Wednesday, April 30, 2008
High-Level Officials Warn of Fake Terror
A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.Background
FBI agents, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and The Washington Post and Rolling Stone have all stated that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes
More to the point, a former prominent republican congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.
General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".
Current U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated, the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"
And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.
Terror on U.S. Citizens by American Government?
But would the government actually kills its own people to instill sufficient fear so that it can get what it wants? Read what the following very smart people are saying, and then judge for yourself:
A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:
"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."
The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag
The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:
"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:
A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domesticallyIf the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.
A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.
Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?
A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.
President Carter recently impliedly acknowledged the risk of staged provocation in order to start a war against Iran.
Former Senator Gary Hart warned Americans that the White House might create a "Gulf of Tonkin" or "remember the Maine" type incident to justify war against Iran (starting at 7:15 minutes)
The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.
And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.
No way, That's Nuts
Sounds nuts, right?
Sorry to have to tell you, but "false flag terror" -- that is, state-sponsored terrorism, blamed on the "bad guys" of choice -- is an age-old trick which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years to consolidate power and create support from their people. See this article on the Reichstag fire, and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.
But even recent events provide a glimpse into the world of false flag terror:
The well-respected former Indonesian president believes that the government may have had a role in the Bali bombings (see also this video).
And Americans dressed as Arabs have apparently been setting off car bombs in Iraq (apparently, when it was discovered that some of the cars used in Iraqi bombings recently came from the U.S., the cover story became American cars were involved in car bombings only because they had recently been stolen from the U.S. and then shipped to Iraq -- but does it make sense that Iraqi insurgents would steal cars in the U.S. and ship them all the way to Iraq?)
Similarly, Britain's false flag attacks in Iraq made the news. And the press has acknowledged that the death of the lead investigator into the Basra incident was mysterious.
And the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"(the audio is here)
History proves that the officials' warnings of a terror attack by our own government are well-founded.
Scalia Tries to Apologize for Torture . . . Fails, Violating the War Crimes Act of 1996 in the Process
Supreme Court Justice Scalia says that torture doesn't constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, because torture is not meant to punish, but only to get information.Mr. Scalia's argument fails for several reasons.
Torture Does not Generate Useful Information
Initially, torture is a notoriously inaccurate way to obtain information. Indeed, it is well-known by professional interrogators that torture doesn't work. Experts on interrogation say that torture actually interferes with the ability to gather useful information.
So if torture is not an information-gathering technique, its only purpose must be punishment and/or intimidation.
Torturing People Who Can't Give Useful Information is Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Moreover, most of the people tortured in the "war on terror" were innocent farmers, villagers, who those against whom the neighbors who turned them in for a cash reward had a grudge against. And children were tortured.
Many of these people did not have any useful information. And since the U.S. military stressed quantity over quality (not actually demanding hard intelligence or probable cause to suspect that someone was a bad guy), this did not constitute a useful intelligence-gathering exercise, but simply horrific punishment.
Indeed, some of the people tortured as part of the "war on terror" were literally crazy, and no amount of interrogation or torture would generate any useful intelligence.
This was illustrated by an article in the Washington Post:
Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.
"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."
***
"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.
Coleman goes on to say:
Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.The article also says that Abu Zubaida might have been tortured for months.
***
Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"
(Indeed, even prisoners who were not previously crazy ended up that way after being severely tortured.)
Sorry, Mr. Scalia. Torture is not a valid information-gathering technique. It is, in fact, the cruelest and most unusual punishment there is.
By the way, anyone, no matter how high and mighty, who helps create, promote, or justify policies that violate the Geneva Convention is guilty of violating the War Crimes Act of 1996. See this, this, this, this, and this.
So you have not only failed to justify torture, sir, you have also opened yourself up to very serious charges. And see this.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
This Week in 9/11 Truth
This has been a fast-pace week. For those of who you have been busy to keep up, let me summarize:- President Jimmy Carter said calls for a new 9/11 investigation "sound good"
- President Bill Clinton said he didn't agree with the Bush investigation into 9/11 (he also said 9/11 was not an inside job, but he didn't say it wasn't intentionally allowed to happen or that the U.S. air force was not stood down)
- 9/11 truth was discussed again in the Japanese parliament
- Conservative Arizona state senator Karen Johnson said she is a 9/11 truth seeker
- Anti-war icon Tom Hayden encouraged people to keep on pushing for an investigation into 9/11
- And a BBC anchor who reported on WTC7's collapse early agrees there may be a 'conspiracy
And White House speech writer and arch neocon David Frum violently assaulted a 9/11 truth activist for simply asking him some questions.
Is the tide starting to turn?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Why The U.S. Economy Is Tanking
Okay, let me see if I've got this straight:- The Neocons wanted to invade Iraq for the oil (and see this), and to protect Israel
- In order to avoid real protest against an unnecessary war, the Neocons decided that they had to avoid a draft at all costs, because a draft would cause Americans to actually pay attention to what is going on. In other words, the Neocons couldn't have gotten away with such a crazy war if Americans were getting drafted (they learned that lesson from the Vietnam war)
- So the government has instead had to pay tremendous sums to mercenaries from Blackwater and elsewhere
- That's why the war will cost over $3 trillion dollars
- Which, in turn, has destroyed our economy
Molten STEEL Flowed Under Ground Zero for Months After 9/11
In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.
Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:
- The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC purportedly described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
- A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December"
- The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel"
- Hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires" (pay-per-view)
- An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
- According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Mark Loizeaux, president the world's top demolition company, and Peter Tully, head of a large construction firm, said the following:
Here's what eyewitness firefighters say:Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
- New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel"
- A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava"
- According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots"
- As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel"
- A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano
- An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"
- A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams"
- An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel"
- A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains..."
See also this.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet, Rice, and Yoo Have All Committed War Crimes Punishable by Life in Prison, Death Or Impeachment
Anyone who violates the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment is guilty of a crime under U.S. law.Specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention
The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.
Indeed, anyone who is a policy-maker who helps create, promote, or justify policies that violate the Geneva Convention is guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2441. See this, this, this, and this.
What Does This Mean?
Well, according to the Associated Press, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet, and Rice all approved torture, and Bush knew about and approved what they were doing (see also this).
In addition, in addition to Ashcroft, other high-level Justice Department officials such as John Yoo approved of and justified torture.
All of these people are guilty of war crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 2441.
18 U.S.C. § 2441 has no statute of limitations, which means that a war crimes complaint can be filed at any time. The penalty may be life imprisonment or -- if a single prisoner dies due to torture -- death. Since the U.S. military has admitted that they have tortured some prisoners to death, that means that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet, Rice, and Yoo could all be sentenced to life in prison, or even death.
Additionally, violation of the war crimes act almost certainly constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" which would allow impeachment of such officials.
Indeed, many high-level officials in the U.S. and abroad have stated that those who crafted the torture policies are guilty of war crimes. For example, Colin Powell's former chief of staff stated that Dick Cheney might be guilty of war crimes. And Former Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohammad is calling for an international tribunal to try western leaders for war crimes over the Iraq war.
And for those who question whether waterboarding is torture, see this, this, this, and this.
Indeed, waterboarding is not the only form of tortures which has been used by the U.S. recently.
Finally, Donald Rumsfeld appears to have also committed war crimes. For example, the general in charge of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq stated this week that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top administration officials ORDERED that inhuman treatment and torture be conducted as part of a deliberate strategy. This confirms what the Pullitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam previously wrote.
Alberto Gonzales probably also committed war crimes by promoting and covering up torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
