February 25, 2013
by Paul Craig Roberts
Did you know that the latest big business is killer robots? Not only drones that can be insect size and lethal, but also Terminator-type machines that will have the power to decide who lives and dies. Of course, the way has been paved for killer robots and their inevitable mistakes, as the US military no longer differentiates between actual combatants and collateral damage.
The US government no longer pays any attention to the Geneva Conventions and the
international laws once supported by the United States until “the war on terror” took over the government. The Bush and Obama regimes have eliminated morality from the picture. Any combatant who surrenders or is captured is likely to be illegally tortured, as all available evidence shows. Once killer robots are unleashed, under the rights of surrender, how does one surrender to a killer robot? If a robot commits war crimes, how is the robot held accountable?
These are serious issues. Professor Noel Sharkey, a robotics and artificial intelligence expert at Sheffield University, says that “in America they are already training more drone pilots than real aircraft pilots.”
The majority of Americans have no idea either of the collapse of morality that the Bush and Obama regimes have achieved or of the dark abyss that awaits them. Most Americans–even unfortunately the ACLU–think that the moral issues deserving of political and legal attention are abortion rights and gay rights. While the country lines up on one side or the other of these two subsidiary issues, the Bill of Rights is struck down.
Most Americans are not even aware of the future that is being decided for them. They can’t see anything as more important than sports contests or NASCAR races, or how to arrange financing for the purchase of whatever it is that they regard as the need of the moment.
The vast bulk of the American population is completely capable of losing every civil right without ever knowing that they have lost the rights.
It is really extraordinary that it only took Bush and Obama ten years to destroy the US Constitution, the basis for our civil existence.
Will Congress give the next president the title of Augustus?
Read Tracy McVeigh’s account of killer robots and the effort to stop them in The Guardian.
By Peter Drew
Originally at Information Clearing House
Feb. 17, 2013
On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.
Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.
As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.
Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.
Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:
Professor Niels Harrit
Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.
Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit’s team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC
Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.
Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:
Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’
Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true
Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator
In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:
Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth
The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.
We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.
The date and location of the hearing are as follows:
February 25th at 10:00 am
Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk
The focus has been on drones. But the real question is whether targeted killings by other means occur in the U.S.
By Marcy Wheeler
Feb. 21, 2013
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan (Credit: AP)
At John Brennan’s confirmation hearing to be director of the CIA earlier this month, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked him whether the administration could let the public know under what circumstances the government believes it can kill Americans within the United States. The exchange takes on added resonance today, as new reports reveal the Obama administration continues to hide its targeted killing authority, even from Congress.
“I’ve asked you how much evidence the president needs to decide that a particular American can be lawfully killed and whether the administration believes that the president can use this authority inside the United States,” Wyden reminded Brennan at the Feb. 7 hearing. ”What do you think needs to be done to ensure that members of the public understand more about when the government thinks it’s allowed to kill them, particularly with respect to those two issues: the question of evidence and the authority to use this power within the United States?”
After saying, “What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy,” Brennan emphasized that while the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel “establishes the legal boundaries within which [the executive branch] can operate … It doesn’t mean that we operate at those outer boundaries.”
Just hours earlier, Wyden had read two Office of Legal Counsel memoranda describing the administration’s authority to carry out the targeted killing of Americans.
Wyden had requested the memos at least five times over the previous two years, and had finally received them by threatening to hold up Brennan’s nomination. He went from reading those memos to asking this question about when the administration believed it could target Americans within the United States.
Feb. 20, 2013
Everyone Knew Iraq Had No WMDS … and Was Not Behind Anthrax Attacks or 9/11
Everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
Indeed, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff – Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – just said that Powell knew that there were no WMDs:
I wonder what will happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing.
It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:
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.” And see this.
Cheney 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 was really about oil.)
Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change in Iraq – and throughout the Middle East and North Africa – 20 years ago.
George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer, Alan Greenspan and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.
But war is sold just like soda or toothpaste … and so a false justification needs to be concocted.
Part 2 of a series of videos examining NISTs theory on WTC7
Part 1 of a four part series of videos examining the collapse of WTC 7
By John Glaser
February 20, 2013
One of the things itching the people who demand more transparency and accountability in Obama’s drone war is that the secrecy of the program means that the government doesn’t publicly release casualty estimates. This has led to a number of journalistic and think-tank organizations to do their due diligence and come up with their own estimates with their own methodologies. Even United Nations special rapporteur Ben Emmerson is in the beginning stages of an investigation into drone deaths in Pakistan and Yemen.
But none of this means the government doesn’t maintain their own, classified casualty estimates.
Micah Zenko, at his CFR blog, caught an obscure statement Sen. Lindsey Graham made yesterday during a speech at the Easley Rotary Club in Easley, South Carolina. Graham issued the boilerplate defense of the drone war and then might have let something slip.
Graham then added: “We’ve killed 4,700. Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda.” His estimate of the death toll of suspected terrorists and militants by U.S. nonbattlefield targeted killings is higher than any other reported.My report, Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies, compiled the averages found within the ranges provided by New America Foundation, Long War Journal, and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and produced a number about 1,200 fewer.
“This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise.”
– Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller 
“I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing.”
– Photographer Scott Spangler 
“I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash.”
– Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police 
Many people who witnessed the site where United Airlines Flight 93 is supposed to have gone down on September 11, 2001, have said how little it resembled what they expected the scene of a plane crash to look like.
According to official accounts, Flight 93, the fourth plane to be hijacked on September 11, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after its courageous passengers and crew members attempted to retake control of their plane. However, numerous individuals who spent time at the supposed crash site have described seeing almost nothing resembling wreckage from a plane there. Some witnesses have recalled seeing little or no human remains at the site. And although Flight 93 was reportedly “heavily laden with jet fuel” when it crashed, investigators found no contamination from jet fuel in the soil and ground water around the site.
There is a lot of suspicious evidence relating to the crash of Flight 93, which casts serious doubt on the official account of what happened. This evidence suggests that what witnesses saw might actually have been the result of an attempt to fake the scene of a plane crash in an appalling act of deception, rather than the site of a genuine crash. The relatively small amount of debris that some witnesses noticed could have been planted. If this is what happened, it would mean the fate of Flight 93 is still unknown.
FLIGHT 93 ALLEGEDLY CRASHED AFTER ITS PASSENGERS REBELLED AGAINST THE HIJACKERS
The official story of Flight 93 is that the plane, a Boeing 757-200, took off from Newark International Airport, New Jersey, at 8:42 a.m. on September 11, bound for San Francisco, California. It had seven crew members and 37 passengers–including four hijackers–on board. The first 46 minutes of its journey proceeded routinely. But at 9:28 a.m., the hijackers seized control of the plane, with the intention of crashing it into either the White House or the Capitol building in Washington, DC.
However, crew members and passengers soon began making phone calls to friends, colleagues, and family members on the ground, to report what was happening, and in those calls learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Realizing that their plane’s hijacking was part of a larger attack on America, they made the decision to fight back against the hijackers. They began their assault on the cockpit at 9:57 a.m. In response, the hijackers chose to crash the plane into the ground rather than risk the passengers and crew members retaking control of it.
Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania, near the tiny town of Shanksville, at 10:03 a.m., at a speed of around 580 miles per hour. In its final moments, the plane rolled over, and it crashed flying upside-down and at an angle of 40 degrees, with its right wing and nose hitting the ground first. All on board were killed. 
There are, however, serious problems with this account. Perhaps the most striking of these is the fact that, remarkably, a significant amount of evidence indicates that no plane crashed at the location where Flight 93 supposedly went down.
WITNESSES SAW ‘NOTHING BUT TINY PIECES OF DEBRIS’ AT THE CRASH SCENE
Flight 93 weighed 127 tons when it crashed, according to New York Times reporter and author Jere Longman.  And yet numerous individuals, including some of the first people to arrive on the scene, have described the lack of anything resembling plane wreckage at the alleged crash site.
Assistant Fire Chief Rick King, who drove the first fire truck to reach the site, recalled thinking when he arrived: “Where is this plane? And where are the people?” King saw “thousands of tiny pieces scattered around–bits of metal, insulation, wiring–but no fuselage, no wings, only a smoking crater and charred earth.”  He sent his men into the woods to search for the fuselage, but they kept coming back and telling him, “Rick, there’s nothing.” 
Homer Barron, who also arrived shortly after the crash, has recalled, “It didn’t look like a plane crash, because there was nothing that looked like a plane.” He added: “I [have] never seen anything like it. Just like a big pile of charcoal.” 
Jon Meyer, the first reporter on the scene, said he was “able to get right up to the edge of the crater” where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground. However, he described: “All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. … There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts.”  Local coroner Wallace Miller, who was also one of the first people to arrive, said the crater looked “like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch, and dumped all this trash into it.” 
Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police said the site looked “like a trash heap.” There was “nothing but tiny pieces of debris,” he said. “It’s just littered with small pieces.”  According to Monaco, “It didn’t look like a plane crash.”  Scott Spangler, one of the first photographers on the scene, said, “I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal.” But, he recalled, “There was nothing, just this pit.” “I didn’t think I was in the right place,” he commented. 
And FBI agent Wells Morrison, the crash site commander on September 11, said his first thought upon reaching the scene was, “Where is the plane?” He recalled, “Most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that.” He added, “I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris.” 
SCENE WAS UNLIKE A CRASH SITE
A number of witnesses stated specifically that they thought the scene appeared unlike the site of a plane crash. Lyle Szupinka, an area commander of the Pennsylvania State Police, said that when he arrived, “There was pieces of debris, small pieces of debris laying everywhere, and there were a lot of papers blowing around, and the ground was on fire.” The debris, he said, was “very, very small.” But, he added, “There was actually nothing to tell you that that was an aircraft.” Szupinka commented, “Had you not known that that was an aircraft crash, you would’ve looked at that and you would’ve said something happened here, but I don’t know what.” 
Local resident John Maslak was one of the first people to arrive at the site, and saw the crater where Flight 93 supposedly went into the ground. A state trooper told him a plane had crashed there. But, Maslak has commented: “There was no way. The hole wasn’t big enough and there was nothing there.” 
Patrick Madigan, a commander with the Pennsylvania State Police, described: “When I looked at the pit, I didn’t realize that was where the plane had crashed. I thought, at first, that it was a burn pit for the coal company.” A fireman said this was where the plane went into the ground. “I was amazed,” Madigan recalled, “because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash. I thought I would see recognizable plane parts. But at the pit, there was nothing that looked like a plane.”  Craig Bowman, a colleague of Madigan’s, recalled: “Until that point, I had never been to a large plane crash. I was thinking that I should be seeing parts of the plane, seats, etc.” However, he said, “There was nothing that was recognizable to me as a plane.” 
William Baker, of the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency, recalled: “When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, ‘There is no way there is a 757 scattered here.'” Baker said, “The biggest piece of debris I saw would have probably fit in my pocket.”  And Paul Bomboy, a paramedic who responded to the initial call for help, commented: “It was a very strange thing that there weren’t normal things going on that you would have expected. When a plane crashes, there is a plane and there are patients.” 
Michael Soohy, a veteran FBI agent, had been to the sites of plane crashes before and expected to see “chaos, bodies, [and] a hulking wreck of a jet.” But, he commented, “I don’t think anyone expected to see what they didn’t see.” 
FLIGHT 93 WAS APPARENTLY ‘SWALLOWED’ INTO THE GROUND
Some witnesses have said it appeared as if Flight 93 had been “swallowed” into the ground. Bob Weaver, the ranking Pennsylvania state trooper at the alleged crash site, recalled: “I was totally amazed that this big plane was just swallowed up in the ground. … It took a while for it to sink in that there was an airplane in there.”  Michael Soohy suggested that the moment the plane hit the ground must have been “almost like a dart hitting a pile of flour. … The plane went in and the stuff back-filled right over it.”  And Fire Chief Terry Shaffer said he thought that “the earth literally opened, swallowed the aircraft, and closed up.” 
Bob Craig, the head of the Pittsburgh FBI’s evidence response team, later described what supposedly happened, saying, “Turn the picture of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on its side and, for all intents and purposes, the face of the building is the strip mine in Shanksville.” 
It has been suggested that the softness of the soil into which Flight 93 supposedly crashed was a factor. The site where the plane allegedly went down was a reclaimed coal strip mine. This means that a few years earlier, the ground had been excavated down to a coal vein, the coal had been removed, and then the earth had been replaced. The ground was therefore relatively soft and consequently, as firefighters involved in the recovery effort described, “the Boeing 757 tunneled right in.” 
But even though Flight 93 supposedly disappeared into the earth, the crater allegedly made when it hit the ground seems to have been too small for this to have been the case. Frank Monaco told reporters that the “V-shaped gouge” created by the plane was “eight to 10 feet deep and 15 to 20 feet long.”  Roger Bailey, of the Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, recalled that the crater “wasn’t deep. Ten to 12 feet deep.” Bailey said he “thought it was a hole that they had dug to burn garbage.” 
John Maslak estimated that the crater was “maybe 25 feet wide and 40 feet long,” and “ten to 15 feet deep.”  After the ground had been excavated in order to recover the wreckage of the plane, the crater was still only 35 feet deep, according to the FBI. 
Flight 93 had a wingspan of 125 feet, a tail height of 44 feet, and was 155 feet long.  Is it really possible that such a large plane, when it hit the ground, would make a crater only about 40 feet across and 25 feet wide, and disappear entirely into soil just 35 feet deep? As reporter Jon Meyer commented, “You just can’t believe a whole plane went into this crater.” 
How then can we explain the almost complete absence of anything resembling a plane at the alleged crash site? Surely, witnesses would have seen a lot more wreckage if a Boeing 757 did indeed go down there. A possibility that needs to be considered, therefore, is that Flight 93 did not crash in this field near Shanksville. The relatively small amount of wreckage that was seen there could have been planted as part of a sophisticated attempt at faking the scene of a plane crash. The intention of the perpetrators was to deceive the public into believing that Flight 93 did indeed crash at this site.
Paul Craig Roberts
February 17, 2013
Americans have been shamed many times by their elected representatives who cravenly bow to vested interests and betray the American people. But no previous disgraceful behavior can match the public shame brought to Americans by the behavior of the Senate Republicans in the confirmation hearing of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.
Forty Senate Republicans made it clear that not only do they refuse to put their service to America ahead of their service to Israel, but also that they will not even put their service to America on a par with their service to Israel. To every American’s shame, the Republicans demonstrated for all the world to see that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Israel Lobby. (The Israel Lobby is not their only master. They are also owned by other powerful interest groups, such as Wall Street and the Military/Security Complex.)
The most embarrassing behavior of all came from the craven Lindsay Graham, who, while in the act of demonstrating his complete subservience by crawling on his belly before the Israel Lobby, dared Hagel to name one single person in the US Congress who is afraid of the Israel Lobby.
If I had been Hagel, I would have written off the nomination and answered: “You, Senator Graham, and your 40 craven colleagues.”
Indeed, Hagel could have answered: The entire US Congress, including Rand Paul who pretends to be different but isn’t.
The real question is: Who in the Congress is not afraid of the Israel Lobby?
The hatchet job on Hagel is driven by fear of the Israel Lobby.