Wednesday, January 18 2012   -   Civil Liberties-Police State

 

Sunday, January 15 2012   -   Civil Liberties-Police State

By Jonathan Turley
January 13, 2011

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.

 

Wednesday, January 11 2012   -   Editorials

January 11, 2012
by James Hufferd, Ph.D., Coordinator, 9/11 Truth Grassroots Organization

Most of the recent big, commonly noticeable and objectionable changes in our controllable circumstances in America -- including many downright atrocities -- have happened since September 11, 2001. And a goodly number of them have developed as a direct consequence. Although that day still seems, in many ways, very recent, it appears to have marked not only a beginning of our current and accumulating woes, but also the end of a long age of relative bliss, freedom, and a degree of personal opportunity that we haven't experienced since.

My supposition, which I've voiced here before, is that 9/11 wasn't just an "inside job", but rather was done at the bequest of an international elite firmly in control of our (government + corporate) establishment, as well as those in other countries, the main trunk of the giant controlling octopus being international central banking.

Within a year or two after 9/11/01, at least a small segment of the populace was beginning to note that a credible (and routine) investigation of the background and modus operandi of 9/11 still hadn't been conducted by the criminal justice system. The lack of initiative in this case seemed puzzling due to nearly all Americans' faith at the time in the strength and reliability of the constitutional machinery of due process. The ensuing insistence by many that such routine procedures be carried out and criminal accountability be exacted stemmed from a shocked observation that such was not already completed, as one would have supposed, nor even yet underway. And thus, the 9/11 Truth movement in its present form was conceived to compel or urge that tardy process.

 

Wednesday, January 4 2012   -   Other Important News

By Russ Baker
December 26, 2011
WhoWhatWhy.com

A growing body of evidence points to a concerted campaign to prepare Americans and the world for war against Iran. This is not idle speculation. It fits a pattern that repeatedly preceded previous hostilities.

Here are the recent examples on Iran:

-The claim that Iran is a WMD threat. Pretty much everyone is familiar with the long-term, continuing efforts to paint Iran as some kind of nuclear threat. This ignores the possibility that Iran is telling the truth in contending it is embarked on solely non-military nuclear research (debatable), and serious doubts among many experts that Iran is preparing nuclear weapons. Perhaps most important, it discounts the fact that many countries (including Iran's arch-enemy Israel) have nuclear weapons, and disregards the undoubted truth that if a country like Iran ever did launch nuclear weapons, it would be wiped out in a nanosecond, creating a very strong disincentive for offensive use. At the same time, by encouraging other countries and internal foes to believe that it has nuclear weapons, Iran creates an inexpensive protective shield for its regime. A dangerous game, to be sure, but without further evidence of Iranian nukes, hardly a reason to launch a war that would surely cause even more death and destruction than the misguided Iraq invasion. [Continues...]

Also below: "Crackpot Anti-Islam Activists, 'Serial Fabricators' and the Tale of Iran and 9/11" from Truth-Out.org.

And from the archives, "Iran Gave U.S. Help On Al Qaeda After 9/11" (CBS News).

 

Friday, December 30 2011   -   Civil Liberties-Police State

Justices Find that Spied-On Telephone Customers Have the Right to Sue

December 29, 2011
Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF.org

San Francisco - The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today blocked the government's attempt to bury the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) lawsuit against the government's illegal mass surveillance program, returning Jewel v. NSA to the District Court for the next step.

The court found that Jewel had alleged sufficient specifics about the warrantless wiretapping program to proceed. Justices rejected the government's argument that the allegations about the well-known spying program and the evidence of the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco were too speculative.

"Since the dragnet spying program first came to light, we have been fighting for the chance to have a court determine whether it is legal," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "Today, the Ninth Circuit has given us that chance, and we look forward to proving the program is an unconstitutional and illegal violation of the rights of millions of ordinary Americans."

 

Friday, December 30 2011   -   Civil Liberties-Police State

By Charlie Savage
November 29, 2011
New York Times

WASHINGTON -- Defying the Obama administration's threat of a veto, the Senate on Tuesday voted to increase the role of the military in imprisoning suspected members of Al Qaeda and its allies -- including people arrested inside the United States.

By a vote of 61 to 37, the Senate turned back an effort to strip a major military bill of a set of disputed provisions affecting the handling of terrorism cases. While the legislation still has several steps to go, the vote makes it likely that Congress will eventually send to President Obama's desk a bill that contains detainee-related provisions his national-security team has said are unacceptable.  

Monday, December 26 2011   -   Resources and Materials

December 26, 2011
ANobleLie.com

Noble Lie: A myth or untruth knowingly told by the elite to maintain social harmony, or the social position of the elite. - The Republic, Plato

The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City was a direct blow to the heart of America. One hundred sixty-eight people were killed, including nineteen children. For those watching the nightly news, terrorism had come home. For years following the bombing, countless victims' family members, survivors, rescuers and ordinary Americans have questioned the official accounts about that fateful day.

Hoping to shed light on answers long ignored and censored, both by prominent media outlets and the U.S. government, A Noble Lie peels back what we thought we knew about the bombing and its perpetrators. This film exposes information never before examined or brought to the attention of the American public.

 

Thursday, December 22 2011   -   Editorials

Why Ron Paul Can Win

December 22, 2011
by James Jaeger
TheDailyBell.com

If you have been watching the news, you know that Ron Paul is now beating both Gingrich and Romney in the polls and could walk away with a win in Iowa.

Some say he could also walk away with a win in New Hampshire, and possibly even win the Republican (GOP) nomination.

For the Republican National Committee (RNC), this must be uncomfortable − the idea that they would be forced to nominate a principled, Constitutionalist just because WE THE PEOPLE demanded it.

But here's what really terrifies them: Ron Paul is in a position to hand the election of 2012 over to Barack Obama and the Democrats because he would be a "spoiler." But even more terrifying is the fact that Dr. Paul is in a position to be much more than a "spoiler" − he's in a position to be a "winner."

 

Thursday, December 22 2011   -   9/11 Consequences

by Jon Gold
December 20, 2011

Before I begin, I'd like to say that I am neither a fan of Iran, or an opponent of Iran. I just don't want anymore damn wars.

Recently, a Judge ruled "that Iran was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, including 18 Bucks County residents." Here is the evidence according to the article:

Using a team of experts, including former members of the 9/11 Commission, and the testimony of three Iranian defectors, the lawyers put on a four-hour presentation for Daniels on Thursday.

During the hearing, defector Abdolghassem Mesbahi, who was once an aide and close confidant of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic's founder, revealed that he had firsthand knowledge of terrorist plots dating to the 1980s.

Mesbahi, whose identity was kept secret until the hearing, said he knew in August 2001 that there was a plan in place to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

Another defector testified that he was with al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, when the terrorist attended four days of meetings with top Iranian officials in January 2001 to plan the 9/11 attacks.

The third defector told the judge that he helped write up the debriefing reports of Iran's al-Qaida liaison, Imad Mugniyeh, after he returned to Iran from Afghanistan following 9/11.

To further prove Iran's complicity in the attacks, Mellon presented the testimony of Janice Kephart, a former counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information and former immigration counsel to the Sept. 11 Commission.

read more

 

Saturday, December 17 2011   -   Legal Response to 9/11

Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran

US Court Claims Iranian 9/11 Link

By RT (Russia Today)

December 17, 2011 -- A US court has won a default judgement that Iranian officials, including its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, provided help to the 9/11 hijackers behind the worst terror attack on American soil. The lawsuit was filed by the families of the atrocity's victims. There was no Iranian representation in court. RT talks to Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.



Iran Accused Of 9/11 Role

By Fox News

May 20, 2011 "Fox News" -- NEW YORK: Two defectors from Iran's intelligence service have testified that Iranian officials knew in advance about the attacks of September 11, 2001, says a US court filing that seeks damages for Iran's "direct support for, and sponsorship of, the most deadly act of terrorism in American history".

Iran Accused Of September 11 Role To Plan, Train & Escape WTC Attacks 21/5/11:
 

Wednesday, December 14 2011   -   9/11 A/V Galleries

December 14, 2011

Last week Elizabeth Woodworth, Coordinator and Co-Founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel joined host Jack Etkin on "Face to Face" for a 30-minute interview. The show aired four times this week in the Victoria, BC area and is now available online. Here's more.

Description from YouTube (user channel of ictvvictoria):

This week our guest is retired medical librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, who coordinates a newly formed panel calling itself "Consensus 9/11" -- which recently announced the release of statements constituting 13 Consensus Points" challenging the official government account of the events of September 11, 2001. Co-chaired by Elizabeth and scholar David Ray Griffin, the points were produced using a version of a methodology designed to identify best evidence known as the Delphi method. According to Woodworth, "The strength and credibility of the Delphi method is based on the fact that respondents are blind to one another through several rounds of review, during which feedback is continually refined until consensus is reached." The Consensus 9/11 panel conducted "three survey rounds with 22 respondents, and reached an average consensus of 94% on 13 points of evidence that directly contradict the fundamental claims of the official account of September 11th."

 

Wednesday, December 14 2011   -   Civil Liberties-Police State

December 13, 2011
ConsortiumNews.com

By politicizing who is and who is not a "terrorist" -- pinning the label on American adversaries and sparing purported American friends -- the U.S. government created confusion at FBI headquarters that contributed to the failure to stop the 9/11 attacks, reports ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley.

By Coleen Rowley

Glenn Greenwald's critique -- regarding the recent U.S. indictment of 38-year-old Iraqi Faruq Khalil Muhammad Isa (currently in Canada) -- is spot on about "terrorism" coming to simply mean opposing United States' interests or resisting U.S. military invasions.

U.S. authorities have now dropped any requirement that the "terrorists" target or kill civilians as part of a political objective, the classic definition of terrorism. Isa stands accused of "providing material support to a terrorist conspiracy" because he allegedly backed a 2008 attack in Mosul, Iraq, killing five U.S. soldiers.

 

Monday, December 5 2011   -   9/11 A/V Galleries



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 2011
ANobleLie.com

New Film, A NOBLE LIE: Oklahoma City 1995, asks questions about the Oklahoma City Bombing

Produced in Oklahoma, this newly-released documentary by FREE MIND FILMS and Director James Lane takes a fresh and in-depth look at the circumstances surrounding the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

But instead of accepting at face value the Federal Government's deeply-flawed investigation, A NOBLE LIE features groundbreaking information and eyewitness testimonies that refute the official story.

 

Sunday, December 4 2011   -   9/11 Consequences

December 3, 2011
By Ray McGovern
Consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: Though the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a decade ago, Congress continues to exploit them to pass evermore draconian laws on "terrorism," with the Senate now empowering the military to arrest people on U.S. soil and hold them without trial, a serious threat to American liberties, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the "extraordinary measures" introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.

And the relative lack of reaction so far calls to mind the oddly calm indifference with which most Germans watched the erosion of the rights that had been guaranteed by their own Constitution. As one German writer observed, "With sheepish submissiveness we watched it unfold, as if from a box at the theater."

The writer was Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimond Pretzel), a young German lawyer worried at what he saw in 1933 in Berlin, but helpless to stop it since, as he put it, the German people "collectively and limply collapsed, yielded and capitulated."

 

Saturday, December 3 2011   -   Civil Liberties-Police State

By Spencer Ackerman
December 1, 2011
Wired.com/dangerroom

Here's the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the Senate has tucked into next year's defense bill: They don't force the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as tonight.

There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is "a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force" can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.

But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn't limited to foreigners. It's confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas' Robert Chesney -- a nonpartisan authority on military detention -- "U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority."