hello, what happened to the Constitution? Where is the rest of CLCR report on the “policy of combing through and sometimes confiscating travelers’ laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices—even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing?” DHS maintains it is not violating our constitutional rights, so the ACLU said:
If it’s true that our rights are safe and that DHS is doing all the things it needs to do to safeguard them, then why won’t it show us the results of its assessment? And why would it be legitimate to keep a report about the impact of a policy on the public’s rights hidden from the very public being affected?
As ChristianPost wrote, “Your constitutional rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this isn’t a joke. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten states in the United States, your some of your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been made null and void.”
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the entire DHS report about suspicionless and warrantless “border” searches of electronic devices. ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said “We hope to establish that the Department of Homeland Security can’t simply assert that its practices are legitimate without showing us the evidence, and to make it clear that the government’s own analyses of how our fundamental rights apply to new technologies should be openly accessible to the public for review and debate.”
Meanwhile, the EFF has tips to protect yourself and your devices against border searches. If you think you know all about it, then you might try testing your knowledge with a defending privacy at the U.S. border quiz.
Wired pointed out in 2008 that the courts have routinely upheld such constitution-free zones:
Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the government’s power to look through belongings like suitcases at the border to electronics.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding that the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches applied not just to suitcases and papers, but also to electronics.
Travelers should be aware that anything on their mobile devices can be searched by government agents, who may also seize the devices and keep them for weeks or months. When in doubt, think about whether online storage or encryption might be tools you should use to prevent the feds from rummaging through your journal, your company’s confidential business plans or naked pictures of you and your-of-age partner in adult fun.
The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.
As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes.
Protection against being tried twice for the same crime after being found innocent (“double jeopardy”) seems to be intact.
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving a trial … and often without ever hearing the charges against them.
More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.
Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.
True – when defendants are afforded a jury trial – they are provided with assistance of counsel. However, the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts and the public defenders’ offices nationwide.
Moreover, there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is the main business model adopted by Wall Street. Indeed, the largest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.
And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.
The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
As far as we know, this right is still being respected. However – as noted above – the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.
The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.
And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out. They are literally being treated as terrorists.
The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to safe food and water. You may disagree.
But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation. However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedom, safe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).
By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.
The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:
(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people
(2) Separation of powers
Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom … and that it is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed”.
And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders.
Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.
For the first time since the 9/11 terror attacks, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will allow small knives and some previously prohibited sports equipment onto airplanes as carry-on items.
According to the TSA, passengers will be able to carry-on knives that are less than 2.36 inches long and less than one-half inch wide. Larger knives, and those with locking blades and molding handles, will continue to be prohibited, as will razor blades and box cutters.
TSA will also permit sports equipment such as billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks and two golf clubs. Souvenir, novelty and toy baseball bats -- such as wiffle-ball bats -- will also be allowed.
The relaxed rules take effect April 25.
TSA said the new regulations will allow its officers to better focus efforts on finding "higher threat items such as explosives," and was made as part of the agency's overall risk-based security approach.
TSA believes the items are “unlikely to result in catastrophic destruction of an aircraft,” and policies already put in place -- hardened cockpit doors, federal air marshals, crewmembers with self-defense training -- reduce the likelihood of passengers breaching the cockpit.
“All TSA is doing is catching up with the rest of the world,” said Douglas R. Laird, president of aviation consulting firm Laird & Associates and former head of security for Northwest Airlines. After 9/11 the TSA “overreacted,” said Laird, and put restrictions in place “in the heat of the moment” that exceeded those in other countries.
Removing small knives and some sports equipment from the list prohibited items “will help align TSA’s list with international standards and help decrease the time spent rescreening or searching bags for these once prohibited items,” said TSA spokesperson Nico Melendez. The changes also enable officers to focus on “the greatest threats ... which increase security for passengers and improves efficiency, improving the checkpoint screening experience.”
Lethal weaponry still not permitted
While small knives are permitted, pitchforks, grenades, swords, nunchucks, stun guns, ammo and spears remain on the no-fly list.
The Evil Machine is near perfect.
It has unlimited fuel.
It has disposable mechanics that keep it running at peak efficiency.
It has disposable operators-- ready, willing and able.
Most importantly it has you. Without your support there would be no Evil Machine.
The Evil Machine is near perfect. It is supported by regular people just trying to feed their families and stay dry. Their support is a consequence of wage earning. If questioned, they will say they contribute their taxes for "national defense".
The Evil Machine is near perfect. It is deadly for those who get caught in the front sights. Afterwards the guy behind the gun sight has to deal with his actions. When he gets home he can't forget the horrors he witnessed.
The Evil Machine is near perfect. Left in its wake are the disposable operators and the families who continue to keep it running.
I do not support the Evil Machine.
"Jane Pollicino, 59, of Plainview, who became a prominent voice for families of 9/11 victims after she lost her husband in the Twin Towers attack, died Feb. 21. She suffered a stroke while on vacation with her family in Cancun, Mexico.
Pollicino was a homemaker when her husband, Steve, a corporate bond trader and vice president at Cantor Fitzgerald, was killed on Sept. 11, 2001. Her children,..."
Jane was a featured speaker in Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth's: Explosive Evidence EXPERTS SPEAK OUT and will be missed,
Long Island NewsDay