Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Archive for October, 2012

Richard Grove is the founder of the Tragedy and Hope website, which enables individuals to research and form groups of independent thinkers to solve humanity’s most pressing problems. Prior to T&H, Richard worked as an account executive in NYC, selling enterprise software and services to the world’s largest Financial Services companies. After discovering that his corporation was selling software with a “back-door” which allowed illicit transactions to take place beyond oversight- he blew the whistle, which led him into court from 2003-2007. In the first hour, Richard shares his Wall Street whistleblowing experience and connects 9/11, insider trading and conspiracy. He tells his story and shares his witness account of what happened on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 as he had a meeting that day on the 96th floor of the WTC North Tower when it was struck.

Tragedy and Hope.com

Film calls for independent investigation into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001

By Ben Arnold
Yahoo UK Movies News

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are to star in a new film which questions the official story behind the 9/11 attacks.

‘September Morn’ supports some of the theories of the ‘truther’ movement, which has questioned the established version of the events of September 11, hinting at a government conspiracy.

The publicity note which the film is using, rather than give the usual idea of plot, reads: “We the people demand that the government revisits and initiates a thorough and independent investigation to the tragic events of 9/11. In the vein of ‘Twelve Angry Men’ this dramatic piece is set with a stellar and award winning cast.”

Also signed up are Judd Nelson, Ed Asner and Esai Morales.

So far Hollywood has shied away from suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy at the heart of the terrorist attacks, with films like Oliver Stone’s ‘World Trade Center’ in 2006 and Paul Greengrass’s ‘United 93’ taking a non-partisan stance.

But Sheen and Harrelson have previously been vocal with their over what happened.

“I did not want to believe that my government could possibly be involved in such a thing, I could not live in a country that I thought could do that – that would be the ultimate betrayal,” said Sheen during a 2007 interview.

“However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 – how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?”

Sheen was referring to 7 World Trade Center, the collapse of which many in the ‘truth movement’ point to as evidence of a conspiracy, after he was turned on to an alternative explanation by his son Charlie.

Meanwhile Asner, who voiced Carl Fredricksen in Pixar’s ‘Up’, has said in interview: “My bottom line on all of this is that this country – which is the greatest, strongest country that ever existed in the world, in terms of power – supposedly had a defence that could not be penetrated all these years. But all of that was eradicated by nineteen Saudi Arabians, supposedly. Some of whom didn’t even know how to fly.”

The film is being made by the same company which produced ‘A Noble Lie’, a documentary about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

2,605 people died in 2001 when 19 Islamist hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia, while another crashed in Pennsylvania ahead of its target of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, the subject of Greengrass’s film ‘United 93’.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/17/martin-sheen-woody-harrelson-…

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/sheen-and-harrelson-to-star-in-9-11–truther-…

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375220/ Release Date: 2013 (USA)

Posted on October 15, 2012
By Kevin Ryan

Abu Zubaydah, a man once called al-Qaeda’s “chief of operations” appears to be at the center of an unraveling of the official myth behind al Qaeda. After his capture in early 2002, Zubaydah was the first “detainee” known to be tortured. The information allegedly obtained from his torture played a large part in the creation of the official account of 9/11 and in the justification for the continued use of such torture techniques. Yet in September, 2009, the U.S. government admitted that Zubaydah was never a member or associate of al Qaeda at all. These facts raise an alarming number of questions about the veracity of our knowledge about al Qaeda, and the true identity of the people who are said to be behind the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike other alleged al Qaeda leaders, including Khlaid Sheik Mohammed and Rasmi bin Alshibh, Zubaydah has never been charged with a crime. As these other leading suspects await their continually-postponed military trial, Zubaydah is instead being airbrushed out of history. Why would the U.S. government want us to forget Zubaydah, the first and most important al Qaeda operative captured after 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission called Zubaydah an “Al Qaeda associate,” a “long-time ally of Bin Ladin,” a “Bin Ladin lieutenant,” and an “al Qaeda lieutenant.”[1] The Commission’s claims were somewhat contradictory in that Zubaydah was, in the Commission’s report, represented as both an al Qaeda leader and simply a terrorist colleague who collaborated in the training and recruiting of operatives. For example, the Commission reported that Zubaydah “helped operate a popular terrorist training camp near the border with Pakistan” [Khalden Camp], and that Bin Laden had an agreement with Zubaydah to “conduct reciprocal recruiting efforts whereby promising trainees at the camps would be invited to join al Qaeda.” It was unclear why a “Bin Laden lieutenant” would need such a reciprocal agreement with Bin Laden.

Other claims made by the 9/11 Commission were that “KSM and Zubaydah each played key roles in facilitating travel for al Qaeda operatives,” and that “Zubaydah had been a major figure in the millenium plots.” These claims are supported primarily by the torture testimony of Zubaydah and others, and by Zubaydah’s “diary.”

In an amazing turnabout in 2009, an attorney for Zubaydah wrote in The Guardian that the majority of the accusations against Zubaydah were understood by all parties to be false. In fact, he wrote, they “were known to be false when uttered.“[2] Attorney Brent Mickum said that his client, said to be the “number three man in al Qaeda,” was never a member or associate of al Qaeda and that — “These facts really are no longer contested: [Zubaydah] was not, and never had been, a member of either the Taliban or al-Qaida. The CIA determined this after torturing him extensively.” In fact, he “was never a member or a supporter of any armed forces that were allied against the United States,” and he was never the “head of a military camp that trained terrorists. That allegation is false at all levels.”

It turns out that Mickum’s report was correct and that “Abu Zubaydah’s supposed relationship with al-Qaida is a complete myth.”[3]

We know this because, as of September 2009, the U.S. government agreed that Zubaydah was never an al Qaeda operative. During Zubaydah’s habeas corpus petition, the government admitted that Abu Zubaydah had never been a member of al-Qaeda, nor involved in the attacks on the African embassies in 1998, or the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.[4] The motion, filed by the U.S. government, states:

…the Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner [Zubaydah] was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.

Respondent [The United States Government] does not contend that Petitioner was a “member” of al-Qaida in the sense of having sworn a bayat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either Petitioner or al-Qaida may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaida. Nor is the Government detaining Petitioner based on any allegation that Petitioner views himself as part of al-Qaida as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology, or worldview.

The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner had any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

… the Government has not contended that Petitioner had any personal involvement in planning or executing either the 1998 embassy bombings… or the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Read more


8/19/2012
911 Blogger.com

When the terrorist attacks began on September 11, 2001, numerous U.S. intelligence agencies and facilities that should have been closely following the catastrophic events taking place in the skies over America were unaware that anything was wrong. Because of their particular responsibilities and their advanced capabilities, agencies such as the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) should have been among the first to learn the details of the crisis. But, instead, they were apparently in an information blackout, and their knowledge of the attacks was limited to what they could learn from television reports.

The fact that key intelligence agencies and facilities experienced this problem, and all at the same time, suggests that the information blackout may have been intentional–an act of sabotage committed by the perpetrators of the attacks. Such an act could have been intended to render these agencies and facilities useless when their services were urgently needed, thereby helping to ensure that the attacks were successful.

MILITARY OFFICERS UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT INFORMATION ABOUT THE ATTACKS
The lack of awareness of the crisis on September 11 is highlighted in the accounts of two military officers who contacted numerous facilities in their attempts to learn more about the attacks. These officers were Lieutenant Colonel Mark Stuart, an intelligence officer at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), and Major David McNulty, the senior intelligence officer of the 113th Wing of the District of Columbia Air National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base. [1]

Stuart and McNulty’s units had crucial roles to play on September 11. NEADS, based in Rome, New York, was responsible for coordinating the U.S. military’s response to the hijackings. [2] And “air defense around Washington, DC,” according to Knight Ridder, was provided “mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base,” which is just 10 miles from the capital. [3] The DC Air National Guard was in fact known as the “Capital Guardians.” [4] It was therefore essential that Stuart and McNulty be provided with up-to-the-minute information on the attacks. That, however, did not happen.

NEADS was alerted to the first hijacking–that of American Airlines Flight 11–just before 8:38 a.m. on September 11, when an air traffic controller called to report the incident and request military assistance. [5] Beginning at around 8:48 a.m., Mark Stuart contacted several facilities to see if they had any information on the hijacking, beyond what he had already learned. These facilities included the FBI’s Strategic Information and Operations Center, the National Military Joint Intelligence Center, and the 1st Air Force headquarters. None of them could provide any additional information. A colleague of Stuart’s checked the SIPRNET–the U.S. military Internet system–for relevant information, but also without success. [6]

At Andrews Air Force Base, about five minutes or so after he learned that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center (the crash occurred at 9:03 a.m.), McNulty went to his “intel vault” and began seeking relevant information. He too checked the SIPRNET. He called agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. He also called units such as the Air Combat Command Intelligence Squadron and the 609th Air Intelligence Squadron. But he was unable to find out anything more than he had already learned from television reports. [7]

Other accounts provide further details of the lack of awareness of the catastrophic events within the military and other government agencies. Indeed, the information blackout appears to have been almost universal. One government official commented that the U.S. was “deaf, dumb, and blind” for much of September 11. [8]

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS NOTICED EARLY SIGNS OF THE CRISIS
Although many key facilities were unaware of what was happening at the time the WTC towers were hit, indications of the crisis had been evident much earlier on. These indications were received or noticed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which is responsible for operating the U.S. air traffic control system, or by American Airlines.

The first sign that something was wrong came nearly 33 minutes before Flight 11 crashed into the WTC, when communication with the plane was lost. Just before 8:14 a.m., the plane’s crew failed to respond to an instruction to climb to 35,000 feet. The air traffic controller at the FAA’s Boston Center who was handling Flight 11 tried repeatedly to contact the plane over the next 10 minutes, but without success. [9]

Boston Center controllers noticed a further indication of the emergency at 8:21 a.m., when Flight 11’s transponder–the equipment that transmits identifying information about a plane to radar screens–was turned off. This, according to the Christian Science Monitor, was “something more worrisome” than the loss of radio contact. [10]

Then, at around 8:25 a.m., the controller handling Flight 11 heard a couple of suspicious radio transmissions, apparently made by a hijacker on Flight 11, which led him to conclude that the plane had been hijacked. At that point, the Boston Center began notifying its chain of command within the FAA of the suspected hijacking. [11]

A minute later, at 8:26 a.m., Boston Center controllers noticed Flight 11 drastically changing course, turning sharply to the south. [12] This was a significant development. Darrel Smith, an intelligence officer working at FAA headquarters that morning, has commented that he was particularly alarmed when he learned about it, because such a deviation was like “changing directions off I-95 north and heading south.” Flight 11’s change of course “jeopardized the other flights in the surrounding airspace,” he said. [13]

AIRLINE RECEIVED EARLY NOTIFICATION OF THE EMERGENCY IN CALLS FROM FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
American Airlines, like the FAA, was aware of the crisis well before the first plane hit the WTC. At 8:19 a.m., Betty Ong, one of the flight attendants on Flight 11, contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, and, in a 25-minute phone call, relayed crucial information about what was happening on her plane. A couple of minutes after Ong’s call began, a supervisor at the reservations office called the American Airlines System Operations Control Center in Fort Worth, Texas, and alerted it to the information that Ong was providing. And at 8:32 a.m., Amy Sweeney, another of the plane’s flight attendants, reached the American Airlines flight services office in Boston. In a 12-minute phone call, she provided details of the crisis to the manager there.

In their calls, Ong and Sweeney made clear the seriousness of the situation. They reported that Flight 11 had been hijacked and that the hijackers were in the cockpit; two flight attendants had been stabbed; one passenger had his throat slashed and died as a result; and there was a bomb in the cockpit. [14]

But while American Airlines and the FAA knew details of the emergency early on, other agencies and facilities that should also have been closely following the crisis were unaware that anything was wrong. So when Mark Stuart, at NEADS, contacted a number of intelligence facilities, beginning shortly after the first plane hit the WTC, he found they had no information beyond what he already knew. [15] And David McNulty, at Andrews Air Force Base, has recalled that when he did the same, beginning several minutes after the second plane hit the WTC, he felt like he was “waking up the national agencies” and found that the agencies he called “had nothing to report.” [16]

FBI’S OPERATIONS CENTER HAD KEY ROLE IN U.S. RESPONSE TO TERRORISM
Mark Stuart called the FBI’s Strategic Information and Operations Center (SIOC) to report the hijacking of Flight 11. Stuart told the 9/11 Commission that he made the call at around 8:48 a.m. This was two minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. [17]

The SIOC should have been well suited to handling the 9/11 attacks. The United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan of January 2001 stated that the SIOC’s role was “to coordinate and manage the national level support to a terrorism incident.” [18] The purpose of the center, according to FBI officials, was “to keep the FBI updated on any crisis through sophisticated computers and communications equipment.”

The SIOC, which opened in 1998, was a 40,000-square-foot facility on the fifth floor of the FBI’s headquarters in Washington. It was designed to handle up to five crises at the same time, and, during a major emergency, could accommodate up to 450 people. [19]

The SIOC functioned as a 24-hour watch post and crisis management center. [20] It had 10-member watch teams on duty at all times. These teams included a representative from the NSA’s Cryptologic Security Group, who could provide information from the government’s worldwide electronic eavesdropping. [21] The center’s 225 computer terminals had access to three types of local area networks: the regular FBI network that could connect to the networks of outside agencies; a classified network that operated at the level of Top Secret; and an even more highly classified Special Compartmented Information network. [22]

FBI agents and top officials, along with representatives from many other government agencies, went to the SIOC on September 11 in response to the terrorist attacks. [23] John Ashcroft, the attorney general at the time, told the 9/11 Commission that “the SIOC was the place to be to get information and so everyone wanted to be there.” [24]

Read more

Bomber involved in plot to attack US-bound jet was working as an informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged

Paul Harris and Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian,
Tuesday 8 May 2012

‘Underwear bomber involved in a plot to attack jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with the CIA, it has emerged. Photograph: Yahya Arhab/EPA’

A would-be “underwear bomber” involved in a plot to attack a US-based jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged.

The revelation is the latest twist in an increasingly bizarre story about the disruption of an apparent attempt by al-Qaida to strike at a high-profile American target using a sophisticated device hidden in the clothing of an attacker.

The plot, which the White House said on Monday had involved the seizing of an underwear bomb by authorities in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 days, had caused alarm throughout the US.

It has also been linked to a suspected US drone strike in Yemen where two Yemeni members of al-Qaida were killed by a missile attack on their car on Sunday, one of them a senior militant, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso.

Read more

by Eric Margolis
Oct. 13, 2012
LewRockwell.com

Welcome Mali, our newest crisis! Open your maps.

Mali is a huge, arid nation extending from the Sahara Desert and Algeria’s border in the north to the steamy south along the Niger River. Most of Mali’s 14.5 million people eke out an existence farming and fishing.

France used to rule Mali as part of its West African Empire, and still has deep financial, military, commercial and intelligence interests in the region.

Not so long ago, France installed West African leaders, financed them, and kept them in power using small garrisons of tough Foreign Legionnaires. Secret payments continue today. Spooks from France’s DGSE intelligence agency, and “special advisors” are active behind the scenes in West Africa as well as North Africa.

The US has been rapidly expanding its influence in France’s former African sphere of influence, both in a drive for resources and to block China’s growing activity on the continent.

Arid Northern Mali was a backwater in France’s colonial empire. Last March, Tuareg and militant Islamic militias seized Mali’s vast north. US-trained army officers then overthrew the elected civilian government in Bamako of Amadou Touré.

Tuareg are fierce desert nomads often called the “blue men of the Sahara” because their skins become tinted by the blue veils they always wear to cover their faces. French colonial troops and Legionnaires battled the Tuareg throughout the 19th century and half of the 20th in a romantic little struggle on which the famed Victorian novel, “Beau Geste” was based.

The Tuareg want their own state, Azawad, carved from northern Mali, and bits of southern Algeria and Mauritania. Call them the Kurds of the Sahara.

Militant Islamists, led by Ansar Din, first joined the Tuareg fighters, but then pushed them out, seizing the fabled city of Timbuktu. These angry Islamists set about destroying ancient tombs of assorted local saints, producing huge indignation from westerners who could not find Timbuktu on a map if their lives depended on it. Orthodox Muslims denounce worship of saints as blasphemy and idolatry.

Western media immediately branded Ansar Din “linked to al-Qaida” without any real proof. These days, anyone we don’t like is “linked to al-Qaida,” a tiny groups that barely exists any more. However, lurking behind the next sand dune may be Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, a small, violent anti-western movement from Algeria that has nothing to do with the original al-Qaida but expropriated its name.

A French-backed UN Security Council vote for military intervention in Mali to oust the rebels is imminent. France wants the West African economic group ECOWAS to lead the charge. But this is merely the kind of “coalition” fig-leaf favored by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Any real fighting and transport will be done by French military units from Europe or bases in central Africa and Chad. And, of course, the Legion.

Washington has a different plan. The US wants to follow the model it is using to fight Somalia’s Shebab movement. In the last four years, the US has spent some $600 million to rent an African proxy force of 20,000 Ugandan, Ethiopian and Kenyan soldiers to invade Somalia and battle Shebab.

Washington plans a similar strategy in Mali, led by its sexy new star, Africa Command. Nigeria is expected to play a key role; Morocco and Algeria may contribute troops.

All this seems like a lot of effort to combat a bunch of Saharan tribesmen and trouble-makers in pickup trucks in a place whose main city, Timbuktu, is a synonym for remoteness and obscurity. No matter. The US and French media are dutifully raising alarms about the “Islamic threat” from deepest Sahara – in part to distract from domestic economic woes.

Is the US ready to wage yet another little conflict – on credit? Doesn’t Washington have enough conflicts? Apparently not.

Mali could get nasty: neighbors Algeria, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, and Ivory Coast are unstable. The Saharawi of Western Sahara have fought for decades against Morocco for their own state. They are backed by Algeria.

Into this potential tinder box France and the US are preparing to charge. “On to Timbuktu” goes out the battle cry of the latest obscure crusade.

Oct. 8, 2012
The Corbett Report.com

Shameless liars. Committed globalists. Inveterate womanizers. Unrepentant drug runners. Unconvicted money launderers. Fake humanitarians. And two of the most popular politicians in America. Meet the Clintons.

For original documentation, to to the Corbett Report

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
October 10, 2012

On May 31, 2010, the Israeli right-wing government sent armed military troops to illegally board in international waters Gaza aid ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief. The Israelis murdered 8 Turkish citizens and one US citizen in cold blood. Many others were wounded by the forces of “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Despite the murder of its citizen, Washington immediately took the side of the crazed Israeli government. The Turks had a different response. The prime minister of Turkey, Erdogan, said that the next aid ships would be protected by the Turkish navy. But Washington got hold of its puppet and paid him to shut up. Once upon a time, the Turks were a fierce people. Today they are Washington’s puppets.

We have witnessed this during the past week. The Turkish government is permitting the Islamists from outside Syria, organized by the CIA and Israel, to attack Syria from Turkish territory. On several occasions a mortar shell has, according to news reports if you believe them, fallen just inside the Turkey border. The Turkish military has used the excuse to launch artillery barrages into Syria.

People who with good cause no longer believe the US and western media or the US and western governments think that the mortar shells were fired by US or Israeli operatives, or by the “rebels” they support, in order to give Turkey the excuse to start a NATO war with Syria. A UN sanctioned NATO invasion or air strikes, as in Libya, has been blocked by the Russians and Chinese. But if Syria and Turkey get into a war, NATO must come to the aid of its NATO member, Turkey.

Once again we see that Muslims are easily dominated and slaughtered by Western countries, because Muslim countries are incapable of supporting one another. Instead of supporting one another, Muslim governments accept payoffs to support instead the Christian/Zionist forces of the Western bloc.

Washington knows this, which is one reason why Washington began its assertion of world hegemony in the Muslim Middle East.

In the West, the Ministry of Propaganda continues to talk about the “Syrian revolt.” There is no revolt. What has happened is that the US and Israel have equipped with weapons and sent into Syria Islamists who wish to overthrow the secular Syrian government. Washington knows that if the Syrian government can be destroyed, the country will dissolve into warring factions like Iraq and Libya.

America’s European and Japanese puppet states are, of course, part of Washington’s operation. There will be no complaints from them. But why is the rest of the world content for Washington to interfere in the sovereign affairs of nations to the point of invading, sending in drones and assassination teams, and murdering vast numbers of citizens in seven countries?

Does this acquiescence mean that the world has accepted Washington’s claim that it is the indispensable country with the right to rule the world?

Why, for example, do Russia and Venezuela permit the US government to fund their political opposition?

The one party American state has no political opposition. But imagine if it did. Would Washington tolerate the funding of its opposition by Russia or Venezuela? Obviously not. Those running against America with foreign money would be arrested and imprisoned, but not in Venezuela or Russia, countries where, apparently, treason is legal.

On October 8, Hugo Chavez defeated his American-financed opponent, Henrique Capriles, 54% to 44%.

This would be an amazing margin of victory in a US presidential election. However, in his previous reelection Chavez won by 27%. Obviously, Washington’s money and the propaganda activities of the US-financed Non-Governmental Organizations succeeded in swaying Venezuelans and reducing Chavez’s margin of victory to 10%. Washington’s interference is a massive barrier to leadership in other countries. Fully 44% of the Venezuelan people were too brainwashed or too stupid to vote for their own country’s candidate and voted instead for Washington’s candidate.

It is extraordinary that 44% of the Venezuelan voters voted to become an American puppet state, like Turkey, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Baltics, Scandinavia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Belgium, Taiwan, Colombia, Pakistan, Yemen. Probably, I have left out a few.

As a high government official once told me, “Empire costs us a great deal of money.”

Washington has to pay its puppets to represent Washington instead of their own peoples.

Washington in its hubris forgets that its rule is purchased and not loved. Washington’s puppets have sold their integrity and that of their countries for filthy lucre. When the money runs out, so does the empire.

By then the American people will be as corrupted as the foreign “leaders.” In his review of The United States And Torture, edited by Marjorie Cohn (New York University Press, 2011) in the Fall 2012 Independent Review, Anthony Gregory writes:

“In Reagan’s America, a common theme in Cold War rhetoric was that the Soviets tortured people and detained them without cause, extracted phony confessions through cruel violence, and did the unspeakable to detainees who were helpless against the full, heartless weight of the Communist state. As much as any other evil, torture differentiated the bad guys, the Commies, from the good guys, the American people and their government. However imperfect the U.S. system might be, it had civilized standards that the enemy rejected.”

By 2005, a year after torture photos from Abu Ghraib were leaked, polls of Americans showed that 38% had succumbed to the propaganda that torture was justified in some circumstances. After four more years of neoconservative advocacy of torture, an Associated Press poll reported in 2009 that 52% of Americans approved of torture.

Torture apparently was an instrument of US cold war policy. Torture was taught to Latin American militaries by the US School of the Americas, which operated in Panama and subsequently at Fort Benning, Georgia. However, this was a clandestine operation. It awaited the neoconservative Bush regime for US Department of Justice (sic) attorneys, graduates of the best law schools, to write legal memos justifying torture despite US statutory and international laws prohibiting torture, and for both the president and vice president of the United States to openly acknowledge and justify torture. Some of the criminals who wrote these memos are now teaching in prestigious law schools. One was appointed to the federal judiciary and sits as a judge sentencing others for their offenses.

We can conclude with Anthony Gregory that it is not only foreign political regimes that are corrupted by Washington’s evil, but also Americans themselves. “Nothing better demonstrates the moral degeneracy of American political culture than the U.S. torture state.”

Washington still masquerades wearing the white hat, and most of the rest of the world is paid to go along with the masquerade.

Better Tag Cloud