911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Over the last 24 hours, news about U.S. torture has been leaking out:
The newest attack strategy against those who question 9/11 is to say that we are creationists. If you regularly read social networking sites, newsgroups, or bulletin boards, you will see this slur being used regularly.
Is it true?
Well, initially, everyone who believes in creationism started with a religious belief, and then tried to make arguments which fit that belief.
On the other hand, every single person I know who questions 9/11 initially believed the government's version of events.* However, once we looked at the evidence of what happened - the documentary, audiovisual, physical, chemical, and historical record - we began to realize that the government's story has more holes than swiss cheese.
Matt Taibbi and his buddies are making complete fools of themselves by trying to mock those who question 9/11:
The same people who had managed in the 2000 election to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush as an ordinary down-to-earth ranch hand apparently so completely lacked confidence in their own propaganda skills that they resorted to ordering a mass murder on American soil as a way of cajoling America to go to war against a second-rate tyrant like Saddam Hussein. As if getting America to support going to war even against innocent countries had ever been hard before!
The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Um . . . haven't you guys ever cracked a history book?
Don't you know that virtually every war is preceded by either a false flag attack or fake intelligence, so as to trumpet an imminent threat from the folks that is going to be attacked?
Haven't you heard of the Maine, fellas? How about the Gulf of Tonkin? The Iraqi incubator story?
Didn't you learn about Operation Himmler? The Reichstag fire? The Lavon Affair? Operation Gladio? Northwoods? Ajax?
Four headlines this week make it clear that America may be the world's largest sponsor of terrorism:
A lot of people, including Senator Biden, are criticizing Bush's statement to the Israeli parliament that Democrats are like those who tried to appease the Nazis. Bush - apparently incensed that people are trying to frustrate the Neocon plan to bomb Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon in order to "protect" Israel and seize a little oil in the process - accused the Democrats of trying to negotiate with terrorists.
But who is really appeasing who?
It is Congress that is trying to appease the terrorists in the White House. After the 9/11 false flag attack, and the attack on Congress with U.S. military anthrax, and the attack on liberty and privacy, and the attack on the U.S. economy, Congress has done nothing but role over and play dead.
Programs Which the Government Claims Are Aimed At Foreign Enemies are being Used Against American Citizens within the U.S.
The U.S. government has repeatedly claimed that it was launching aggressive programs solely at foreign enemies, and then launched them at American citizens. For example:
Today, the U.S. dropped charges against the so-called '20th hijacker'.
That got me wondering, who are the remaining Guantanamo defendants?
It turns out that they are not "Al Qaeda terrorists", but a bunch of kids, a car pool driver, and others who may have been involved in a civil war within their own country, but not a war against the United States.
For example, an article written by former Wall Street Journal editor and influential conservative Paul Craig Roberts includes the following bombshell:
The six that the United States are bringing to "trial" include two child soldiers for the Taliban and a car pool driver who allegedly drove Osama bin Laden.
It turns out that ridiculing tyrants is the most effective way to stop them. Why? Because ridicule can persuade all 3 of our brains - reptilian, mammalian and human. (People won't put up with tyrants if they can see that they are tyrants, and ridicule is the best way for people to be able to take in the fact that the Neocons are tyrants).
How can we ridicule Bush, Cheney and the other anti-American Neocons?
Well, they have done so many things that leave them open to ridicule that it would be child's play to make fun of them.
I have previously written on some approaches to parodying the Neocon agenda. That took me all of twenty minutes.
But how can we ridicule the Neocons themselves?
"Continuity of Government Planning has ... ALREADY Superseded the Constitution as a Higher Authority"
UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott has warned:
"If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.
To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority."
WANTED: Confirmation of whether or not the Constitution is DEAD or ALIVE.
Your REWARD: Become a hero and save the nation.
Details: This website provides evidence that Continuity of Government plans were actually instituted on 9/11, and may still be in effect. If true, America will not be able to end its nightmare until this fact is revealed to the public and until the COG plans are rescinded.
The entire Homeland Security Committee of Congress asked the White House to see documents related to Continuity of Government Plans, and the White House refused to share them, even though that committee has full security clearance to view such plans. Here is a brief video of DeFazio's testimony to Congress on the topic (or here is the transcript).
In addition, Professor Peter Dale Scott asked Congressman DeFazio whether or not Continuity of Government plans were currently in effect, and that DeFazio responded that he did not know.
How to Claim Reward: Find out the answer to the simple question: are Continuity of Government plans currently in effect? No executive branch waffling or double-speak. Just a yes or no answer.
Ask your Congressman. Ask your Senator. Ask someone who would know.
Then let us know.
Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.
In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.
As stated in an article in Asia Times:
The main problem isn't that we are up against superior forces.
The main problem is that most people are asleep, and don't even realize that our flag-waving leaders are hell-bent on taking away our freedoms, our options and our money.
The main problem is that most people are still in the matrix, dreaming that the powers-that-be are on their side.
Once Neo woke up to the reality of the matrix, he had a fighting chance of doing something about it.
(If you haven't seen the movie The Matrix, let me put it in a more day-to-day context: If you're camping, and a tick is burrowing into your finger, and you're dreaming that a puppy is licking your finger, the problem isn't that the tick is an overwhelming opponent. The problem is that you're dreaming, so you can't do anything to shake off the bugger.)
Some Powerful People Have Challenged the Matrix - And Failed
Whenever any claim is made that the government has done anything wrong, government apologists say "that's a conspiracy theory!"
Well, let's examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about "conspiracies". Let's look at what American judges think.
Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word "Conspiracy". This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw. Specifically, I got the following message:
"Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents."
From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.
While many people question the government's conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government's answer to the following questions is correct:
(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?
(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings become the first modern steel-frame high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many indications normally associated with controlled demolition?
At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?
Folks who are trying to defend the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:
- Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11
- Then, when the family members of the victims and every day Americans started publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government"
- Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11"
- Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"
- Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .
They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch - come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one.
Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again:
"true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.
And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss.
And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!"
If you have questioned 9/11 for a couple of years, you'll know that the above-described history of goalpost-moving is accurate. If you haven't, google around and you'll probably see what I mean.
As a new article by investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham reveals, a governmental unit operating in secret and with no oversight whatsoever is gathering massive amounts of data on every American and running artificial intelligence software to predict each American's behavior, including "what the target will do, where the target will go, who it will turn to for help".
The same governmental unit is responsible for suspending the Constitution and implementing martial law in the event that anything is deemed by the White House in its sole discretion to constitute a threat to the United States. (this is formally known as implementing "Continuity of Government" plans).
A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.
Scalia Tries to Apologize for Torture . . . Fails, Violating the War Crimes Act of 1996 in the Process
Supreme Court Justice Scalia says that torture doesn't constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, because torture is not meant to punish, but only to illicit information.
Mr. Scalia's argument fails for several reasons.
Torture Does not Generate Useful Information
Initially, torture is a notoriously inaccurate way to obtain information. Indeed, it is well-known by professional interrogators that torture doesn't work. Experts on interrogation say that torture actually interferes with the ability to gather useful information.
So if torture is not an information-gathering technique, its only purpose must be punishment and/or intimidation.
Torturing People Who Can't Give Useful Information is Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Appeals Court Upholds Finding: Port Authority 68% Liable for the 1993 WTC Bombing and Terrorists Only 32% Responsible
The New York Times has a story covering the finding of an appeals court upholding the jury's finding that the Port Authority was 68 percent liable for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the terrorists were only 32 percent liable:
A state appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the Port Authority was liable for damages caused by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, because it knew about but chose to ignore “an extreme and potentially catastrophic vulnerability that would have been open and obvious to any terrorist who cared to investigate and exploit it.”
The ruling unanimously upheld a jury’s verdict that the agency was 68 percent liable for the bombing and the terrorists 32 percent liable. Under state rules, because the Port Authority’s liability was more than 50 percent, it can be forced to pay all the damages to injured survivors and to relatives of those killed.
This has been a fast-paced week. For those of who you have been busy to keep up, let me summarize:
In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.
Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet, Rice, and Yoo Have All Committed War Crimes Punishable by Death
Anyone who violates the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment is guilty of a crime under U.S. law.
Specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention
The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty.
Here's a whole new way to do 9/11 research online.
Click on the following search and see for yourself:
Left click on each website to see what it looks like (the search terms are circled).
When you find a site you want to go to, right click and open in new window, or double left-click.
For the visually-oriented, this will unlock a whole new way of searching.
The number 2 honcho from Al (nudge nudge wink wink) Qaeda supposedly said that Iran is behind questions about 9/11 (he was apparently only referring to Israel, although most Americans will only read the headline).
So let me ask you something. Are you saying that these all-American high-level military leaders, intelligence officials, Congress people, 9/11 Commissioners and other patriots are dupes for Iran?
Are you willing to say that to their FACE?
I didn't think so . . .
There is great confusion about what Presidential declarations of emergency are currently in effect. After independently researching the issue myself, I have found the answer.
It is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society:
In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported:
Check out this new website.
An all-in-one-place resource on Continuity of Government, State of Emergency, and related issues for congress people, reporters, and other interested people.
Some of America's leaders are fundamentalists who literally believe in Armageddon. Many of these folks believe that Christians must help bring nuclear war to the middle east in order to bring on the apocalypse, so that the "second coming" will happen (and see this).
These folks are obviously dangerous. But this essay is not about them. It is about the other governmental leaders who are not fundamentalists, or perhaps not even religious at all, but are still creating a self-fulling prophecy of doom.
The entire U.S. government has been in a declared "state of emergency" from September 11, 2001, to the present. Continuity of Government (COG) plans were implemented on 9/11, and have probably never been rescinded.
Let's assume that I am incorrect in concluding that Continuity of Government (COG) plans -- which suspend the Constitutional form of government -- are currently in effect today. In other words, let's assume that while the U.S. has been in a continual state of emergency since 9/11, and COG plans were, in fact, implemented on 9/11, that they were secretly rescinded at some point afterwords.
Would it mean that we should ignore the whole issue?
Many people have expressed outrage at NSPD-51 -- a presidential directive that gives Bush dictatorial powers in the event of a national emergency.
For example, well-known conservative writer Jerome Corsi writes:
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
One of the top investigative journalists in the country, Larisa Alexandrovna (the lead journalist at Raw Story), says the following concerning her attempts to determine whether or not the U.S. is still officially in a state of emergency, such as would justify the continuition of Continuity of Government (COG) Plans implemented on 9/11:
"Well, I have called around... believe it or not, no seems to have an answer as to this simple question: 'are we in a state of emergency?' "
Keep in mind that Alexandrovna has broken many top stories, later picked up by the New York Times and other mainstream publications, and has developed a broad network of contacts. And yet she couldn't find an answer.