NY Times: "The Cover-Up Continues"

No, no mention of 9/11. Just a reminder that for the mainstream press you can talk about Bush's "abuses of power," but you can't cross the imaginary line that protects the 9/11 Commission.

October 26, 2009
The Cover-Up Continues

The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.

We have had recent reminders of this dismaying retreat from Mr. Obama’s passionate campaign promises to make a break with Mr. Bush’s abuses of power, a shift that denies justice to the victims of wayward government policies and shields officials from accountability.

In Britain earlier this month, a two-judge High Court panel rejected arguments made first by the Bush team and now by the Obama team and decided to make public seven redacted paragraphs in American intelligence documents relating to torture allegations by a former prisoner at Guantánamo Bay. The prisoner, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British national, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco and at a C.I.A.-run prison outside Kabul before being transferred to Guantánamo. He was freed in February.

To block the release of those paragraphs, the Bush administration threatened to cut its intelligence-sharing with Britain, an inappropriate threat that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated. But the court concluded that the actual risk of harm to intelligence-sharing was minimal, given the close relationship between the two countries. The court also found a “compelling public interest” in disclosure, and said that nothing in the disputed seven paragraphs — a summary of evidence relating to the involvement of the British security services in Mr. Mohamed’s ordeal — had anything to do with “secret intelligence.”

The Obama administration has expressed unhappiness with the ruling, and the British government plans to appeal. But the court was clearly right in recognizing the importance of disclosure “for reasons of democratic accountability and the rule of law.”

In the United States, the Obama administration is in the process of appealing a sound federal appellate court ruling last April in a civil lawsuit by Mr. Mohamed and four others. All were victims of the government’s extraordinary rendition program, under which foreigners were kidnapped and flown to other countries for interrogation and torture.

In that case, the Obama administration has repeated a disreputable Bush-era argument that the executive branch is entitled to have lawsuits shut down whenever it makes a blanket claim of national security. The ruling rejected that argument and noted that the government’s theory would “effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law.”

The Obama administration has aggressively pursued such immunity in numerous other cases beyond the ones involving Mr. Mohamed. We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security.

Victims of the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including Mr. Mohamed, have already spoken in harrowing detail about their mistreatment. The objective is to avoid official confirmation of wrongdoing that might be used in lawsuits against government officials and contractors, and might help create a public clamor for prosecuting those responsible. President Obama calls that a distracting exercise in “looking back.” What it really is justice.

In a similar vein, Mr. Obama did a flip-flop last May and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release photographs of soldiers abusing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, just in time to avoid possible Supreme Court review of the matter, Congress created an exception to the Freedom of Information Act that gave Secretary of Defense Robert Gates authority to withhold the photos.

We share concerns about inflaming anti-American feelings and jeopardizing soldiers, but the best way to truly avoid that is to demonstrate that this nation has turned the page on Mr. Bush’s shameful policies. Withholding the painful truth shows the opposite.

Like the insistence on overly broad claims of secrecy, it also avoids an important step toward accountability, which is the only way to ensure that the abuses of the Bush years are never repeated. We urge Mr. Gates to use his discretion under the new law to release the photos, sparing Americans more cover-up.

Remember, though, it isn't just the MSM

The real trouble with coverage of the lies of 9/11 is that the alternative media has joined the MSM in the censorship.
That has really worked to destroy any hope of getting the word out to the average American about the contradictions and inconsistencies and outright glaring lies about 9/11.

We KNOW the NYTimes will lie about something like 9/11. They are a KNOWN enemy of truth.
What is really the problem is the alternative media, that poses as the bearer of truth when we can get it in no other way.....................and then they censor the truth just as the msm does.
They are the enemy that we do not recognize. That is always a lot more dangerous and insidious.

Joshua Holland, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo, and the rest are this enemy. It is time we recognized it.

Crashing the Gates

They can try their mightiest, but they won't be able to hold those gates much longer. There are too many of us now crashing the gates with science and direct proof of cover-up. Their king is castled, but we're going to break that castle and deliver check mate!

We're breaching AlterNet comments, HuffPost, calling into radio shows, approaching officials with ever-increasing boldness and clarity--- blasting our message all OVER the net and facebook, etc.
Putting out docs and movies and soon we might even purchase full-page ads. I'm pretty confident now. I look forward to going up to Richmond next week to help out with the AIA convention. I predict that AE911Truth will top the 1,000 mark in Richmond.

*pfgetty, I sent you an email yesterday. Be on the lookout. Hope to collaborate with you in NC.

Why the fresh optimism?

I wish I shared it. I ran into a friend I hadn't seen in many years the other day. He was always one of the most cynical distrustful persons in our circle in terms of govt. I told him about all the new 9/11 CD evidence etc. He didn't want to hear any of it. Got openly hostile in fact. He's in the "no way that many people could keep a secret for so long" camp. Regarding WTC7 he said "you say you saw this on the Internet? How do you know it's not fake?"I realized that if this guy, a smart engineer who hates govt, could not be convinced we have a long friggin way to go.

So actually I'm glad you're optimistic RL, I needed something to counterblance that igoramus.

Add to that Ben Burch, David Swanson, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

Joshua Holland, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo, and the rest are this enemy. It is time we recognized it.

I agree with the central place of left leadership as adversaries

I realize most truth activists see some people, like those listed, as central obstacles. I 've been using the term "bottleneck". I prefer to think of them as misguided adversaries rather than enemies.

Please consider working with me on my effort described at YourCowardiceIsBelowYou.com. There I warn I will do civil disobedience against the left. I went to vers la verite in Paris and the 6th annual Gandhi King conference in Memphis to put out this intention.

I believe our best tack is to approach those dedicated to fighting racism, especially African Americans. I made great connections in Memphis.

Here's the argument, the success of 911truth would weaken the reason for war in the middle east by lessening hatred of Muslim and Arab people. Our adversaries would be welcome to debunk us politely as a family member might want the best for you without agreeing with every twist and turn. They'd support open consideration of our arguments. None of this ignorance is strength foolishness.

I won't approve of other truthers appearing with me in my confrontations if you hate the left adversaries, but we can begin to talk if you have the courage to get in touch. Calling me is best.

Incidentally, I've seen David Swanson mellow about us a little.

In general, its just narrowmindedness for most of these folks.

I did Chomsky's political course 4 times in the early 70's. My SPECULATION is that his resistance to 911 truth comes from his support for the official story about JFK. In turn, his position on JFK has to do with his disgust with mystical support for politicians. Mystical support for pols is an important element in fascism. Camelot is an example. Chomsky has lived in Massachusetts for OVER 50 years. JFK is a diety in the Bay State.

I consider Chomsky a bigger problem than any left adversaries because he has earned the love and respect of so many people. He couldn't be paid off because he sells too many books. He told us VERY often that we shouldn't just agree with him, instead doing our own investigation(said decades before 911.)
He's treated as a diety by so many in spite of all his efforts to the contrary. He doesn't seem to be able to face the irrational faith people have in his every word.

What's more important than figuring out why is to lovingly confront the left. Join me.

David Slesinger dslesinger@alum.mit.edu

I think Chomsky is afraid of something that makes sense:

I think Chomsky is very afraid of a backlash against Jews and Israel if it all comes out that the Mossad and other agencies of Israel are implicated in 9/11. Also, many of those involved, allegedly, in planning 9/11 appear to be Neocons, many of whom are Jewish.
It would not be a good day for Jews if 9/11 were to be proven to be an inside job.
And I thin Noam and Zinn are aware of that.

I began to think about that because of a friend in Austria, not a Jew, who has been active in watching the lies from the US empire, became quite worried when I talked about 9/11 truth. I was surprised he wasn't part of the movement, and then he said, "I don't want to go there and into that. That could cause a huge rise in antisemitism here and we had enough of that when I was a kid. It isn't worth it".

He may be right. Getting the truth out would not probably look well for Jews and Israel, but allowing this to fester for decades will not be good either.

But I began to think...........maybe that is why so many alternative and progressive sites just will not go to 9/11 truth. It is a possibility.

must-listen presentation

Someone recently posted this presentation by Michael Parenti under the recent blog thread about The Nation's gatekeepping. This is a must listen.



Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Those "progressives" or

Those "progressives" or "liberals" who believe the official 9/11 story are ridiculous. They accept the reality that the Bush administration lied about everything under the sun, but that the ONE TIME they told the truth was with regard to who carried out 9/11. It really boggles my mind.

The "big lie" has such an amazing hold. Even on seemingly "intelligent" news like Jim Lehrer or NPR, I hear it in the background as I'm sitting at the computer doing my "truthing," and I hear "blah blah blah blah the terrorists blah blah blah blah blah al Qaeda, blah blah blah blah the insurgents....."

Thanks for the link

Greenwald also had this in another of his posts today, asking whether it's really Muslims who are ar war with western rationality:

'Is the John Hagee/Joe Lieberman alliance of right-wing American Jews and evangelical Christians -- based on the premise that God demands that all land, including the West Bank and Gaza, be possessed by Jews -- devoted to the advancement of "the Western way of reason"? Is the platform of the Texas GOP -- which calls for the criminalization of all sex between gay adults; the denial of all custody rights to gay people, even over their own children; the teaching of creationism in all public schools; and the denial of medical care to prisoners other than those who can pay for it -- an example of "the Western way of reason"? How about the Catholic Church's proselytizing against birth control in areas of the world drowning in poverty, AIDS and overpopulation? Are torture, Guantanamo, Bagram, disappearing people, immunizing war criminals and multiple decade-long wars shining examples of "the Western way of reason"? How about invading a country on totally false pretenses, shattering and destroying it, and causing the deaths of at least 100,000 human beings?

'Hey - look over there. Muslims. They're waging war on reason and taking over. We have to unite to stop them.'

I don't know.

I guess I'm in a mood, right now, to believe that ANYTHING that has the potential to move the public discourse in this general direction is one step closer to EVERYTHING unraveling.

When I got involved in this movement, which was about 20 seconds after I became enlightened, there were about 343 architects and engineers that had signed on, publicly, at ae911truth.org

Right now, there are 963. The numbers are growing exponentially - if not mathematically, then inspirationally.

My son listens to a guy named, PIttbull, a Latin-American rapper. He took that name because: "The dog "bite[s] to lock and the dog is too stupid to lose."

That's me, "Pitbull for 911 Truth"