Preparing the American mind for 9/11.
Archive
Category: 911 Cover-upBy Russ Baker
Aug 17, 2011
WhoWhatWhy : Investigative Journalism
The father the New Yorker writer who got the exclusive inside story of the bin Laden raid
The establishment media just keep getting worse. They’re further and further from good, tough investigative journalism, and more prone to be pawns in complicated games that affect the public interest in untold ways. A significant recent example is The New Yorker’s vaunted August 8 exclusive on the vanquishing of Osama bin Laden.
The piece, trumpeted as the most detailed account to date of the May 1 raid in Abbottabad Pakistan, was an instant hit. “Got the chills half dozen times reading @NewYorker killing bin Laden tick tock…exquisite journalism,” tweeted the digital director of the PBS show Frontline. The author, freelancer Nicholas Schmidle, was quickly featured on the Charlie Rose show, an influential determiner of “chattering class” opinion. Other news outlets rushed to praise the story as “exhaustive,” “utterly compelling,” and on and on.
To be sure, it is the kind of granular, heroic story that the public loves, that generates follow-up bestsellers and movie options. The takedown even has a Hollywood-esque code name: “Operation Neptune’s Spear”
Here’s the introduction to the mission commander, full of minute details that help give it a ring of authenticity and suggest the most intimate reportorial access:
James, a broad-chested man in his late thirties, does not have the lithe swimmer’s frame that one might expect of a SEAL—he is built more like a discus thrower. That night, he wore a shirt and trousers in Desert Digital Camouflage, and carried a silenced Sig Sauer P226 pistol, along with extra ammunition; a CamelBak, for hydration; and gel shots, for endurance. He held a short-barrel, silenced M4 rifle. (Others SEALs had chosen the Heckler & Koch MP7.) A “blowout kit,” for treating field trauma, was tucked into the small of James’s back. Stuffed into one of his pockets was a laminated gridded map of the compound. In another pocket was a booklet with photographs and physical descriptions of the people suspected of being inside. He wore a noise-cancelling headset, which blocked out nearly everything besides his heartbeat.
On and on went the “tick-tock.” Yet as Paul Farhi, a Washington Post reporter, noted, that narrative was misleading in the extreme, because the New Yorker reporter never actually spoke to James—nor to a single one of James’s fellow SEALs (who have never been identified or photographed–even from behind–to protect their identity.) Instead, every word of Schmidle’s narrative was provided to him by people who were not present at the raid. Complains Farhi:
Click on link for the rest of the article Doubts On “Official Story” Of Bin Laden Killing
January 22, 2012
By Chris Mondics,
Inquirer Staff Writer
In a ferocious legal battle pitting government lawyers against victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Justice Department is fighting to block thousands of individuals and businesses from taking $6.6 million in frozen al-Qaeda assets seized from an alleged terrorism financier.
Frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2007, the money is sought by the attorneys for 6,000 individual victims and insurers who suffered billions in losses from the attacks on the World Trade Center.
The money, in a Chicago brokerage account controlled by senior al-Qaeda operative Abu al-Tayyeb until his arrest in Saudi Arabia in 2006, drew little public notice until lawyers for 9/11 victims moved in June to collect on a 2007 default judgment.
Link to the rest of the article U.S. fights to keep $6.6 million in al-Qaeda assets from 9/11 victims
By Pepe Escobar
January 20, 2012
Asia Times Online
There’s no way to understand the larger-than-life United States-Iran psychodrama, the Western push for regime change in both Syria and Iran, and the trials and tribulations of the Arab Spring(s) – now mired in perpetual winter – without a close look at the fatal attraction between Washington and the GCC. [1]
GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council, the club of six wealthy Persian Gulf monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates – UAE), founded in 1981 and which in no time configured as the prime strategic US backyard for the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, for the long-drawn battle in the New Great Game in Eurasia, and also as the headquarters for “containing” Iran.
The US Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and Central Command’s forward headquarters is based in Qatar; Centcom polices no less than 27 countries from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia – what
the Pentagon until recently defined as “the arc of instability”. In sum: the GCC is like a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf magnified to Star Trek proportions.
I prefer to refer to the GCC as the Gulf Counter-revolution Club – due to its sterling performance in suppressing democracy in the Arab world, even before Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia over a year ago.
Cueing to Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, the Rosebud inside the GCC is that the House of Saud sells its oil only in US dollars – thus the pre-eminence of the petrodollar – and in exchange benefits from massive, unconditional US military and political support. Moreover the Saudis prevent the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) – after all they’re the world’s largest oil producer – to price and sell oil in a basket of currencies. These rivers of petrodollars then flow into US equities and Treasury bonds.
For decades virtually the whole planet has been held hostage to this fatal attraction. Until now.
Gimme all your toys
The GCC, essentially, is the core of the empire in the Arab world. Yes, it’s essentially about oil; the GCC will be responsible for over 25% of global oil production within the next few decades. Their tiny ruling classes – from monarchies to business associates – function as a crucial annex to the mighty projection of US power all across the Middle East and beyond.
Link to the rest of the article The US-GCC fatal attraction
FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2012
by Saman Mohammadi
disquietreservations.blogspot.com
“Stability is an unworthy American mission and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.”
Neoconservative crackpot and international terrorist Michael Ledeen.
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
If the radical neoconservatives and their allies in Israel and the West have their way, the nation state will end with a bang, not a whimper.
There are very few sovereign nation states left in the world. America’s national sovereignty was destroyed in 1913 when foreign private creditors hijacked its national treasury and Congress, and since then it has been used to destroy the national sovereignty of every other nation.
America was deceived by its treasonous leadership into destroying Germany and Japan in WWII, two countries that posed no threat to America’s security and sought stable relations. In the 21st century, America was deceived once again, this time to destabilize and destroy nations in the Middle East.
Since the false flag 9/11 events, the nation state has been crucified on the cross of “perpetual warfare and perpetual economic destabilization.” At its core, globalization is a process of destabilization, destruction, and domination. Nations that resist the powerful global agents who direct this process for their own private interests, especially international private banks that covet a nation’s gold and practice the satanic art of usury, are falsely accused of sponsoring terror and militarily destroyed.
The PR push behind the rollout of the war on terrorism got a big boost from the tragedy of 9/11, which made most people emotionally attached to the false marketing by the Bush administration and the Israeli government.
Read the rest of the article by clicking on the link World War Three Is The Final War On The Nation State
By Patrick J. Buchanan
January 19, 2012
On Sept. 21, 1976, as his car rounded Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier was assassinated by car bomb. Ronni Moffitt, a 25-year-old American women who worked with Letelier at the leftist Institute for Policy Studies, died with him.
Michael Townley, an ex-CIA asset in the hire of Chile’s intelligence agency, confessed to using anti-Castro Cubans to murder Letelier, in what was regarded as an act of terrorism on U.S. soil.
Which raises a question: Are not the murders of four Iranian scientists associated with that nation’s nuclear program, by the attachment of bombs to their cars in Tehran, also acts of terrorism?
Had the Stalin- or Khrushchev-era Soviets done this to four U.S. scientists in Washington, would we not have regarded it as acts of terrorism and war?
Iran has accused the United States and Israel of murder. But Hillary Clinton emphatically denied any U.S. complicity: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”
Link to the rest of the article http://www.vdare.com/articles/who-wants-war-with-iran
by John W. Whitehead,
January 18, 2012
Antiwar.com
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
– James Madison
America’s troops may be returning home from Iraq, but contrary to President Obama’s assertion that “the tide of war is receding,” we’re far from done paying the costs of war. In fact, at the same time that Obama is reducing the number of troops in Iraq, he’s replacing them with military contractors at far greater expense to the taxpayer and redeploying American troops to other parts of the globe, including Africa, Australia, and Israel. In this way, the war on terror is privatized, the American economy is bled dry, and the military-security-industrial complex makes a killing — literally and figuratively speaking.
The war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has already cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion and could go as high as $4.4 trillion before it’s all over. At least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) of that $2 trillion was lost to waste and fraud by military contractors, who do everything from janitorial and food service work to construction, security, and intelligence — jobs that used to be handled by the military. That translates to a loss of $12 million a day since the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan. To put it another way, the government is spending more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.
Over the past two decades, America has become increasingly dependent on military contractors in order to carry out military operations abroad (in fact, the government’s extensive use of private security contractors has surged under Obama). According to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States can no longer conduct large or sustained military operations or respond to major disasters without heavy support from contractors. As a result, the U.S. employs at a minimum one contractor to support every soldier deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq (that number increases dramatically when U.S. troop numbers decrease). For those signing on for contractor work, many of whom are hired by private contracting firms after serving stints in the military, it is a lucrative, albeit dangerous, career path (private contractors are 2.75 times more likely to die than troops). Incredibly, while base pay for an American soldier hovers somewhere around $19,000 per year, contractors are reportedly pulling in between $150,000–$250,000 per year.
Link to the rest of the article Privatizing the War on Terror: America’s Military Contractors
by Jacob G. Hornberger
January 17, 2012
A point made by James Madison might well explain the U.S. government’s strangulation of Iran’s economy with ever-tightening sanctions: “Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.”
What better way to rally people to the government than a war? Wouldn’t we expect many American dissidents, especially those in the Tea Party and Occupy movements, to immediately set aside their dissatisfaction with the U.S. government’s domestic policies, especially out-of-control federal spending and debt, if war were to break out with Iran?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that a large segment of the American populace is starting to realize that the U.S. government’s domestic and foreign policies are at the root of America’s woes. Socialism at home and imperialism abroad have led to ever-increasing spending and debt, anti-American anger and hatred, and infringements on our rights and freedoms here at home.
Look at the support that the Ron Paul campaign is garnering from a large segment of American voters. Look at the Tea Party movement. Look at the Occupy movement. Discontent is growing. Equally important, increasingly people are correctly aiming their dissatisfaction at Washington, D.C., because they’re realizing that it’s the U.S. government’s policies that are causing the problems.
But as Roman officials understood, there is a very effective way to suppress domestic dissatisfaction with the government: Start a war. Many people, out of sense of “patriotism,” will immediately set aside their complaints and rally to the flag.
Click on link for the rest of the article Killing Dissent with War
Written by Adam Taylor
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
We first frame the issue by noting that the answer to this question does not negate the evidence that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition. The massive amount of evidence gathered by AE911Truth and countless others demonstrates that the combined effects of the impacts and the ensuing fires do not account for the complete and explosive destruction of the WTC skyscrapers.
The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers actually began at floors with minimal damage from the planes. In regards to the North Tower, the collapse initiated at the 98th floor, which in fact had minimal structural damage. Only the tip of the right wing cut through that floor.
Left: WTC1 north face; Right: Damage relative to a Boeing 767. Note that only the tip of the starboard (right) wing cut through the 98th floor.
According to the NIST report (NCSTAR 1, pg. 87), the collapse of the North Tower began at this floor. Though the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this as the case. The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 indicates that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.
Click on link for the rest of the article What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?
By Jonathan Turley
January 13, 2012
Washington Post
Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Link to the rest of the article 10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free