Of course, this is that same Posse Comitatus Act that the Department of
Father Homeland Security now calls a “myth.” In an October 2000 article, “The Myth of Posse Comitatus,” Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve, states:
“Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.”
I say my country “was” dedicated … we were dedicated to prohibiting military occupation within America until 2006, when the John Warner Defense Authorization Act ( HR5122 ) was signed into law (specifically, see Section 1076, titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies” pretty much threw out the Posse Comitatus Act altogether.
But in January 2008, it appears posse comitatus was somewhat restored through an amendment to H.R. 4986 : National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008:
Section 1068 – Revises federal provisions concerning the use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies to discontinue the executive authority to deploy active and reserve personnel during domestic response incidents. Repeals the authority of the President to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by major public emergencies.
Naturally, the President issued a signing statement when he signed the bill, indicating he will “construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.” Of course, this means he’ll interpret and carry out this Act… Continue reading
by Kevin R. Ryan
In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims — “That is exactly the way I wanted it!” 1
Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: “The explanation is in our computer.” 2
As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world. On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.…Continue reading
by Sam Vaknin
An Interview with David Ray Griffin
On September 11, I entertained a couple of house guests, senior journalists from Scandinavia. I remember watching in horror and disbelief the unfolding drama, as the United States was being subjected to multiple deadly attacks on-screen. I turned to the international affairs editor of a major Danish paper and told her “This could not have been done by al-Qaida.” I am an Israeli and, as such, I have a fair “sixth sense” as to the capabilities of terrorists and their potential reach.
Enter David Ray Griffin. I was introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. He is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published over 30 books, including eight about 9/11, the best known of which is “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé.”
On the face of it, his credentials with regards to intelligence analysis are hardly relevant, let alone impressive. But, to underestimate him would be a grave error. Being a philosopher, he is highly trained and utterly qualified to assess the credibility of data; the validity and consistency of theories (including conspiracy theories); and the rationality and logic of hypotheses. These qualifications made him arguably the most visible and senior member of what came to be known as the 9/11 Truth Movement.
In our exchange, he proved to be tolerant of dissenting views, open to debate, and invariably possessed of… Continue reading
by Peter Dale Scott
September 5, 2008
Though few Americans realize it, Cheney and Rumsfeld worked through the 1980s and 1990s on emergency nuclear-response plans which allegedly suspended the American Constitution and also Congress.1 (Through these decades Rumsfeld was CEO of a major pharmaceutical firm, and in the later 1990s Cheney was CEO of Halliburton; but their private status did not deter them from continuing to exercise a supra-constitutional planning power conferred on them by Ronald Reagan.)
Even fewer Americans know that these rules, originally dealing with a nuclear attack on America, were extended by Reagan Executive Order 12656 to cover “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”2 And few Americans realize that at least some of these rules, known technically as Continuity of Government (COG) rules, were invoked before 10:00 AM on September 11, 2001.3
As he did in 2007, President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September 14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency”:
Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New… Continue reading
by Luke Ryland
September 5, 2008
In last Monday’s New York Times, David Sanger and William Broad wrote
a front-page article
about the CIA’s involvement in the nuclear black market.
The article demonstrates (again) that the New York Times, Sanger &
Broad in particular, has simply become a mouthpiece for the government (see
my previous articles 1,
but they did let one fact slip through to the readership. I can only presume
that the slip was accidental, because they don’t appear to have understood the
ramifications of what they reported:
The US Government is covering up the fact that US citizens and entities are
involved in the nuclear black market.
Three members of the Tinner family in Switzerland were key suppliers to AQ
Khan’s nuclear black market ring. They were arrested in 2004 and have been awaiting
trial but the US government has been trying to sabotage the Swiss trial because
“compromising and embarrassing information about the CIA’s activities with the
Khan network” would be exposed if the trial were to proceed.
The New York Times reported that in July 2007, the Swiss Justice
Minister came to the US to discuss the case with high-level US officials, apparently
to find a mutually-acceptable arrangement regarding how to deal with the Tinner
According to an anonymous former Bush administration official:
“The State Department wanted the bomb plans destroyed as a way to stem nuclear proliferation, while the C.I.A. wanted to… Continue reading
August 30, 2008
by John Byrne
As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain’s choice of running mate, President
Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring
that America remains in a state of permanent war.
Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received
scant attention — and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed
it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with
al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."
Part of a proposal for Guantánamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before
Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains
engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations,
who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated
to the slaughter of Americans.”
The New York Times‘ page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday
edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries
broad legal implications that could imperil Americans’ civil liberties and the
rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.
It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for
his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power
to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in
recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans’ information and
"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold… Continue reading
Debunking NIST’s conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel
By George Washington
NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically (sic) collapse as follows:
WTC 7′s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
NIST can’t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or – at the very least – we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall. See also this .
In real life, the thick structural beams and “stiff [and strong]” exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless… Continue reading
By James Petras
August 28, 2008
In recent days there is mounting evidence of the advance of totalitarianism
in the political and media mainstream. The entire Western world, led by the
United States, has embraced a Georgian regime, which invaded South Ossetia totally
demolishing its capital city of 50,000 residents, assassinated 1500 men, women
and children and dozens of Russian peace keepers. The US has mobilized a naval
and air armada off the Iranian coast, prepared to annihilate a country of 70
million people. The New York Times published an essay by a prominent
Israeli historian, which advocates the nuclear incineration of Iran. All the
major mass media have mounted a systematic propaganda campaign against China,
supporting each and every terrorist and separatist group, and whipping up public
opinion in favor of launching a New Cold War. There is little doubt that this
new wave of imperial aggression and bellicose rhetoric is meant to deflect domestic
discontent and distract public opinion from the deepening economic crises.
The Financial Times (FT), once the liberal, enlightened voice of the
financial elite (in contrast to the aggressively neo-conservative Wall Street
Journal) has yielded to the totalitarian-militarist temptation. The feature
article of the weekend supplement of August 16/17, 2008 — “The Face
of 9/11″ — embraces the forced confession of a 9/11 suspect elicited
through 5 years of hideous torture in the confines of secret prisons. To make
their case, the FT published a half-page blow-up photo first circulated by former
CIA… Continue reading
by Mike Berger
Once upon a time in America, the media would have presented the public with opposing views expressed by the professionals at Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth ( ae911truth.org ) when an agency such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) exclaimed , after years of research, that simple office fires led to the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7 . Circa 1949 – 1985, the media followed what was known as the fairness doctrine . Now reduced to nothing more than a propaganda slogan by Fox, there was a time when holders of broadcast licenses were required by the FCC to present fair and balanced coverage on controversial issues of public interest. After all, the airwaves are owned by the public. There once was a time when the media let the public evaluate controversial issues on the merits of the arguments presented. Twenty-one years after President Reagan vetoed Congress’ attempt to codify the Fairness Doctrine, many Americans still assume this doctrine holds sway. After reviewing some of the more than 400 mainstream media articles written yesterday about the NIST final report on the collapse of WTC 7, it is easy to get the impression that no credible alternative explanations exist. Why would any American question the NIST report? They have no exposure to opposing views expressed by professional engineers and architects. It is as if none exist if you rely on the mainstream media. Only two outlets quoted members of the professional organization, AE911truth.org. More… Continue reading
By Mark H. Gaffney
The following is an excerpt from Mark H. Gaffney’s forthcoming book, THE 911 MYSTERY PLANE AND THE VANISHING OF AMERICA, to be released in September 2008.
15/08/08 “ICH” — Regrettably, there is considerable evidence that elements of the Bush administration were complicit in the 9/11 attack, and may even have helped stage it. Let us now examine some of what I regard as the most compelling evidence. However, the following discussion makes no claim to be comprehensive.
We know that within minutes of the “worst terrorist attack” in US history, even before the collapse of WTC-2 at 9:59 am, US officials knew the names of several of the alleged hijackers. CBS reported that a flight attendant on AA Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office and reveal the seat numbers of the hijackers who had seized the plane. FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, “This was the first piece of hard evidence.” In his memoirs CIA Director George Tenet emphasizes the importance of the passenger manifests, as does counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke. All of which is very strange because the manifests later released by the airlines do not include the names of any of the alleged hijackers. Nor has this discrepancy ever been explained.
According to MSNBC, the plan to invade Afghanistan and “remove Al Qaeda from the face of he earth” was already sitting on G.W.… Continue reading
By Mike Allen
August 5, 2008
A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery — adamantly denied by the White House — was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”
The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe,” Suskind writes. “Fox’s Bill O’Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on ‘The O’Reilly Factor,’ talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, ‘Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda–Saddam.’”
According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti.…Continue reading
By Lori Price
30 July 2008
Abu Khabab al-Masri ‘died’ in January 2006 and again on Monday. Once again, the ‘mainstream’ media announces the re-killing of another ‘key al-Qaeda operative’ by a ‘CIA-operated unpiloted drone!’ These top al-Qaeda operatives – and their subsequent deaths – are more bountiful than poppy fields in Afghanistan or oil smuggling routes in Iraq.
The Financial Times reports:
Al-Qaeda expert killed by CIA 30 July 2008 Pakistan intelligence officials yesterday confirmed a key al-Qaeda [al-CIAduh] expert on chemical and biological weapons was killed in an attack by a CIA-operated unpiloted drone, late on Sunday. Egyptian-born Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, who was also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was one of six Arab men who were killed in a remote region along the Afghan border, according to an intelligence official. The US had offered a $5m (€3.19m, £2.5m) reward for his capture. Western diplomats said it would be a boost to morale in the Bush administration, struggling with mounting troop casualties in Afghanistan and a revival of militant attacks in Iraq.
CBS News reports:
Officials: Al Qaeda’s Mad Scientist Killed –29 Jul 2008 — CIA Drone Targeted Chemical Weapons Expert Abu Khabab Al-Masri On Afghanistan-Pakistan Border One of al Qaeda’s top chemical and biological weapons experts was killed in an air strike by a CIA pilotless drone in a remote Pakistani border region, senior Pakistani intelligence officials told CBS News Tuesday morning. Intelligence officials investigating the early Monday missile attack confirmed… Continue reading
by Chalmers Johnson
Source URL: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174959/chalmers_johnson_warning_mercenaries_at_work
Most Americans have a rough idea what the term “military-industrial complex” means when they come across it in a newspaper or hear a politician mention it. President Dwight D. Eisenhower introduced the idea to the public in his farewell address of January 17, 1961. “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime,” he said, “or indeed by the fighting men of World War II and Korea We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
Although Eisenhower’s reference to the military-industrial complex is, by now, well-known, his warning against its “unwarranted influence” has, I believe, largely been ignored. Since 1961, there has been too little serious study of, or discussion of, the origins of the military-industrial complex, how it has changed over time, how governmental secrecy has hidden it from oversight by members of Congress or attentive citizens, and how it degrades our Constitutional structure of checks and balances.
From its origins in the early 1940s, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was building up his “arsenal of democracy,” down to the present moment, public opinion has usually assumed that it involved more or less equitable relations — often termed a “partnership” — between the high command and civilian overlords of the United States military and… Continue reading
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Thursday July 10, 2008
During a town hall event in Portsmouth, OH on Wednesday, John McCain was asked
by a member of the audience whether his links to the parent organization of
the Project for a New American Century explain why he has been reluctant to
support calls for a new investigation of 9/11.
The questioner began, "I was curious about a document. Back in September
of 2000, the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, whose members included
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote a document
entitled ‘Rebuilding Americans Defenses.’"
As McCain turned and paced away from him, the questioner continued, "In
it, they state, quote, "The process of transformation, even if it bring
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor."
"Now, many Americans believe that that ‘new Pearl Harbor’ event took place
on 9/11," the questioner went on, as McCain grimaced slightly. "And
according to a recent New York Times and CBS News poll, 84% of Americans believe
that there were some criminal elements of our government involved in 9/11."
Calls of disapproval began to arise from the audience, but the questioner shot
back, "Hold on!" and continued asking McCain, "Can you tell us
about your role as — hold on — as president of the ‘New Citizen Project,’
founded in 1994, which served as a chief fund-raising and parent organization
to PNAC? And is… Continue reading
ACLU Announces Legal Challenge To Follow President’s Signature
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312, email@example.com or
(212) 549-2666; firstname.lastname@example.org
WASHINGTON ï¿½ Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the
right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill
that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial
oversight of government surveillance. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved
by a vote of 69 to 28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush
shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless
wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.
‘Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s
fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green
light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,’
said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
‘This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access
to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant.
This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.’
The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance
by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only
general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will
not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting
any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s
protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to
continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying
procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC.…
Who Planned the Anthrax Attacks?
It’s the $5,800,000 question
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com Behind the Headlines
July 4, 2008
You remember the anthrax
attacks — or do you? It often seems, to me at least, that this important
catalyst for the invasion of Iraq and our supremely wrong-headed
post-9/11 foreign policy has been flushed down the collective memory hole. For
all the attention that’s been paid to that spooky chapter in the history of
the “war on terrorism” in the intervening years, it may as well have
never occurred. That’s why news of the former prime suspect’s ultimate vindication
— and his victory in a $5.8
million lawsuit in which he accused the feds of unfairly targeting him as
of interest” (as John Ashcroft put it) — seems like a visitation from
another time, the ghost of 9/11 past, haunting and mocking us. It sends chills
down my spine — because, you see, the real culprits are still out there.
The FBI’s non-investigation of this heinous and sinister crime was a joke from
the beginning: after all, since when do FBI probes have official names, and
why such a silly one as “Amerithrax“?
Such brazen corniness has about it an unmistakable Keystone Kops air, which
was certainly evident throughout the long-playing media circus that will evermore
be known as the persecution of Steven
Hatfill, you’ll recall, is the long-suffering victim of this horror story,
a bio-weapons expert and “insider” who was… Continue reading
By Dr. William F. Pepper
As a friend and colleague of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the last year
of his life, James Earl Ray’s attorney, for the last ten years of his
life and, finally, lead Counsel for Dr. King’s family in the 1999 civil
trial which brought forward evidence from 70 witnesses over 30 days in Memphis,
I am compelled to comment, for the record, on the most recent documentary on
the assassination by CNN which is being aired on an ongoing basis. The fact
that my participation in the program was used to give it some credibility makes
this comment even more relevant.
It is one matter to distort the truth of how this great American prophet was
taken from us, but quite another to have mainstream media perpetuate disinformation
on matters of such public importance to the citizens of the Republic. An expert
witness, at the King family civil trial, William Schapp, set out the historical
use of government disinformation through mainstream media, dating back to the
The first half of the program was dedicated to James and his background and
history. While the program notably failed to provide a motive as to why this
escaped convict would even consider such an act, and racism had been excluded
by the earlier Congressional investigation, it was hinted at by a reference
of his refusal to go to a work farm attached to the Missouri prison because
of the number of blacks in that facility. In fact, James was afraid
of becoming tied into drug activity which was going on there and having his
Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Information Clearing House
While we are remembering Tim Russert and his years as moderator of “Meet the Press,” we would do well to recall his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney at Camp David on September 16, 2001, just five days after the 9/11 attacks. 1 In fact, Cheney himself, during an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer the morning after Russert died, reminded us of that Camp David interview, saying: “I always, when I think of Tim and think of ‘Meet the Press,’ that’s the show that always comes to mind. . . . It was a remarkable moment in American history.” 2
Commenting that he himself “remember[ed] that interview vividly,” Lauer asked: “Anything stand out from that interview?” In his reply, Cheney said: “We went back and reminisced to some extent about what had actually happened on the morning of 9/11. So it was—it was a remarkable moment in my career.” 3
It was indeed. In reminiscing about his movements that morning, Cheney contradicted what was to become a crucial element of the account that the 9/11 Commission would give of those movements.
In praising Russert’s tenure on “Meet the Press,” Cheney said: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-à-vis Tim.” 4
Given Cheney’s appraisal of his interview with Russert as… Continue reading