Posts Tagged ‘Osama bin Laden’

Earlier this week, I read in the USA Today that SecState Hillary Clinton said something to the effect that she couldn’t believe that the people in Lybia would attack the U.S. embassies because “we helped these people.”  Well, no shit, Sherlock!  Does everyone forget Osama bin Laden?  It doesn’t matter what the pundits and politicians say – because if we were honest, it’s all the same.  They condemn the attacks and promise swift retribution, but in the end, it’s more of the back alley deals, money going to places we don’t know, and alliances bought at our expense.

If Lybia should teach us anything, it should be this: The Middle East has proven time and time again that it is a volatile battleground.  We’re not talking of the same culture as exemplified here in the States; we are talking of a (for the most part) a third-world region.  Now I am not saying that there are no religious lunatics out there, but there are still more who resent America’s presence – of propping up dictators and despots.  Look at Mubarak.  We gave him billions of dollars so he could have a plethora of mansions, and all the while his people lived in poverty.

We claim that we are “pro-Israel”, but in reality, we give more to Israel’s enemies than we give to Israel herself.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Jesus said, “when you see the enemies of Israel surrounding her, run for the hills!”  And I believe we are seeing that prophecy come to fruition.

In case you forgot about the October Surprise, click here.

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
September 17, 2012

The highly provocative anti-Muslim video “trailer” researchers claim is the handiwork of the Islamophobic provocateurs Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and a resurgent neocon network is responsible for a new round of violent protests in the Middle East.

From the nation with the world’s largest Muslim population, Indonesia, to Afghanistan, new protests broke out on Monday. Indonesian police fired teargas and water cannon to disperse demonstrators outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, while in Kabul, Afghanistan, thousands of Muslims took to the streets and set fire to cars and shops and threw stones at police. Protesters also clashed with police in Pakistan and the Philippines on Monday.

Last week, following the death of the U.S. ambassador and three members of his staff in Libya, enraged Muslims protested in Asia, Africa and the Middle East and at least nine people lost their lives.

On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that even though he believed violent reaction to the video appeared to be over, he ordered nonessential personnel to leave the American diplomatic missions in Sudan, Tunisia and Libya.

In Khartoum, Sudan, the German, Canadian and British consular services remained closed on Monday following attacks on a compound housing the German and British consulates. Despite ongoing protests in Egypt, the U.S. embassy in Cairo returned to full staffing on Monday, according to the State Department.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show on Sunday, Webster Tarpley said the video is part of an ambitious international intelligence operation aimed at creating an October Surprise designed to install Mitt Romney and his coterie of Bush-era neocons in the White House.

“The pro-Israeli neocons of the Bush-Cheney era have attached themselves to Romney as their main hope of getting back into power,” Tarpley wrote for Infowars.com on Sunday. He attributed the video “trailer” to “a well-known Islamophobic network reputedly inspired by US intelligence,” a network that includes “Pamela Geller, a notorious professional Islamophobe.”

Steve Watson

The Department of Homeland Security has issued yet another terror warning today, ordering security to be stepped up owing to a “credible and specific” intelligence report that al Qaeda is planning to blow up bridges or tunnels in New York on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The terror warning is just the latest in a series of advisories from Big Sis and the White House, all of which have been lacking in detail and described as “unconfirmed”.

Sky News reports that the latest warning comes from “a reliable source”, but remains “uncorroborated” because it has not been backed up by any other intelligence.

“There is specific, credible but unconfirmed threat information,” said Janice Fedarcyk, the assistant director in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) New York division.

Details are sketchy, however, with the only specifics linking the threat to Pakistan and to a car or truck bomb.

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered police to ramp up security at subways, with more random bag inspections, and to deploy radiation monitoring equipment.

The warning comes just days after a previous DHS advisory that al qaeda followers may attack the US with small aircraft on the anniversary of 9/11.

Again, the warning contained no specific information, but was aimed at airports, ordering heightened surveillance.

Another general warning was issued last week by the State Department.

The department said it had not identified any “specific threats” about possible attacks but that al Qaeda and its affiliates had “demonstrated the intent and capability to carry out attacks” against the U.S. and U.S. interests.

Establishment figurehead such as US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta have been out in force, hyping the possibility of another 9/11.

The numerous warnings have come along with a slew of reports from the government expressing fears that homegrown terrorists are growing in number inside the US and that the internet is radicalizing a new wave of jihadis. Again, specific details are lacking.

In addition, television networks have begun broadcasting an onslaught of 9/11 tenth anniversary specials as the establishment desperately tries to reinforce the myth that terrorists pose any more threat to Americans than intestinal illnesses or allergic reactions to peanuts.

As the major networks saturate our screens with documentary after documentary about how ‘the world changed on 9/11′, it’s important to point out that the only genuine change has been the growth of a gigantic and oppressive Homeland Security surveillance state that feeds on fear and ignorance of the facts.

We have previously documented how such terror alerts have been routinely hyped purely for political purposes.

Never forget that the media and the government have been totally discredited over and over again by their complicity in issuing phony terror alerts designed to manipulate elections and frighten the public into slavish acquiescence.

Just as former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge admitted that DHS would issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections in a bid to influence the outcome during the Bush era, the Obama administration is mimicking the same tactic.

Ridge said he “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.”

Fast forward seven years and you find exactly the same tactics being employed.

Warnings in October last year of a supposed al-Qaeda attack on targets in Europe were exaggerated by the Obama administration for political purposes, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials told the London Guardian.

No terror event occurred. “It was nothing specific, nothing very new,” said Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask after the official warning. “We agree that there is no indication of concrete targets, concrete dates and concrete terror groups,” added German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.

British intelligence officials admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a significant terror plot was imminent, describing the suggestions as “irritating”.

The furor surrounding the non-existant terror plot generated headlines such as“Britain gripped by Al Qaeda terror plot fear” with graphics depicting possible targets and warnings that “a Mumbai-type plot would ‘outmatch’ the police and turn London into a war zone” with people being brutally “murdered one by one” – all based on nothing but media hype:

Earlier this year, when the freedom stripping PATRIOT ACT was up for renewal, DHS head Janet Napolitano officially notified a congressional panel that the US was facing the greatest possibility of a major terror attack since 9/11.

Big Sis noted that there was “an increased emphasis on recruiting Americans and Westerners to carry out small scale attacks.”

Three of the PATRIOT Act’s most draconian provisions were duly extended for  a further year by House Republicans.

Every other “terror plot” since 9/11 that has materialized into anything beyond a vague and non specific warning has been exposed as either artificially engineered or seized upon and used by the federal government, with the enthusiastic support of the corporate media, to provide justification for more funding, more power, and more authority to continue the “war on terror” and a gross clampdown on freedom.

Just a brief reprisal of such instances gives a telling insight.

On January 27, 2010, the Detroit News reported how the State Department refused to revoke Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa despite the fact that he was on a terror watch list and allowed him to board the plane, allegedly in order to avoid tipping off a wider investigation.

After weeks of stonewalling, authorities quietly reversed the official story behind the aborted attack and acknowledged that an accomplice was involved, despite weeks of denial and derision of eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of a sharp-dressed man who helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell maintained from the beginning that he saw a well-dressed Indian man aid the accused bomber to board the plane despite the fact that he had no passport and was on a terror watch list.

“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time,’” reported the Michigan Live news website.

FBI agents interviewed Haskell and he told them about the sharp-dressed man but officials refused to admit that a wider conspiracy was at hand, stoically maintaining the official story that Abdulmutallab had acted alone. Authorities claimed that videotapes did not show a second man accompanying Abdulmutallab and yet they refused to release any footage of the alleged bomber.

There seems little doubt that Abdulmutallab had at least one accomplice if not more. Authorities have remained silent on other eyewitness reports which described a man intently filming the alleged terrorist throughout the whole flight, a connection that strongly suggests the attempted bomber was involved in some kind of drill and that his strings were being pulled by people in more senior positions.

The Delta 253 incident was just one of the dozens of terror busts and stings since 9/11 to have been orchestrated by handlers aiding the accused terrorists at every turn. We have never come across a major case where the terrorists involved in a plot were not being prodded by the FBI and federal informants, or where clear prior knowledge and forewarning was not evident.

Take the case of Fort Hood shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who repeatedly communicated with alleged Al-Qaeda leaders for nearly a year before his rampage. The FBI knew Hasan was sending emails to terrorists, but they did nothing, allowed him to remain on a U.S. Army base, and even invited him to participate in Homeland Security exercises.

Hasan, “Sent 10 to 20 e-mails to several terror-related Islamic figures, including Anwar Aulaqi, a radical imam from Virginia who has been openly propagandizing for al Qaeda in Yemen and who had ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers,” reported the New York Post.

As Webster Tarpley reported, Aulaqi is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”

Tarpley points to Aulaqi’s role in the Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, terror plots, which were both contrived by the feds, as proof of Aulaqi’s usefulness to the authorities in radicalizing terrorist patsies.

Lawyers in a case relating to the much vaunted 2007 terror plot to attack Fort Dix and kill “as many soldiers as possible” concluded that FBI informants were the key figures behind the operation and that the accused, six foreign-born Muslims, were merely bungling patsies.

Similarly, the “Toronto” terrorists turned out to be “a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac”. The explosive fertilizer material the terrorist cell apparently planned to use was in fact purchased by an informant working for the RCMP who had radicalized the group.

Hasan’s direct relationship with FBI operative and ace patsy-minder Aulaqi provides strong evidence that the Fort Hood shooter was being watched very carefully long before he went on his tragic rampage.

Hundreds of terror suspects (read: patsies and mental deficients) have been convicted in civilian federal courts, including convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid who attended the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Finsbury imam at the time was Abu Hamza al-Masri who began working with British Security Services in 1997. A large number of the supposed terrorists convicted in American courts were entrapped by the FBI in classic COINTELPRO fashion and did not have links to the CIA-created al-Qaeda. The entrapped were often fuzzy on al-Qaeda or what it represents.

In the media-lauded Miami terror case in 2007, the supposed ringleader Narseal “Prince Marina” Batiste “had heard of Al-Qaeda, but wasn’t sure what it stood for. The FBI instigators made Batiste swear loyalty to al-Qaida; then had him call on his local buddies to form an ‘Islamic army’ in Miami. None had military training. Some could barely read. But Batiste assured the group in the midst of its collective marijuana buzz of greatness ahead,”wrote Saul Landau.

These were the men who comedian John Stewart referred to as “seven dipshits in a warehouse” after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had ludicrously told the press that the group of semi-retarded gang-bangers had planned to “wage a ground war against America”.

One of the more recent examples was the case of the so-called Muslim terrorists busted in New York, who supposedly wanted to blow up synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military airplanes flying out of the New York Air National Guard base. The men were provided with fake explosives and inactive missiles by an FBI informant, reported the Christian Science Monitor. Two of the ringleaders of the “deadly” plot which was endlessly hyped by the media turned out to be semi-retarded potheads, exactly as we had predicted would be the case due to the innumerable past cases with the exact same modus operandi.

The federal authorities seem none too concerned about stopping any real terrorists and are instead obsessed with manufacturing patsies, bankrolling, radicalizing and prodding rag-tag groups to attempt attacks so that the massive slush fund that is the “war on terror” can be prolonged, while the corporate media relishes each opportunity to politicize such events to demonize peaceful resistance to big government as “violent extremism”.

With this insidious partnership now colluding to produce a constant supply of Abdul Mutallabs on an almost monthly basis, we can expect to see many more domestic terror alerts and “attacks”, be they genuine, provocateured, or outright staged, and with each one the calls to crush free speech and censor the right to express dissent on the Internet will build to a crescendo, with little or no investigation on behalf of the mainstream media as to how such attacks came about in the first place, and who was really behind them.

These and countless other over hyped and completely manufactured threats have led directly to programs such as the “See Something, Say Something” campaign – a literal citizen spy operation overseen by the DHS, that is creating more paranoia and hysteria, if anything serving to make any real terror threat more likely to go undiscovered.

The endless terror alerts, whether real or phony, are now being issued via the mainstream media and beamed directly to mobile phones and home computers over social networking sites, and even via Emergency Alert broadcasts.

In addition to the invasion of traditional and new social media, The Federal Communications Commission announced recently that it has approved a presidential alert system.

Commissioners voted in February to require television and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers to participate in a test that would have them receive and transmit a live code that includes an alert message issued by the president. No date has been set for the test, according to the Washington Post, which described it as being like something out of Orwell’s1984.

Soon enough the creepy and invasive broadcasts that are already being played on giant telescreens in Walmarts across the nation may be playing in your front room.

The DHS is slowly creeping into the lives of every American to the point where it can no longer be sidestepped. Fattened federal agencies are using the over hyped threat of terrorism as an excuse to normalize the notion that the people are servants of the government, rather than the government acting as servant to the people.

The September 11 anniversary provides a unique opportunity for the establishment to reanimate their flagging war on terror with a new round of fear-mongering propaganda. The event will allow them to exploit decade old footage of the attacks in order to insist that there remains a threat large enough to require Gestapo goons at airports, a high-tech surveillance grid, and the point by point dismantlement of the Bill of Rights.

In the wake of September 11, 2001 as millions of Americans eyes were glued to our television sets watching as President Bush gave his State of the Union address, we all trusted in a government that we thought was infallible.  Carted before the American people as a means to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our liberties, Americans would soon learn that it did the exact opposite.  Members of Congress were not even able to read the full text before taking a vote.

Read the following two article and tell me what you think.

The Patriot Act Is at war with the Constitution

STATEMENT OF BRUCE FEINON BEHALF OF CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY

RE: THE USA PATRIOT ACT: DISPELLING THE MYTHS

BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

MAY 11, 2011


I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty about the USA Patriot Act. Provoked largely by the gruesome abominations of 9/11, the legislation was born of fear and uncertainty from abroad. Fear, however, is the fount of tyranny. James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned centuries ago in opposing the tyrannical Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.” At the constitutional convention of 1787, Madison similarly recognized the inclination of government to wave a banner of foreign danger to excuse the destaruction of domestic liberties: “The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

The 342-page USA Patriot Act passed without inquiry into whether arming the government with muscular investigatory tools justified the corresponding intrusions on the right to be left alone — the right most valued by civilized people. The Patriot Act was portrayed as a necessary defense against foreign agents and international terrorists. Citizen liberties were relegated to extras in a Cecil B. De Mille cinematic extravaganza

Despite the good intentions of its architects, the Patriot Act betrays bedrock constitutional principles. The individual is the center of the Constitution’s universe. Aggrandizing government is the center of the Patriot Act. The Constitution salutes freedom and citizen sovereignty over absolute safety and citizen vassalage. The Patriot Act turns that hierarchy on its head. Where experience and facts are inconclusive as regards the need for government authority, the Constitution’s default position is liberty. Under the Patriot Act, if a threat passes a microscopic threshold of danger, a Big Brother government is exalted, a descendant of the 1% doctrine. The authorization of “lone wolf”surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is exemplary. It has never been employed, yet it is defended as a cornerstone of the nation’s defense against a second edition of 9/11.

The Alien Act of 1798 was similar. It answered political or popular fears of French immigrants. The President was empowered to deport unilaterally any immigrant thought “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” During its two-year life, the President never once invoked the Act’s deportation authority. Congress sensibly declined to renew it.

The makers of the Constitution venerated man’s spiritual nature, his moods, and his intellect, to borrow from Justice Louis D. Brandeis. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their attitudes, their seclusions, and their challenges to conventional wisdom. They crowned citizens with the right to be left free from government encroachments, the hallmark of every civilized society. To protect that right, Justice Brandeis sermonized, “[E]very unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The Patriot Act, nevertheless, shrivels the right to be left alone from Government snooping and surveillance. It sneers at Benjamin Franklin’s admonition: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Patriot Act champions boast that only a handful of judicial rulings have cast a cloud over its provisions, for instance, gag orders on National Security Letter recipients. But even the U.S. Supreme Court stumbles. In Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Court held conversations were outside the ambit of the Fourth Amendment because its text protected only “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” In Katz v. United States (1967), thirty-nine years later, the Court overruled Olmstead and held the Amendment protected “reasonable expectations of privacy.” As Saint Paul preached, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3: 6. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of race-based concentration camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. Congress repudiated the Court’s odious decisions in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

No federal court voided the Sedition Act of 1798, despite its flagrant trespass on free speech. Over 150 years later in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court denounced the Act as unconstitutional. Many Patriot Act provisions hinge on the decision of the High Court in U.S. v. Miller (1976), that bank records or other information “voluntarily”shared with third parties are outside a suspect’s zone of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Miller precedent seems increasingly anachronistic in the Age of the Internet in which a virtual diary of individual activities is in the hands of third party Internet Service Providers.

Moreover, extra-constitutional reasons explain the dearth of court challenges. The lion’s share of information sought under the Patriot Act is aimed at third parties, not the target of surveillance or investigation. The former have little or no incentive to incur the legal costs and public opprobrium inherent in fighting the government. In addition, many recipients of Patriot Act demands, like telecommunications companies or banks, are motivated to cultivate government goodwill to preserve contracts or friendly regulatory relations. The government has also sought to stigmatize any opponent of the USA Patriot Act as semi-traitorous or un-American through its title or otherwise. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft decried its critics as “aiding and abetting terrorists.” But in the true Republic created by our Founding Fathers, the people censure the government; the government does not censure the people. Finally, the vast majority of victims of illegal or unconstitutional surveillance under FISA are never informed of the spying. They do not know the government has compiled a dossier against them.

In light of the hostility toward Patriot Act dissenters generated by the Government and general concealment of violations, the diminutive number of federal court cases is readily understandable. Why bring a lawsuit and risk losing your neighbor, your friends, your job, and your public standing? It might equally be said in defense of Jim Crow that “separate but equal”must have been benign because so few blacks initiated lawsuits seeking its reversal (at the risk of their homes, families, ostracisms, and lives).

At least one Member of Congress has insinuated that a constitutional violation is harmless as long as the Government conceals the violation from the victim, for example, an unconstitutionally seized and retained email or phone call. That assertion seems first cousin to the nonsense that government assassinations are innocuous if the victims are never acknowledged and their bodies are never found.

Every Founding Father — every Member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 — would have been appalled at the Patriot Act. They were electrified by patriot James Otis’ denunciation in 1761 of villainous Writs of Assistance — general search warrants which empowered petty officers to invade privacy and liberty on bare suspicion without oath. Otis elaborated: “It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law that ever was found in an English law book…Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, and murder any one within the realm.” Patriot John Adams was awed, and remarked, “[T]hen and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.”

Click here to read the full text.

Let the Patriot Act Expire

Congress will soon be considering renewal of major portions of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is generally promoted as the principal legislative tool being used to fight international terrorism, but it played no role whatsoever in the recent killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Act is, in reality, a devastating and poorly conceived bit of legislation originally approved just after 9/11. It will soon be up for an extension in the US Senate prior to the expiration of some key elements on May 27th. President Barack Obama, who criticized it while he was a candidate but apparently has had a change of heart since that time, favors its renewal and his Attorney General Eric Holder recently endorsed its renewal. Most members of Congress, few of whom have ever read the entire act, want it renewed. The mainstream media likes the Patriot Act, one suspects, because it is difficult to fault legislation that has “Patriot” as part of its name.

There is growing suspicion, even among congressmen, that the Patriot Act just might be too damaging to civil liberties at a time when the terrorism threat appears to be receding. Senator Rand Paul led the charge in the Senate back in February that resulted in a temporary 90 day continuation of the provisions of the act that will expire this month. The Act will again be up for Senatorial approval but, unfortunately, the planned one week long open debate in front of the full Senate and under the scrutiny of the media might well be canceled due to lack of interest by Republicans and Democrats alike. It would have been the first time that has happened since 2001, when the Act first became law.

Broadly speaking, the Patriot Act was designed to make it easier for law enforcement to investigate US citizens and permanent residents by easing legal restraints on records and activities that were hitherto considered private or required a judge’s order to access. The Act has enjoyed bipartisan support since 2001.

Title 2 of the Patriot Act, makes it possible to investigate any foreign suspect as part of a law enforcement effort to obtain foreign intelligence information even if there was no evidence that a crime had been committed. The difference is critical as the police previously had to have actual evidence of a crime while the new procedure permitted investigation of just about anyone who could plausibly be linked to a foreign suspect to obtain information, allowing law enforcement to conduct wide ranging fishing expeditions. The Act also lifted the old requirement that law enforcement demonstrate that the target of an approved investigation was a foreign national and a possible agent of a foreign government. Anyone linked to the inquiry, even a US citizen, could become a person of interest. This was referred to as a “lone wolf” provision and it is one of the areas of the Patriot Act that is up for renewal.

Title 2 also permitted any district court in the United States to issue surveillance orders and search warrants in connection with proposed terrorist investigations and the Act specifically included electronic communications and voicemail records as subject to the warrants. Using the warrants, the FBI is able to access from the internet service provider all records on a user, to include name, address, telephone billing records, session details, and payment information to include bank and credit card records. This feature of the Act is also up for renewal this month.

The third feature of the Act that is up for extension at the end of May is roving wiretaps, permitting law enforcement to obtain warrants that allow them to switch from one communications medium to another if they believe that the target is changing his method of communication to make monitoring him more difficult. This means that the FBI is empowered to tap multiple phones or computer lines simultaneously based on one blanket warrant. Previously law enforcement had to show cause for the tap and it was limited to the telephone or computer line specified in the request. Under Title 2 the FBI was also permitted to obtain whatever tangible public records are available to assist in an investigation. This was the so-called library clause, where library borrowing records could be accessed by the police.

Click here for full text.

Alex Jones & Aaron Dykes
TheAlexJonesChannel
May 12, 2011

Alex Jones debunks the legacy of lies that fill the pages of the phony War on Terror narrative– killing bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq, all of it– in a special video address. This “war” which has consumed our society is nothing more than a dramatized narrative meant to frighten the simple, captive public into accepting greater societal control.

Bin Laden was a strawman-villain concocted by the Western intelligence apparatus to take the blame for the orchestrated terror that is scripted and carried out by the globalist-allied factions. The Phantom Osama bin Laden was a skeleton key opening the door to foreign intervention in the middle east or anywhere al Qaeda might be. The motive is simple– ever-expanding wars for the military industrial complex, and the often more lucrative periods of reconstruction (i.e. you break it, you buy it). The occupation continues here at home with the creation of a police state supposedly meant to combat terrorism.

So rotten is the “big lie” of the War on Terror, that the most iconic events of the period are the most contrived. The official story about the killing of bin Laden disintegrated in mere days, as no one could keep the story straight. But it’s just the latest episode of a fairy tale that’s been sold to the public for nearly a decade; this story, told with a straight face, is not simply riddled with lies, but wholly subsists of them.

Everything has been lie– cooked-evidence about WMDs in Iraq, bogus claims about mobile weapons labs & yellow cake, the Hollywood-scripted Jessica Lynch-incident, the shameful murder of Pat Tillman, the false-flag attacks on 9/11, sticking it to the victims’ families & first responders, manufacturing links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, false-flag scenarios in the Downing Street memos, planted flash mobs at the White House & Ground Zero cheering ‘We got him’ to boost appeal for Obama, phony bin Laden videos faked by assets at SITE and the Intel Center, Osama’s CIA identity Tim Osman, secret backing for the Taliban in 1979, fake terror alerts– all of it.

Alex appeals to the facts in the historical record and an instinctual rejection of the pure lies put out by the establishment. You don’t want to miss this video; hopefully you can use it to reach those who felt “renewed” by reports of bin Laden’s death and are accepting the big lies all over again for the thrill of celebrating “the kill.” It’s a shoddy hoax to bolster public support, but even that illusion is falling apart. The L.A. Times reports that Obama’s “bin Laden bump” has already fallen back to Earth with the rate of gravity.

After all, the system has no credibility, and cheap lies about bin Laden have minimal value. Such easily exposed lies can be dumped on Obama as political baggage just as easily as it can boost him in the polls. The persistence of the Left-Right paradigm allows Obama & Bush alike to be dumped on for the failures & frauds of the system, actually giving cover to the continuity of government agenda, which milks power from the perceived need for greater “safety” measures as well as failed leadership.

Washington’s Blog

Virtually all of the top interrogation experts – both conservatives and liberals (except for those trying to escape war crimes prosecution) – say that torture doesn’t work:

  • Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:

    “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

  • The C.I.A.’s 1963 interrogation manual stated:

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex ‘admissions’ that take still longer to disprove.

  • According to the Washington Post, the CIA’s top spy – Michael Sulick, head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service – said that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration. “I don’t think we’ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint.”
  • A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):

    It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

    This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.

  • A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:

Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

  • Another former high-level CIA official (Bob Baer) says:

    And torture — I just don’t think it really works … you don’t get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you.

  • Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, says:

    “I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear.”

  • A retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002 (Glenn L. Carle) says:

    [Coercive techniques] didn’t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information…Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.”

  • A former top Air Force interrogator who led the team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, and wrote a book called How to Break a Terrorist writes:

As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.
Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.

In addition, torture and abuse has made us less safe because detainees are less likely to cooperate during interrogations if they don’t trust us. I know from having conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, that when a captured Al Qaida member sees us live up to our stated principles they are more willing to negotiate and cooperate with us. When we torture or abuse them, it hardens their resolve and reaffirms why they picked up arms.

He also says:

[Torture is] extremely ineffective, and it’s counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish.

When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve … The information that you get is unreliable. … And even if you do get reliable information, you’re able to stop a terrorist attack, al Qaeda’s then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members.

And he repeats:

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

He said last week:

They don’t want to talk about the long term consequences that cost the lives of Americans…. The way the U.S. treated its prisoners “was al-Qaeda’s number-one recruiting tool and brought in thousands of foreign fighters who killed American soldiers.

  • The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn’t work
  • Another FBI interrogator of 9/11 suspects said:

I was in the middle of this, and it’s not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective

  • The FBI warned military interrogators in 2003 that enhanced interrogation techniques are “of questionable effectiveness” and cited a “lack of evidence of [enhanced techniques’] success.
  • The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn’t work, stating:

    The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.

  • General Petraeus says that torture is unnecessary, hurts our national security and violates our American values
  • Retired 4-star General Barry McCaffrey – who Schwarzkopf called he hero of Desert Storm – agrees
  • Former Navy Judge Advocate General Admiral John Hutson says:

    Fundamentally, those kinds of techniques are ineffective. If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence, and it is, and if that’s important, and it is, then we have to use the techniques that are most effective. Torture is the technique of choice of the lazy, stupid and pseudo-tough.

    He also says:

    Another objection is that torture doesn’t work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners.

  • Army Colonel Stuart Herrington – a military intelligence specialist who interrogated generals under the command of Saddam Hussein and evaluated US detention operations at Guantánamo – notes that the process of obtaining information is hampered, not helped, by practices such as “slapping someone in the face and stripping them naked”.Herrington and other former US military interrogators say:

    We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

  • Major General Thomas Romig, former Army JAG, said:

    If you torture somebody, they’ll tell you anything. I don’t know anybody that is good at interrogation, has done it a lot, that will say that that’s an effective means of getting information. … So I don’t think it’s effective.

  • The head of all U.S. intelligence said:

    The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world … The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

  • Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool.
  • The first head of the Department of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – says we were wrong to torture.The former British intelligence chairman says that waterboarding didn’t stop terror plots.
  • A spokesman for the National Security Council (Tommy Vietor) says:

    The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003.

In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts…Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading Iraq.

  • Neuroscientists have found that torture physically and chemically interferes with the prisoner’s ability to tell the truth
  • An Army psychologist – Major Paul Burney, Army’s Behavior Science Consulting Team psychologist – said (page 78 & 83):

It was stressed to me time and time again that psychological investigations have proven that harsh interrogations do not work. At best it will get you information that a prisoner thinks you want to hear to make the interrogation stop, but that information is strongly likely to be false.

***

Interrogation techniques that rely on physical or adverse consequences are likely to garner inaccurate information and create an increased level of resistance…There is no evidence that the level of fear or discomfort evoked by a given technique has any consistent correlation to the volume or quality of information obtained.

  • An expert on resisting torture – Terrence Russell, JPRA’s manager for research and development and a SERE specialist – said (page 209):

History has shown us that physical pressures are not effective for compelling an individual to give information or to do something’ and are not effective for gaining accurate, actionable intelligence.

 

And – according to the experts – torture is unnecessary even to prevent “ticking time bombs” from exploding (see this, this and this). Indeed, a top expert says that torture would fail in a real ‘ticking time-bomb’ situation

Indeed, it has been known for hundreds of years that torture doesn’t work:

  • As a former CIA analyst notes:

During the Inquisition there were many confessed witches, and many others were named by those tortured as other witches. Unsurprisingly, when these new claimed witches were tortured, they also confessed. Confirmation of some statement made under torture, when that confirmation is extracted by another case of torture, is invalid information and cannot be trusted.

  • The head of Britain’s wartime interrogation center in London said:

“Violence is taboo. Not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”

  • The national security adviser to Vice President George H.W. Bush (Donald P. Gregg) wrote:

During wartime service with the CIA in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972, I was in charge of intelligence operations in the 10 provinces surrounding Saigon. One of my tasks was to prevent rocket attacks on Saigon’s port.Keeping Saigon safe required human intelligence, most often from captured prisoners. I had a running debate about how North Vietnamese prisoners should be treated with the South Vietnamese colonel who conducted interrogations. This colonel routinely tortured prisoners, producing a flood of information, much of it totally false. I argued for better treatment and pressed for key prisoners to be turned over to the CIA, where humane interrogation methods were the rule – and more accurate intelligence was the result.

The colonel finally relented and turned over a battered prisoner to me, saying, “This man knows a lot, but he will not talk to me.”

We treated the prisoner’s wounds, reunited him with his family, and allowed him to make his first visit to Saigon. Surprised by the city’s affluence, he said he would tell us anything we asked. The result was a flood of actionable intelligence that allowed us to disrupt planned operations, including rocket attacks against Saigon.

Admittedly, it would be hard to make a story from nearly 40 years ago into a definitive case study. But there is a useful reminder here. The key to successful interrogation is for the interrogator – even as he controls the situation – to recognize a prisoner’s humanity, to understand his culture, background and language. Torture makes this impossible.

There’s a sad twist here. Cheney forgets that the Bush administration followed this approach with some success. A high-value prisoner subjected to patient interrogation by an Arabic-speaking FBI agent yielded highly useful information, including the final word on Iraq’s weapons programs.

His name was Saddam Hussein.

  • Top interrogators got information from a high-level Al Qaeda suspects through building rapport, even if they hated the person they were interrogating by treating them as human

Postscript: Even if – despite the above – you still believe that torture produces helpful information, you should note that the U.S. government used Communist torture techniques specifically designed to produce FALSE Confessions.

Last night on the radio at work I heard that officials with the government had said that Osama bin Laden has been bumped to number two on the ‘Most Wanted” list, and Anwar al-awlaki has been given the spot.  Now this really confounds me in light of the fact that there really has not been any real “attempt” to catch the most infamous man in the twenty-first century.  In fact, it has been reported that the FBI had no evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

President Bush’s bloviating words such as “Wanted Dead or Alive” was a great psychological scheme to arouse support for a long drawn occupation of Afghanistan.  In 2006 the CIA’s bin Laden task force was disbanded, ultimately ending the government’s famed promise to bring the murderer to justice.  But remember, that during the 1980’s bin Laden was a CIA operative and asset in the Soviet/Afghan war.  Now he cannot be found; so draw your own conclusions.

And here is another example of the government’s Ghosts to fund its dilapidated wars – Anwar al-awlaki.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, October 21, 2010

Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Anwar Al-Awlaki, the man who helped plot the aborted Christmas Day bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, and who also preached to the alleged September 11 hijackers, dined at the Pentagon just months after 9/11 documents obtained by Fox News show.

American-born cleric Awlaki’s role as a key figure in almost every recent terror plot targeting the United States and Canada, coupled with his visit to the Pentagon, only confirms our long stated position that Awlaki is a chief terrorist patsy-handler for the CIA – he is the federal government’s premier false flag agent.

“Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks,” states the report.

Click here to read a portion of the documents.

Awlaki was vetted before he was invited to attend a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army’s Office of Government Counsel. His appearance at the meeting was deliberately engineered despite Awlaki’s ties to three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour – who were identified as the suicide pilots that slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Following the Fort Hood shooting it was also revealed that shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan had been in contact with Awlaki before the rampage. Awlaki preached to both Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia in 2001.

Awlaki also met with Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and acted as “the middle-man between the young Nigerian and the bombmaker.” As we have thoroughly documented, the Delta Flight 253 incident was staged from start to finish. The US State Department allowed Abdulmutallab to board the plane, aided by a well-dressed Indian man, despite the fact that he was on a terror watch list and had no passport.

The Christmas Day incident was a boon for companies linked with the military-industrial complex, as it greased the skids for the global introduction of naked body scanners in airports.

Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was also reported to have been directed by Awlaki before his failed attack on May 1st.

The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach,” states the Fox News report.

The explanation is quite simple – Awlaki is the CIA’s chief patsy handler for planning and staging false flag terror attacks through the dupes that he radicalizes.

The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, and would undoubtedly have also picked up Awlaki.

As Webster Tarpley has documented, Awlaki is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”

Tarpley points to Awlaki’s role in the Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, terror plots, which were both contrived by the feds, as proof of Awlaki’s usefulness to the authorities in radicalizing terrorist patsies.

Lawyers in a case relating to the much vaunted 2007 terror plot to attack Fort Dix and kill “as many soldiers as possible” concluded that FBI informants were the key figures behind the operation and that the accused, six foreign-born Muslims, were merely bungling patsies.

Similarly, the “Toronto 18″ terrorists turned out to be “a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac”. The explosive fertilizer material the terrorist cell apparently planned to use was in fact purchased by an informant working for the RCMP who had radicalized the group.

Given the fact that Awlaki is a double operative, claiming to be an Al-Qaeda leader yet in fact working for U.S. intelligence, it’s hardly surprising that he made an appearance at the Pentagon.

Awlaki has also appeared in video tapes purporting to be Al-Qaeda propaganda material released by the IntelCenter, which as we have documented is nothing more than a Pentagon front group that has been caught red-handed releasing fake Al-Qaeda videos to bolster support for the geopolitical agenda of the US government.

Confirmation that Awlaki met with Pentagon officials after having inspired the very 9/11 hijackers that are blamed for flying a commercial airliner into the Pentagon provides yet more startling evidence that the highest levels of Al-Qaeda are completely penetrated and run by the US military industrial complex, which via patsy handlers like Awlaki is staging false flag attacks to boost their own domestic and geopolitical agenda.

The American people have the right to travel around the United States without being x-rayed, groped, or stopped along a highway because the military has put up blockades.  The government says that when we buy an airline ticket we “give up our rights”.  But as Congressman Paul says, “it is the duty of the government to protect our rights.”

People don’t have a problem with warrantless wiretaps or domestic eavesdropping by the government, but once you mention an infringement upon their right to own a gun or the freedom of speech – oh boy – don’t touch that!

Rights are not something that we can give up.  You cannot pick and choose what right you want to keep and what right you don’t want to keep.  It’s a packaged deal.  These Rights are what Our Founders fought so hard for.  And with a government that is fraught with conspiracy and corruption, why are we so willing to give up our rights?  Why are we so willing to trust them?

The government looks at us as if we are the ones to blame for everything.  We need to be investigated.  Well, for a change, let’s investigate the government.  Let’s hold tribunals and trials.  Enough with voting your “conscience” or “the lesser of two evils”.  Let’s throw these bums out on their asses.

Have you not noticed that since the elections, the government isn’t really sending “reassurances” in the fight against terror?  That the would-be attacks have stopped?  These all work in one cohesive fashion to drive fear at the heart of the American people.  It keeps you in support of a failed and corrupt foreign policy.  It keeps, though it may be small, your support for increased drone attacks in Pakistan under the guise of the “hunt for Osama bin Laden”.

If we were fighting for freedom we would be throwing the bums out all across this nation.