UK rendition and torture collusion inquiry scrapped

Oh, the shock....Oh the surprise....Another whitewash.

BBC News

A controversial inquiry into allegations of wrongdoing by the UK's security services is being scrapped.  Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said the inquiry into the treatment of detainees could not continue because of Metropolitan Police investigations. 

These follow fresh allegations that officials assisted the rendition of men to Libya, where they were tortured. Mr Clarke said the government was committed to holding a judge-led inquiry once these were investigated. 

The Detainee Inquiry, headed by retired judge Sir Peter Gibson, was launched by the prime minister to get to the bottom of claims that MI5 and MI6 had aided and abetted the rendition and ill-treatment of terrorism suspects in the wake of 9/11. 

In July 2010 when he announced the "fully independent" inquiry, David Cameron had said that to ignore the claims of wrongdoing would risk secret operatives' reputation "being tarnished". But the inquiry had been widely criticised by campaign groups and lawyers representing detainees who were refusing to take part, saying it lacked transparency and credibility. 

Read more

Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on 9/11

Israel Shamir

On September 11, 2001 the definition of National Security changed for most U.S. citizens. For an entire postwar generation, “National Security” meant protection from nuclear attack. On that day, Americans redefined that threat.

On September 11, 2001 three hijacked airliners hit three separate buildings with such precision and skill that manyobservers believe those flights were controlled by something other than the poorly trained hijackers in the cockpits.

This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day.

Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives.

However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested 'symbolic' designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction.

This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.1

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event – take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al.

The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas.

The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources”2 and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause.

Read more

See also: Black Eagle Trust Fund /The 9/11 Attacks and the Black Eagle Trust Fund

The Doomsday Project and Deep Events: JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11

Voltairenet

Peter Dale Scott

In this two-part analysis, former diplomat and scholar Peter Dale Scott deciphers the successive stages, since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, of the United States’ inexorable slide into the situation that President Eisenhower had feared and cautioned his compatriots against. Since 26 October 2001 and the introduction of the Patriot Act, a secret structure - the "Deep State" - has been governing the United States behind the trappings of democracy.

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." - Senator Frank Church (1975)

I would like to discuss four major and badly understood events – the John F. Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. I will analyze these deep events as part of a deeper political process linking them, a process that has helped build up repressive power in America at the expense of democracy.

In recent years I have been talking about a dark force behind these events — a force which, for want of a better term, I have clumsily called a “deep state,” operating both within and outside the public state. Today for the first time I want to identify part of that dark force, a part which has operated for five decades or more at the edge of the public state. This part of the dark force has a name not invented by me: the Doomsday Project, the Pentagon’s name for the emergency planning “to keep the White House and Pentagon running during and after a nuclear war or some other major crisis.” [1]

My point is a simple and important one: to show that the Doomsday Project of the 1980s, and the earlier emergency planning that developed into it, have played a role in the background of all the deep events I shall discuss.

More significantly, it has been a factor behind all three of the disturbing events that now threaten American democracy. The first of these three is what has been called the conversion of our economy into a plutonomy – with the increasing separation of America into two classes, into the haves and the have-nots, the one percent and the 99 percent. The second is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, which has become more and more routine and predictable, to wage or provoke wars in remote regions of the globe. It is clear that the operations of this American war machine have served the one percent. [2]

The third — my subject today — is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history of structural deep events: mysterious events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which violate the American social structure, have a major impact on American society, repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, and in many cases proceed from an unknown dark force.

Read more

Psychologists explain 9/11 denial and Cognitive Dissonance

Three myths about the detention bill

This article is extremely important for everyone to read, especially Americans.

------------------- 

Salon

Glenn Greenwald

Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.”  The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF  ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:

Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.

It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted” so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals, despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF. That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 – i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are “associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.

Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by  Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one)  to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).

Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.

UPDATE: There’s an interview with me in Harper’s today regarding American justice and With Liberty and Justice for Some.

US: A Dangerous Woman - Indefinite Detention at Carswell

The Peoples' Voice

Susan Lindauer

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. A bill moving through Congress, authorizing the military to imprison American citizens indefinitely, without a trial or hearing, ranks right at the top of that list.

I know—I lived through it on the Patriot Act. When Congress decided to squelch the truth about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and the existence of a comprehensive peace option with Iraq, as the CIA's chief Asset covering Iraq, I became an overnight threat. To protect their cover-up scheme, I got locked in federal prison inside Carswell Air Force Base, while the Justice Department battled to detain me "indefinitely" up to 10 years, without a hearing or guilty plea. Worst yet, they demanded the right to forcibly drug me with Haldol, Ativan and Prozac, in a violent effort to chemically lobotomize the truth about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.

Critically, because my legal case was controlled by civilian Courts, my Defense had a forum to fight back. The Judge was an independent arbiter. And that made all the difference. If this law on military detentions had been active, my situation would have been hopeless. The Patriot Act was bad enough. Mercifully, Chief Justice Michael B. Mukasey is a preeminent legal scholar who recognized the greater impact of my case. Even so, he faced a terrible choice —declaring me "incompetent to stand trial," so my case could be killed—or creating dangerous legal precedents tied to secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony and indefinite detention—from the Patriot Act's arsenal of weapons against truth tellers—that would impact all defendants in the U.S. Courts.

It was a hideous choice—The judicial farce was more ugly because it stamped me a "religious maniac" for believing in God—a ludicrous argument. It lined up beautifully, however, with Congress' desire to bastardize the "incompetence" of Assets engaged in Pre-War Intelligence. Anything to escape responsibility for their own poor decision making.

To this day, it scorches my heart with rage and betrayal. It was unforgivable on so many levels.

And it had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. This was about fighting truth—and protecting powerful leaders in Washington determined to glorify themselves with phony patriotism and media fireworks in the War on Terrorism—a fantasy if there was one.

Read more

Susan Lindauer is the author of "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq," which describes her work as an Asset covering Iraq and Libya, and her arrest on the Patriot Act shortly after requesting to testify before Congress about the CIA's advance warnings about 9/11 and a peace option in Iraq. | Audio interview | Book review

New 9/11 Eyewitness Evidence of Bombs at WTC

CIA 'Secret Prison' Found in Romania

 

Former CIA operatives said the building 

was used to interrogate terrorism suspects, 

including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed

BBC News

The CIA operated a secret prison in the Romanian capital Bucharest where terrorism suspects were interrogated, an investigation by the Associated Press and German media has found.

Former CIA operatives identified the building where, they said, detainees were held and tortured.

The building belongs to a Romanian agency, Orniss, which stores classified information from the EU and Nato.

Orniss has denied hosting a CIA prison and the CIA has refused to comment.

The investigation, by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper and the German TV network ARD, said those held in the secret prison included Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who has admitted organising the 9/11 attacks.

He was seized in Pakistan in March 2003 under the US programme known as "extraordinary rendition" - the extra-judicial detention and transfer of terrorism suspects.

He has been in the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay since 2006, where he is awaiting trial. 

Read more

Coming of Age in a Post-9/11 World

 

Anthony Freda "Theories"

 Activist Post

I take a deep breath before I start to write. The thought of what's happening in this country makes me feel like I'm going to have a panic attack. I take another breath as my heart rate begins to pick up.  I let all the information I've read and researched and situations I've experienced in the past years settle in my mind. I take one more deep breath and I'm ready to face the reality of what is really happening in our country. I'm ready to confront it, are you?

It all starts back on a date that we are all familiar with, September 11th, 2001 . . . .

I remember in vivid detail when I was in 2nd grade and the Twin Towers fell. It was one of the first times I've ever seen teachers interrupt a quiet classroom.

A group of teachers dashed in while we were all over looking our math problems and they started crying and hugging each other. I swear it could have started snowing, the September air got so cold. Slowly students started to get picked up by loved ones and I watched from the window as they drove off about 3 hours early from when school normally ends. I wondered if I would be picked up too.

I've never heard tears hit the floor so loud. Panic filled the room. I was confused, an innocent mind; I didn't know what was happening and I tried to think of what could have caused such chaos in a normally relaxed school. I just couldn't figure it out. Images flashed through my head like an old projector, as I played a matching game of what possibly could have caused all of this.

The number of students in the room began to get smaller and smaller as I watched the clock above the door tick away. There were about 5 students left in the classroom when I decided to go up to the group of teachers wiping their makeup from their eyes and calling a new person every other second; and to this day I'm not sure what exactly would have fought its way out of my mouth -- but before I had time to speak, another teacher ran in the room and the group of 6 or so teachers migrated to her with hugs. I gave up on the idea of asking and decided I would find out for myself.

I walked out my 2nd grade classroom and down the hall toward the exit of the school. I figured it would be on TV at home if it was very important, from past experiences of seeing things on the news. So I thought I should just go home. To my surprise my older sister stood at the exit as if she knew my adventurous and impatient mind would lead me to that exact place. I don't even think the teachers noticed me leave, or any of the other students in fact, because they were so caught up in conversation discussing the mystery which sent my whole 2nd grade class home from school that day.

My sister explained to me that something serious has just happened and that a lot of people have just died. She explained to me that planes have flown into the Twin Towers as Terrorists attacked The United States Of America. She looked at my face, with a confused expression that seemed to acknowledge that my 2nd grade mind couldn't comprehend the definition of terrorism. She quickly reworded, "Bad people just killed innocent people in New York City".

Little did I know that these buildings would play such an impact in my future and life.

I shortly arrived home to see my mom crying and on the phone with my brother who was stationed in Fort Benning Army Base in Georgia. It made me sad to hear the pain in her voice as she told me to not turn on any TV's in the house. While people were being murdered, I was sitting in my room thinking about what happens next? It never occurred to me that my brother would be sent away overseas for 8 years in the deserts of the Middle East.  It never occurred to me that he would be put through so much pain and be in death's cross-hairs every second. It never occurred to me I would feel like I have lost my brother, even though he was still alive. It never occurred to me that I wasn't alone and this was happening to countless other people too.

I remember asking my mom, "Who let this happen?" Feeling as if someone didn't do their job correctly and should have known something so extreme was coming our way.

My brother always taught me that America was the best place to live; that it's the safest and I don't need to ever worry about anything bad happening to me. Everything that I believed was shattered and I no longer felt safe. I remember double-checking the doors at night to make sure they were locked because I was so convinced that men in all black were going to bust down my door and murder my family. It is fair to say: I was scared. I hated these people who killed all these innocent people in MY country and I wanted revenge.

As I got older, I found myself watching documentaries on the Internet like Loose Change and Fahrenheit 9/11. I was amazed at what I saw. People who studied and gathered such information on their own time and dedication to get someone to see something from a certain perspective and viewpoint. I thought that was beautiful.

I found myself obsessed with 9/11 and I didn't understand why this video wasn't on every news station and why more people didn't know about it! I read everything I could find about on the Internet and every video I could watch. To this day, 10 years later, I am still confused about what happened that day, but I think that's just because I don't like to admit the truth to myself. I find it pretty obvious that 9/11 was allowed to happen -- one way or another -- and I know I am not the only person who believes that after researching 9/11.

I am a 9/11 truther.

I started finding more interesting links about government, and started reading things about CIA whistleblowers.  One day I heard about The Patriot Act. My mind was blown; I felt violated even though I had nothing to hide. It made no sense to me that the people who are supposed to protect us were taking away our constitutional rights to make sure we are safe. I tried to share this with all my friends at school, but no one seemed interested and just looked at me like I was crazy! Keep in mind I was only 14 or so. I thought to myself, so many people have died and fought for America to be what it is -- for our freedom. How does anyone think it is okay to take away our privacy and freedom to protect us from "terrorism"?

It didn't add up to me. Security cameras have never made me feel any safer.

As I continued my obsession with truth and other people's viewpoints and thoughts about media, banking, government, and freedom, it all started to make sense to me. It hit me like a truck -- that as much as I would love life to be a fair, happy place; it is simply not. That not everyone in the world is fair, honest and a person you can trust. I had to remind myself that greed, power-tripping, and selfishness all does indeed exist. I started to feel like I was cheated -- that the government was just playing all of its people. They aren't protecting us; they are brainwashing us and making us believe that things which are actually small are a really big threat.

Why? So that we live in fear.

In my 17 years of living, I've experienced society and our country go through quite a serious change -- as well as my viewpoints on America. From thinking we are the best country in the world and believing that countries are just jealous of our freedom, to believing that in fact we are just the complete opposite of that and are creating terrorism by fighting wars based on lies and for resources to benefit certain companies and people; and that people behind desks in suits call the shots but don't know what it's actually like to be shot at.

It's fair to say, I lost faith in humanity for quite some time.

It truly made me depressed that people could be such animals and lie to everyone about such important vital information. It made me sad to see people eat it all up like Thanksgiving dinner. I couldn't believe people were not doing anything about this.

Soon, I started to notice that people actually were doing a lot about this. Huge protests like the Internet group Anonymous protesting Scientology, and other protests on "9/11 truth," and the list goes on and on. I found out what I loved and I was happy to know people were being the change they wish to see.

The Occupy movement gave me great hope, and lifted my mood. I thought to myself: "Its about time." I knew I would stand with them.

Agree or disagree with what the Occupy movement is protesting; the police brutality has really been eye opening, and its important to ask yourself these questions:

Who are they serving?

Who are they protecting?

Why are they arresting people?

Why are peaceful people being attacked?

Why are they using chemical agents and LRAD devices on American citizens?

I think it is important to research what's going on and question things for yourself. Turn off the TV and seek the truth.

Is America losing its rights? Are we becoming less free?

In the past month, the SOPA/NO IP ACT (PROTECT-IP) is a bill that has been introduced in the Senate and the House and is moving quickly through Congress. It gives the government and corporations the ability to censor the Net, in the name of protecting "creativity". The law would let the government or corporations censor entire sites-- they just have to convince a judge that the site is "dedicated to copyright infringement."

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization act in a 93-7 vote. THIS BILL for the first time in American history authorizes the US military to DETAIN, TORTURE, and even ASSASSINATE American citizens on U.S. SOIL -- NO RIGHT TO A TRIAL, NO ACCESS TO A LAWYER, and the government need only ACCUSE you of being anti-government or connected to TERRORISM for this to apply to you.

Is there a pattern going on here? Does this seem okay to you? Do you need to start questioning these things? It's weird that the government is trying to censor the Internet and declare U.S. soil a war-zone allowing mass arrests of people for expressing opinions, and that that the government is giving army supplies for free to police departments.

The day our constitutional amendments mean nothing -- which seems more like reality as the sun sets -- I do not want to hear anyone who didn't stand up with the Occupy movement or any protest of government power over its people complain, because by sitting back and not doing anything about this, you are allowing this to happen.

It angers me when people are more interested in listening to horrible music than to educate themselves on important things like the SOPA/NO IP Act and the NDAA that will change our lives completely and for the next generations to come. Occupy your minds and stop being a slave to corporate media and entertainment.

I mean in America, you’re supposed to be able to criticize your own government without saying you’re un-American - Ron Paul

Whatever happened to? "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It feels like a militarized war zone, it doesn't feel like New York. -- RT journalist interviewed who got hit by a police baton as she was trying to film the protests.

So let me ask one final question: Do you need to leave your second-grade classroom to find out what is really happening? Or are you just going to wait around until someone picks you up?

How Obama picked up where George Bush left off and assassinated the rule of law

This cartoon by Leon Kuhn is featured in the book 

Stop the War 10th Anniversary Graphic History

Murder and Assassinations are illegal under the US constitution, but that doesn't stop Obama killing 16-year-old Americans without explanation.

By Leonard C. Goodman
In These Times via Stop the War Coalition

Of all the promises made by candidate Barack Obama, it was his promise to end the lawlessness of the Bush years by closing Guantanamo, ending torture and restoring the United States’ reputation for justice that got me out in the streets and knocking on doors. 

And it is President Obama’s failure to keep these promises that makes it impossible for me to support him again. 

President Bush’s foreign policy was roundly criticized by most of the world and by candidate Obama. Following 9/11, Bush’s foreign policy was simple: If my administration decides that you are a terrorist or a terrorist supporter, we reserve the right to invade and occupy your country, kill you or send you halfway around the world to a prison camp.

To implement this policy, administration lawyers wrote memos making it all legal for their masters.

First, Bush’s lawyers declared that the one-sentence “Authorization for Use of Military Force” enacted by a frightened Congress one week after September 11, 2001, authorized undeclared wars and the mass incarceration of terror suspects.

But Bush’s team wanted still more power—they wanted legal authority to torture suspects. So Bush’s lawyers wrote memos stating that torture under the president’s command would not violate federal law (which proscribes “torture”), or the U.N. Convention Against Torture, as long as the torturer lacks the intent to cause “prolonged mental harm” or “death or organ failure.”

One of these memos, authored by Office of Legal Councel attorney Jay Bybee, included a convenient section called “Interpretation to Avoid Constitutional Problems.” Bush’s lawyers also wrote memos authorizing the incarceration of U.S. citizens suspected of terror links without charge or trial. But here the Supreme Court drew the line.

In the case of U.S. citizen Yaser Hamdi, a terror-suspect born in Louisiana, raised in Saudi Arabia, captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo, government lawyers argued that it would be “constitutionally intolerable” to require the government to submit any evidence to support its claim that Hamdi is a terrorist. The Supreme Court disagreed. While the court permitted the government to strip Hamdi of most of his constitutional rights, it nevertheless ordered the government to give Hamdi a hearing at which it must present some minimal amount of evidence. But because the government had no evidence that Hamdi was a terrorist, it sent him back to Saudi Arabia—on the condition that he renounced his citizenship. 

Obama has carried on where Bush left off. Realizing that captured American-born terror suspects must be given a hearing, Obama decided it would be more convenient to kill them. And he asked the lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel to write memos stating that killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Muslim cleric living in Yemen, would not violate the Constitution or federal statutes banning murder and assassinations. Once again, the lawyers set aside the most fundamental rules of legal ethics to serve their master. 

The Obama administration has not released these assassination memos, but it did leak an outline of the memos’ legal reasoning to the New York Times. Their analysis is every bit as shoddy as that found in the torture memos. 

Obama’s lawyers concluded that the administration could legally kill al-Awlaki so long as the CIA says he is playing an operational role in al-Qaeda and that it was not feasible to capture him. The lawyers don’t actually analyze any of the evidence against al-Awlaki—they just declare that Obama may accept the word of the CIA, which is able to bury evidence so it can never be second-guessed. 

Al-Awlaki was killed September 30 by a drone strike in Yemen. Presumably his executioner was a CIA agent rather than a soldier in uniform, but the Obama lawyers said that this would also be lawful. The drone strike also killed a second American named Samir Khan, who had produced a jihadist web magazine titled Inspire. Two weeks after killing al-Awlaki and Khan, the administration used its newfound powers to kill another American: al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. This strike also killed eight other human beings.

As of this writing, the administration has not come forward with any explanation for the killing of the American juvenile or his companions. Presumably, an unprincipled government lawyer is at work on the justification memo right now.

An Open Letter to Dr. Paul Viminitz: 9/11 Evidence vs. Straw Man Arguments

“Viminitz presupposes the veracity of the wholly debunked Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) of 9/11. I suspect not until I challenged him, during the period when I was his student, had he even considered the possibility that the OCT could be false.” - Joshua Blakeney

Veterans Today

Whilst studying for my undergraduate degree in Sociology at the University of Lethbridge I took a class in Critical Thinking (i.e. Logic) taught by Professor Paul Viminitz, a member of the Philosophy department who purports to be “Canada’s foremost philosopher-of-war” as “Canada’s only philosopher-of-war.” As a result of my interest in Professor Viminitz’s scholarship on the subject of War I decided to read his 2005 paper published in the Journal of Philosophical Research entitled “A Defence of Terrorism” in which he advances the thesis “that terrorism is not only permissible but permissible categorically. Moreover, where neither championing nor passive resistance are available, terrorism may even be morally mandatory.”  The case study he takes as the focus of his discussion is that of 9/11, a terrorist attack he inaccurately attributes to Osama bin Laden. 

Read more

What Endless War looks like

 

Salon

Anonymous U.S. officials this morning are announcing in The Washington Post that they have effectively defeated what they call “the organization that brought us 9/11″ — Al Qaeda — by rendering it “operationally ineffective.” Specifically, “the leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group’s defeat, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials said.” And: “asked what exists of al-Qaeda’s leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: ‘Not very much’.”

You might think this means that the vastly expanded National Security and Surveillance States justified in the name of 9/11, as well as the slew of wars and other aggressive deployments which it spawned, can now be reversed and wound down. After all, the stated purpose of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) which provided legal cover to all of this was expressed in the very first line: “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” The purpose of this authorized force was equally clear and limited: “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

Now, the group which the U.S. government has always said was the one that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001″ is, according to this same government, “operationally ineffective.” So what does that mean in terms of policy? Absolutely nothing:....

Read more

Major Wars and Suppression of American Freedoms Planned BEFORE 9/11

Washington’s Blog

Iran War Threats, Militarization of American Police and Spying on Americans All Started BEFORE 9/11

Many things which we’ve been told have only happened recently actually started a long time ago.

For example, the mainstream media claims that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon. But the Christian Science Monitor notes that the U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability.

And the decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11.

As another example, journalists from across the spectrum have documented the militarization of police forces in the United States, including, CNN, Huffington Post, Forbes, Esquire, The Atlantic, Salon, and theCato Institute.

Indeed, police shooting peaceful “occupy” protesters with rubber bullets, tear gas and other projectiles and brutally beating them has brought this issue to the attention of the American public. See this, thisand this.

But the militarization of police started long before 9/11 … in the 1980s. As Radley Balko testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime:

Militarization [of police forces is] a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

***

Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.
We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.
Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.
SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.
But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

Many other things which we’ve been told happened after 9/11 actually occurred beforehand as well.

For example:

• The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)
• The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.”
• Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And the Sunday Herald reported: “Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.” (remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush,Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war wasreally about oil.)
• The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11. Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:
  

  After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
  The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was thatit has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

  (4:30 into this video)
• Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11
• Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this
• The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this)
• It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence … but is aneffective way to terrorize people
• And – sadly – America played dirty games to justify and win wars before 9/11

Note: 9/11 itself is beyond the scope of this essay, although the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 – and former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee – calls for a new 9/11 investigation,Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11, and high-level officials are eager to spill the beans about what happened on 9/11 … but no one in Washington or the media wants to hear.

OCCUPY BULDING 7 November 19 and 20, 2011 In front of the rebuilt World Trade Center Building 7

occupybuilding7.org/

September 11, 2001: the day the 1% hijacked our country from the 99% and launched a permanent war that will not end in our lifetimes unless we stop it. Ten years later the War on Terrorism has diverted trillions of dollars from more important uses and sunken our country into debt.

Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the obvious demolition of this skyscraper. The government's absurd story that "normal office fires" felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the lies we’ve been fed about 9/11.

Today we are taking our country back. We will not rest until the perpetrators who demolished World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers, killing 3,000 innocent people, are brought to justice, and the war dollars are brought home.