Archive for the ‘terrorist’ Category
Substance is harmless, assures newspaper, but terror paranoia fearmongering is contagious
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Pentagon has assured residents of Crystal City, Virginia, that the gases they will release downtown on Thursday are completely harmless, while on the other hand secretly hoping that the fearmongering about imminent biological terror attacks the tests are set to generate is contagious.
“The Pentagon is scheduled to release an odorless, invisible, and yes, harmless, gases into the city Thursday to test how quickly they spread through buildings, officials said.”
“The test is part of the military’s national security preparation for the capital area,” reports The Examiner.
The Pentagon will release perfluorocarbon tracers as well as sulfur hexafluoride amongst the general public without their consent, a practice that would otherwise be illegal in a free society.
Urban Shield: Crystal City Urban Transport Study will be another opportunity for the media to show armed men barking orders at citizens while trusted officials in hazmat suits deal with the deadly outbreak that’s “inevitably” going to happen for real somewhere down the line, we are constantly reminded.
Which country or terror group has the capability to release weaponized biological agents other than the government isn’t made clear but I presume it’s some offshoot of Saddam Hussein’s fabled UAV drone armies.
Since the only biological agents released in the U.S. came directly from Uncle Sam, including the 2001 anthrax attacks, citizens of Crystal City might have pause for thought.
Residents should probably be thankful that the Pentagon at least told them in advance of the tests, unlike the New Yorkers exposed to Bacillus globigii in 1966.
The fact that U.S. veterans were used as guinea pigs for 50 years during tests under the banner of Project SHAD and other programs involving deadly substances, including sarin nerve gas, without their knowledge or consent , reminds us that some were not so lucky.
Original Article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/030308_crystal_city.htm
By Vivien Lou Chen and Thomas Keene
March 1 (Bloomberg) — Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz, author of a new book that claims the Iraq war will cost the U.S. more than $3 trillion, said the final tally is likely to climb much higher than that.“It’s much more like five trillion,” Stiglitz said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Radio. “We were trying to make Americans understand how expensive this war was so we didn’t want to quibble about a dime here or a dime there.”
His analysis comes as the Senate debates a Democratic plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. The 2001 Nobel winner’s initial estimate of $3 trillion drew criticism from Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who said that the number ignores the price the U.S. would pay if Iraq became a terrorist state.
“Three trillion is a lot of money no matter how you look at it,” said Stiglitz, 65, a former economics adviser to President Bill Clinton. The conflict has driven the nation’s energy costs higher by adding $5 to $10 to the price of a barrel of oil, and may enlarge the national debt by $2 trillion in the year 2017, he said.
“This war is the first war ever that’s been totally financed by borrowing, by deficits,” said Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York. “Because we haven’t raised taxes, because we’ve tried to pretend this war is for free, we’ve been skimping on our treatment of veterans.”
Bills Pile Up
Bills from the Iraq war will pile up for decades to come as the government spends hundreds of billions of dollars providing medical care and disability benefits to about 70,000 soldiers injured in the conflict, he said.
The government also will have to pay back with interest money it borrowed to finance the war, which will drive total costs higher, he told Congress’s Joint Economic Committee earlier this week.
The Congressional Budget Office said last month that $752 billion will have been appropriated so far for the Iraq war, the conflict in Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terror once lawmakers approve the remainder of President George W. Bush’s 2008 war-funding request. The administration’s request for $70 billion more for fiscal 2009 would push that past $800 billion.
Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes release their new book, called the “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,” starting this month.
Friday, February 29th, 2008
The Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is moving forward to institute a rule that would require all passengers to go through a government review process before boarding any airplane that takes off or lands anywhere with in the United States.
The U.S. government already requires international passengers to participate in the Advanced Passenger Information System, providing their full name, gender, date of birth, nationality, country of residence, and travel document type and number to the TSA before boarding. Under the proposed Secure Flight Program, this procedure would also be required on domestic flights.
Currently, individual airlines are responsible for checking the passenger manifests against the “no fly” and “enhanced screening” lists provided by the TSA. The new programs are part of a concerted effort to centralize this process, so that the TSA itself will check all supplied information against these lists, and then instruct the airline or airport staff as to how to proceed.
The Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) has criticized the new Secure Flight rules for their secrecy and lack of accountability. The association has expressed concern that there is no clear appeals process for passengers denied boarding or continually forced to undergo enhanced security screening.
“On the surface, the new Secure Flight program no longer relies on commercial databases and appears to have reduced the number of names on the ‘No Fly’ list,” said ACTE Executive Director Susan Gurley. “It also seems that the responsibility for checking data is no longer abrogated to the airlines. While this is a step in the right direction, it prompts the industry to ask what was the origin of this new data, how is it stored, who has access to it, and how can it be corrected.”
Astounding FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report as CIA veteran Robert Baer calls for investigation to be re-opened
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 28th, 2008
Astounding newly released FBI documents obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act show that alleged 9/11 hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi had booked future flights to San Francisco and Riyadh, suggesting that he was unaware of his eventual fate aboard United Airlines Flight 175, the plane that hit the World Trade Center’s south tower.
The papers consist of a 300 page Federal Bureau of Investigation timeline (PDF link) that was used by the 9/11 Commission but not made public until now.
The 9/11 Commission failed to mention in its final report that Al-Ghamdi was booked onto several flights scheduled to take place after 9/11, including another flight on the very day of the attacks.
The fact that Al-Ghamdi had booked post-9/11 flights obviously gives rise to doubts about whether the alleged hijacker knew the 9/11 attack was a suicide mission and even brings into question if he was on the flight at all.
Citing “UA passenger information,” on page 288 under an entry pertaining to “H AlGhamdi,” the FBI timeline reads: “Future flight. Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950,” reports Raw Story (excerpt below).
Al-Ghamdi was also booked to fly on September 20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and September 29, where he planned to fly from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi Arabia.
The FBI timeline documents also contradict with several other details of the 9/11 Commission Report, notably on the movements of alleged Flight 77 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar.
According to researcher Paul Thompson, he believes the Commission cherry-picked the dates of the alleged hijacker’s movements in order to shield their ties with high-level Saudi Arabian officials.
He points to the redaction of the name of a person who is a known employee of a Saudi defense contractor, Omar al-Bayoumi, who lived at the same location, reports Raw Story.
“We know it’s Bayoumi,” said Thompson, “because after 9/11, the Finnish Government mistakenly released a classified FBI list of suspects that showed Bayoumi living in apartment #152 of Parkwood Apartments.” That information is available here.
“But also important is that it strongly suggests that the hijackers already had a support network in Southern California before they arrived,” Thompson continued.
“In the official version of the story now, the hijackers drift around L.A. listlessly for two weeks before chancing to come across Bayoumi in a restaurant [according to Bayoumi’s account],” Thompson added. “Whereupon he’s an incredible good Samaritan and takes them down to San Diego, pays their rent, etc.”
”But from the FBI’s timeline, we now know the hijackers started staying at Bayoumi’s place on Jan. 15 – the very same day they arrived,” Thompson says. “So obviously they must have been met at the airport and taken care of from their very first hours in the US. That’s huge because the FBI maintains to this day that the hijackers never had any accomplices in the US.”
Alleged Hamza Al-Ghamdi appears in his “martrydom tape,” which interestingly enough was only released in September 2006, post-9/11 just like his flight plans were.
Former 20-year veteran CIA case officer Robert Baer, who has previously asserted that 9/11 has aspects of being an inside job, told Raw Story that the new developments immediately demand the 9/11 investigation be re-opened.
“There are enough discrepancies and unanswered questions in the 9/11 Commission report that under a friendly administration, the 9/11 investigation should be re-opened,” wrote Baer.
“Considering that the main body of evidence came from tortured confessions, it’s still not entirely clear to me what happened on 9/11,” he concluded.
Raw Story provides further details concerning how the documents shed more light on the role of Saudi authorities and their complicity in the attack.
These new revelations mark the most astounding 9/11-related developments in many months and are sure to kick of a firestorm of new doubts about the crumbling official government story.
Original Article:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022808_alleged_hijacker.htm
More Lies From The Bush Fascists
By Paul Craig Roberts
22/02/08 “ICH” — – President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts.
The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert.
Bush says the Democrats have put “our country more in danger of an attack” by letting the Protect America Act lapse. This claim is nonsense. The 30 year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the executive branch all the power it needs to spy on terrorists.
The choice between FISA and the Protect America Act has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, at least not from foreign terrorists. Bush and his brownshirts object to FISA, because the law requires Bush to obtain warrants from a FISA court. Warrants mean that Bush is accountable. Bush and his brownshirts argue that accountability is an infringement on the power of the president.
To escape accountability, the Brownshirt Party came up with the Protect America Act. This act eliminates Bush’s accountability to judges and gives the telecom companies immunity from the felonies they committed by acquiescing in Bush’s illegal spying.
Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/ when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court.
Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/16/former-telcom-ceo-bushs-illegal-spying-began-months-before-911-attacks/
Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime.
As the lawmakers who gave us FISA understood, spying on people without warrants lets a political party collect dirt on its adversaries with which to blackmail them. As Bush illegally spied a long time before word of it got out, blackmail might be the reason the Democrats have ignored their congressional election mandate and have not put a stop to Bush’s illegal wars and unconstitutional police state measures.
Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them. For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire.
With the Protect America Act, Bush and his brownshirts are trying to establish the independence of the executive branch from statutory law and the Constitution. The FISA law means that the president is accountable to federal judges for warrants. Bush and the brownshirt Republicans are striving to make the president independent of all accountability. The brownshirts insist that the leader knows best and can tolerate no interference from the law, the judiciary, the Congress, or the Constitution, and certainly not from the American people who, the brownshirts tell us, won’t be safe unless Bush is very powerful.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison saw it differently. The American people cannot be safe unless the president is accountable and under many restraints.
Pray that the Democrats have caught on that they cannot give the executive branch unaccountable powers to spy and still have grounds on which to refuse the executive branch unaccountable powers elsewhere.
Republicans have used the “war on terror” to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bush’s grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington.
The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing.
Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election. America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.
by Chuck Baldwin
February 22, 2008
The last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. If the Presidency of George W. Bush proved anything, it proved the hazard of electing phony Republican conservatives. At least one is able to clearly see a liberal for what he or she is when they have a “D” behind their name. But put an “R” behind the name and suddenly their liberal, Big-Government, anti-freedom agenda is barely recognized, which makes a liberal Republican much more dangerous than a liberal Democrat.
Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.
Nowhere is McCain’s chicanery and duplicity more jeopardous than in the area of the right to keep and bear arms. On issues relating to the Second Amendment, John McCain is a disaster! For example, the highly respected Gun Owners of America (GOA) rates McCain with a grade of F-. McCain’s failing grade is well deserved.
John McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 on March 2, 2004 that would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows. According to GOA, the provision would effectively eliminate gun shows, because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every “person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law].”
John McCain also sponsored an Incumbent Protection provision to the so-called “Campaign Finance Reform” bill, which severely curtails the ability of outside groups (such as GOA) to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
The GOA report of the 106th Congress reveals that out of 15 votes relating to the right to keep and bear arms, Senator John McCain voted favorably only 4 times. Put that into a percentage and McCain’s pro-Second Amendment voting record is a pathetic 27%.
In addition, GOA warns that John McCain supported legislation that would force federal agents to increase efforts in arresting and convicting honest gun owners who may inadvertently violate one of the many federal anti-gun laws, which punish mere technicalities, such as gun possession.
For example, if John McCain’s proposed legislation were to become law, a gun owner who travels with a gun through a school zone or who uses one of the family handguns to go target shooting with a 15-year old could be sent to prison. And a person who uses a gun for self-defense could be sent to prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.
But there is so much more to the McCain madness.
Former California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson wrote this about John McCain, “He’s [McCain’s] proven his dislike for conservatives and would gut us at every opportunity.
“Why do I say that? Because of three decades of experience as a Republican California Senator and a fifty year activist in the conservative movement. I have first hand, in-their-face experience with elitist RINO’s (Republican in Name Only) office holders. They are biblically ignorant, power hungry, status seeking egotists who have no difficulty aiding their liberal Democrat colleagues whenever their arms are politely twisted. The one thing they have in common with liberal Democrats is their dislike for all conservatives, especially those who are Bible-believing. McCain, as president, would stifle the voices of elected Republican leaders and try to legislate the conservative movement out of existence.”
Senator Richardson went on to say that he would in no way vote for John McCain, if indeed McCain is the Republican nominee (which he obviously will be).
I wonder how many gun owners and other professing pro-freedom Americans have already fallen victim to McCain’s phony conservative campaign? Do they not realize that they are giving a rope to the hangman? And that they–conservatives and gun owners–are the ones who McCain will send to the gallows? What is wrong with the American people these days? Have they not been betrayed enough by these phony conservative Republicans?
For example, President George W. Bush recently nominated Michael Sullivan to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Sullivan is one of the nation’s most rabid anti-gunners. GOA’s Larry Pratt describes Sullivan as being “as anti-gun as Ted Kennedy.” Honest gun owners, lawful firearms dealers, and law-abiding gun show operators could have no worse enemy within the federal government than Michael Sullivan. We could expect no worse from Hillary Clinton. And a John McCain Presidency would doubtless give us more of the same.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the American people have no better friend than Ron Paul. He has a 20-year proven track record of fidelity to the right to keep and bear arms. The GOA rates Congressman Paul with a grade of A+. According to GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following: the Brady law; the requirement to lock up your guns; the law permitting the U.S. to be part of the U.N (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transferred firearms); participation in UNESCO; federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and the so-called “assault weapons” ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).
Ron Paul has also sponsored legislation requiring states to treat the concealed carry permit of one state the same as they do that state’s driver’s license. Dr. Paul also opposes a national ID card, which would be a tool of government to identify gun ownership.
Gun owners (along with conservatives and Christians of all sorts) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing an angry, gun-grabbing liberal such as John McCain to become the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, while rejecting the candidacy of one of America’s most principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution, and pro-freedom legislators of this generation: Congressman Ron Paul.
I say again, the last thing we need is another liberal neocon in the White House. John McCain may have an “R” behind his name, but he is just another establishment liberal: one America cannot afford.
*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080222.html
LewRockwell.com
Article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts236.html
President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts.
The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert.
Bush says the Democrats have put “our country more in danger of an attack” by letting the Protect America Act lapse. This claim is nonsense. The 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the executive branch all the power it needs to spy on terrorists.
The choice between FISA and the Protect America Act has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, at least not from foreign terrorists. Bush and his brownshirts object to FISA, because the law requires Bush to obtain warrants from a FISA court. Warrants mean that Bush is accountable. Bush and his brownshirts argue that accountability is an infringement on the power of the president.
To escape accountability, the Brownshirt Party came up with the Protect America Act. This act eliminates Bush’s accountability to judges and gives the telecom companies immunity from the felonies they committed by acquiescing in Bush’s illegal spying.
Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court.
Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else.
Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime.
As the lawmakers who gave us FISA understood, spying on people without warrants lets a political party collect dirt on its adversaries with which to blackmail them. As Bush illegally spied a long time before word of it got out, blackmail might be the reason the Democrats have ignored their congressional election mandate and have not put a stop to Bush’s illegal wars and unconstitutional police state measures.
Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them. For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire.
With the Protect America Act, Bush and his brownshirts are trying to establish the independence of the executive branch from statutory law and the Constitution. The FISA law means that the president is accountable to federal judges for warrants. Bush and the brownshirt Republicans are striving to make the president independent of all accountability. The brownshirts insist that the leader knows best and can tolerate no interference from the law, the judiciary, the Congress, or the Constitution, and certainly not from the American people who, the brownshirts tell us, won’t be safe unless Bush is very powerful.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison saw it differently. The American people cannot be safe unless the president is accountable and under many restraints.
Pray that the Democrats have caught on that they cannot give the executive branch unaccountable powers to spy and still have grounds on which to refuse the executive branch unaccountable powers elsewhere.
Republicans have used the “war on terror” to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bush’s grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington.
The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing.
Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election. America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush.
Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury’s Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).
Author of San Francisco Chronicle piece warning of internment camps says government bombed its own citizens
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, February 22nd, 2008
A former Congressman says that the U.S. government created Al-Qaeda and was involved in bombing its own citizens on 9/11, telling a national radio show that elements of the Bush administration assisted the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
Daniel Hamburg is a former Democratic Congressman who was elected to the 1st Congressional District of California in 1992 and also subsequently ran for Governor of California, finishing in 3rd place.
Hamburg co-wrote a well-received recent article carried by the San Francisco Chronicle in which he outlined the program to incarcerate American citizens in internment camps, which have already been publicly built, during a time of declared national emergency.
Appearing today on the Alex Jones Show, Hamburg said he was working on an article about missing nuclear bombs in relation to the Minot nuclear warheads mishap and agreed that it was possible the story could be used as a cover for the staged detonation of a nuke to be blamed on Al-Qaeda.
“Any government that could bomb its own citizens in the major city of the country could do anything….you can’t put anything past them,” said Hamburg, clarifying that he was referring to 9/11.
“I’m in the assisted it to happen camp – I think there was a lot of help from the inside, this whole thing was not engineered from a cave in Afghanistan,” he added.
“The evidence that Al-Qaeda is actually an arm of the U.S. government is voluminous….I know that’s true,” concluded Hamburg, citing the PNAC group’s call for a new Pearl Harbor shortly before the 2001 terror attacks.
“It’s hard for people to believe that their government could be as insidious as this one is but the evidence is there,” concluded Hamburg
Original Article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022208_congressman_involved.htm
Editors’ note: IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP FOLKS !!!
Saturday, February 16th, 2008
Rule by fear or rule by law?
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”
– Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of “new programs” require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic “war on terror.” Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes” of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman’s commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters … the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 “terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
Full Article: http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/bush-regime-building-concentration-camps/2483/
U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American
Citizens
Iraq vet exposes how he was trained to round up Americans in martial law exercise, asked if he would kill his own friends and family
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetMonday, February 4th, 2008
U.S. troops are being trained to conduct round-ups, confiscate guns and shoot American citizens, including their own friends and family members, as part of a long-standing program to prepare for the declaration of martial law, according to a soldier who recently returned from Iraq.
We received an e mail from “Scott”, a member of a pipefitters union that runs an apprenticeship program called Helmets To Hard Hats, which according to its website, “Is a national program that connects National Guard, Reserve and transitioning active-duty military members with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction industry.”
Scott writes that his company hired a soldier who had recently returned from Iraq, who told him that U.S. troops were being quizzed on whether or not they would be prepared to shoot their own friends and family members during a national state of emergency in America.
“I have become very close to this young man and have gained his respect and trust,” writes Scott. “I want you to know that he informed me about one particular training exercise his superiors made them perform. It was concerning the rounding up of American citizens that disobey any type of martial law or in other words any type of infringement on our freedoms.”
“He was asked if he could shoot his friends or family members if ordered to do so. At the time he said he could,” writes Scott.
Scott says that the soldier later “had time to clear his head” and realize the truth, recanting his vow to kill his own countrymen if ordered to do so.
The issue of whether U.S. troops would be prepared to round-up, disarm and if necessary shoot Americans who disobeyed orders during a state of martial law is a question that military chiefs have been attempting to answer for at least 15 years.
Its known origins can be traced back to an October 1994 Marine questionnaire out of the Twentynine Palms Marine Base in California. Recruits were asked 46 questions, including whether they would kill U.S. citizens who refused to surrender their firearms.
Documentary film maker Alex Jones brought to light similar training programs that were taking place across the country in the late 90’s which revolved around U.S. Marines being trained to arrest American citizens and take them to internment camps.
During one such program in Oakland California, dubbed “Operation Urban Warrior,” Marines refused to answer if they would target American citizens for gun confiscation if ordered to do so.
During hurricane Katrina, National Guard units were ordered to confiscate guns belonging to New Orleans residents.
As we first exposed in May 2006, Clergy Response Teams are being trained by the federal government and FEMA to “quell dissent” and pacify citizens to obey the government in the event of a declaration of martial law.
Pastors and other religious representatives are being taught to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.
Many scoffed at our original story, which was based on the testimony of a whistleblower who was asked to participate in the program. Claims that the story was a conspiracy theory soon evaporated when a mainstream KSLA news report confirmed the existence of the program
The experiences of U.S. troops in the worst areas of Iraq, where soldiers are ordered to go door to door and arrest all men of military age as well as confiscate their weapons, is a mere portend of what is being planned for America if these training programs ever come to fruition.
Original Article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020408_shoot_americans.htm
New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission:
The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.
According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:
a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience.
According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon.
Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’s results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four:
(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.
(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.
(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.
(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.
Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.
Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.
James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.
The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ’sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Paul Craig Roberts [former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; co-author (with Lawrence Stratton) of The Tyranny of Good Intentions]:
“The George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon with an assault on US civil liberty that Bush and the DOJ justified in the name of “the war on terror.” The government gave assurances that the draconian measures only apply to “terrorists.” “Terrorist,” however, was not defined. The government claimed the discretionary power to decide who is a “terrorist” without having to present evidence or charges in a court of law.
The Bush administration’s policy comprises an end-run around any notion of procedural due process of law. Administration assurances that harsh treatment is reserved only for “terrorists” is meaningless when the threshold process for determining who is and who is not a “terrorist” depends on executive discretion that is not subject to review. Substantive rights are useless without the procedural rights to enforce them.
Jose Padilla, a US citizen, was accused of intending to set off a radioactive “dirty bomb” in an American city. He was denied due process and the protection of habeas corpus. He was held for years under harsh conditions that brought about “essentially the destruction of a human being’s mind,” according to Dr. Angela Hegarty, a psychiatrist who spent 22 hours examining Padilla.
Eventually, the courts intervened. In December 2003 an appellate court ruled that Padilla could not be denied habeas corpus protection. To forestall another Supreme Court ruling against the Bush administration, the administration withdrew Padilla’s status as “enemy combatant” and filed criminal charges that bore no relationship to the administration’s original allegations that Padilla intended to explode a “dirty bomb.”
The only case the DOJ was able to manufacture against Padilla was that he was a “terrorist-wannabe.” Padilla was thus indicted on the Benthamite grounds that he might commit a terrorist act in the future.
By the time Padilla went to trial, he had been demonized for years in the media as the “dirty bomb” terrorist. In the Washington Post, August 17, 2007, Peter Whoriskey described the Padilla jury as a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue. As Lawrence Stratton and I write in the new edition of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: “It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off the “dirty bomber.”
The main “evidence” introduced against Padilla was an unrelated 10-year old video of Osama bin Laden, which served to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories of September 11.
The prosecutors also claimed to have a form that Padilla is alleged to have completed in 2000, prior to September 11, 2001, to attend an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. At that time Al Qaeda and the Taliban were fighting against a remnant of the Northern Alliance containing elements of the old Soviet regime to unify Afghanistan as an Islamic state. Although it is far fetched that al Qaeda sent out applications to attend its training camps, any such application by Padilla predated the 9/11 attack and was related only to domestic affairs in Afghanistan. Any such application has no relevance to any act of terrorism.
Padilla was convicted on all counts. In handing down a 17-year sentence, US District Judge Marcia Cooke denied the prosecutors’ request for a life sentence and observed: “There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere.”
Under Blackstonian law, the basis of the US Constitution, the Padilla case has no crime and no intent to commit a crime. Judge Cooke vaguely recognized this, but US law has been pushed off its Blackstonian basis and is being reconstructed on a Benthamite basis.
Benthamite law is the great ally of tyranny. It permits people to be arrested on the suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future, to be tortured, and to be held indefinitely. In other words, suspicion leads to imprisonment without the check of warrant, judge, trial or jury.
This is the law that the Padilla case has given us. Padilla, an American citizen, was denied habeas corpus, tortured, and convicted of the Benthamite crime of being suspected of possibly committing a real crime in the future. The fact that judge and jury went along with the Benthamite proceeding shows that Benthamite justice can operate within the old Blackstonian process.
The Justice Department that manufactured the case against Padilla is the same DOJ that wrote memos justifying torture and findings that the President of the US need not obey federal statutes such as FISA or abide by the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution. It is the same DOJ whose attorney general told Congress that the Constitution does not provide habeas corpus protection to every US citizen.
This same DOJ is the product of an administration the highest officers of which have been documented to have lied about Iraq 935 times in the two years following 9/11.
If the Bush administration will lie about matters of war and death and fabricate evidence to justify war, why won’t the administration lie and fabricate evidence in order to convict accused “terrorists” like Padilla and whomever else they please?
Harvey Silverglate has noted that the legal changes we have experienced since 9/11/2001 have destroyed the common law basis of US law. In terrorist cases, prosecutors do not need to fabricate evidence, because they can make crimes out of innocuous and even constitutionally protected activity. A case in point is the federal indictment of a Saudi graduate student at the University of Idaho who operated some Websites, a constitutionally-protected activity, where some participants in discussion groups advocated jihad. Applying a provision of the US PATRIOT Act, federal prosecutors indicted Omar Al-Hussayen for providing “expert advice or assistance” to terrorist organizations (see Silverglate, The Boston Globe, June 28, 2004). What prosecutors are doing goes beyond fabricating evidence. They are using amorphous terrorism statutes to criminalize ordinary aspects of everyday life. Another way of putting it is that prosecutors take ordinary events and stretch them to fit an expansive interpretation of a terrorism statute. A large amount of effort is committed to prosecuting activities that do not fit any common sense meaning of crime.”
Opinions expressed in JURIST’s Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.
Original Article:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/01/padilla-trial-highlights-bush.php
Rambo star asked why he does not “go after Al Qaeda” in new movie
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Jan 17, 2008
Sylvester Stallone, star of the upcoming fourth Rambo film, has described the current political climate as being based upon “bold faced lying” by governments in order to “pacify the masses”.
Taking part in a question and answer session for popular culture website anticool.com, Stallone was responding in answer to a mind numbing and cringe inducing question from a fan as to why Rambo does not “git them evil islamo-facist muslim dudes” in his fourth and final outing.
“Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr” from Los Angeles (if indeed he is a real doctor – which I seriously doubt given that he brags about having full sex with a woman before asking his question) asked the following question of Stallone:
“In the eighties, John Rambo took on villains who were the real villains of the day: ruthless, invading Russian commie bastards hellbent on global communism. So I always assumed that if Rambo returned he’d be taking on the real villain of this day: extreme, radical Islamist bastards hellbent on worldwide jihad. It seems like all of today’s movies have pussed out on making Islamofacists the bad guys even though they are clearly the bad guys in the real world right now. Why is Rambo pussing out on this mission? Has he become politically correct?”
YEAH Stallone you wimp! Ha, choke on that!
Well, actually “doctor” it seems Rambo is more concerned with sorting out some bad guys in Burma this time around. You know, that place where a REAL and vicious Socialist military dictatorship has been oppressing and killing innocent people on and off for nigh on 60 years now.
Stallone replies:
“The phrase ‘politically correct’ is basically a euphemism for bold face lying because unfortunately, lies keep society functioning. The day we have our politicians actually tell us the real truth, we’d have anarchy in the streets. So we’re told what they think will pacify the masses not inflame them. ”
Running around after a few incompetent rag tag arabs who have neither the wherewithal nor the capability of instigating a proverbial piss up in a brewery let alone a “worldwide jihad”, does not rank high on Rambo’s to do list.
Besides, the end of the last Rambo movie saw the headbanded hero riding off into the sunset on a camel with his new best buddies, the very same “extreme, radical Islamist bastards hellbent on worldwide jihad”. Why so? Because back then they were our boys.
Rambo III was a cinematic depiction of the fact that throughout the 1980’s, the CIA covertly pumped billions of dollars of military aid into Afghanistan to support the mujahedeen–or holy warriors–against the Soviet Union, which had invaded in 1979.
These holy warriors were armed, trained and funded using American tax dollars. Their CIA handlers compiled the names of the mujahedeen leaders into an electronic intranet database, which was also used by the intelligence agencies to communicate with their holy-warriors. Being one of the first of it’s kind, this source of information became known as “The Base“, or when translated in Arabic, “Al Qaeda“.
Now we’re all a bit more pally with the “ruthless, invading Russian commie bastards hellbent on global communism”, our governments have turned their attention back to plundering the hell out of the middle east. Of course we as rational peace loving people would never tolerate such actions in our names unless there was some gigantic threat to our freedom and way of life, which of course comes in the form of a prolonged propaganda campaign to convince us that there really are hordes of “Islamofacists” around every corner and hiding under our beds waiting to get us because they abhor our freedom.
Unfortunately the average American, like “Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr”, buys this fiction hook line and sinker, cannot remember further back than when that 9/11 thing happened, and will not question why his favorite hero, the dude he sacrificed some great sex for, used to be best pals with those guys who are now the evil baddies.
As Stallone points out, for our governments to tell the truth would be too inflaming, instead we are pacified and told that everything is black and white. We’re at war with the Islamofacists, we’ve always been at war with the Islamofacists.
Original Article: http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/170108Stallone.htm
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/09/tsa-searches-detains.html
TSA searches, detains 5 year old because his name was on no-fly list
Posted by Cory Doctorow, January 9, 2008 1:25 PM
A five-year-old boy was taken into custody and thoroughly searched at Sea-Tac because his name is similar to a possible terrorist alias. As the Consumerist reports, “When his mother went to pick him up and hug him and comfort him during the proceedings, she was told not to touch him because he was a national security risk. They also had to frisk her again to make sure the little Dillinger hadn’t passed anything dangerous weapons or materials to his mother when she hugged him.”
It’s a case of a mistaken identity for a 5-year-old boy from Normandy Park. He had trouble boarding a plane because someone with the same name is wanted by the federal government. Mimi Jung reports from Sea-Tac Airport.
You know, if you wanted to systematically discredit the idea of a Department of Homeland Security, if you wanted to make an utter mockery of aviation safety, you could not do a better job than this.
Do you like Cell phones? How about using Email? Have you ever Text message anyone? Do you classify yourself as normal, someone who projects a truly nice guy image? Do you visit websites, maybe you even have one. What is on it? Do you publish an online newspaper? Do you like alternative media and news? If you do any of these things then you are part of the characteristic alignment of a Terrorist. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, Terrorism Brochure, INT-78. This piece of three part fold out information is produced by the Counterterrorism Intelligence Unit and is meant to help the public identify terrorists. The problem, just who or what is a terrorist?
For the rest follow this link:
http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/editoral.php?feature=11886
What is Going on in Eugenics?- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- RINF
- Poisoned for Profit: We Are Not the Agrochemical Industry’s Guinea Pigs
- From Mad Cow Disease to Agrochemicals: Time to Put Public Need Ahead of Private Greed
- The Terrorists with US- Cyber Privateers commit Domestic Terrorism 4
- From the Green Revolution to GMOs: Toxic Agriculture Is the Problem Not the Solution
- Life Expectancy Falters in the UK: Slow Death but Fast Profits for the Agrochemical Sector
- ‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of the Food Supply for Profit
- Traitors and Terror- Why private Intel providers betray their own people
- Encouraging Illegal Planting of Bt Brinjal in India: Political Posturing, Displaying Contempt for the Wider Public Interest
- From Glyphosate to Front Groups: Fraud, Deception and Toxic Tactics
- Toxic Food and Glyphosate: Rosemary Mason Holds Alan Boobis and David Coggon Responsible
-
The Eclectic Blog 