by Russ Baker
What in the world is the FBI up to at Guantanamo? Why is it harassing the defense team of the accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices?
The FBI is hip-deep in yet another dubious activity but, this time, even the not-so-adventurous New York Times is kinda-sorta on the trail. The self-proclaimed “paper of record” has produced several articles, albeit confusing ones, on the mysterious doings of our much-vaunted national police force.
What should be made clear is that by connecting a few dots, one can make out a major—even explosive—story hiding just out of plain sight. This story has a lot to do with the larger pattern of FBI misbehavior and points to at least one of the reasons why we never get better, more complete answers about the events of 9/11.
"In April, 2013, a savage attack is unleashed at the Boston Marathon, disrupting an iconic American event. Innocent people lose limbs and lives, America is traumatized anew, and a large American city is “locked down” while normal processes and procedures are abandoned. We are told that Tsarnaev and his younger brother are responsible for all this–and for the cold-blooded execution of a campus police officer several days later.
Yet our sense of certainty that the Tsarnaevs did this—and did it alone without America’s security apparatus knowing a thing—is actually dependent largely on the say-so of one person, one witness. While we’ve been told that authorities have definitive proof, including a video showing the brothers leaving the backpack with the bomb, we’ve never actually seen it.
Thus, the problems we have uncovered with the witness’s testimony (as represented by law enforcement) now raise questions about almost everything concerning what has been described as the largest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11".
New York Times Warning: Trust Authorities on Boston Bombing, or You’re Nuts By Russ Baker on May 31, 2013
New York Times Warning: Trust Authorities on Boston Bombing, or You’re Nuts
By Russ Baker on May 31, 2013
Like most of the corporate media, the New York Times has been largely AWOL from investigations of disturbing events like the Boston bombing, 9/11, and Bush’s misleading the public into war. But it’s right out there on the front lines fighting against those who ask questions.. And the fighting is dirty.
A huge story can set off alarm bells everywhere, but somehow, with ever increasing frequency, we note the silence of the mainstream media. Having avoided doing its job, it then protects its flank by denigrating those who call for inquiries.
This Is Your Brain on CT
A recent example is this Times article: “Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories.” It is illustrated with a Victorian diagram of the brain, updated to show the conspiracy theorist’s brain–with a flying saucer inside. The message is unmistakable: if you believe in any conspiracy (i.e., organized but deliberately hidden effort or operation) at all, you also believe in flying saucers carrying little green men.
The article reinforces this implication.
Why? Because we see a lot of problems with what we’ve been told so far. We’ve been disappointed that the media have failed to demonstrate healthy skepticism while passing along, unchallenged, the (self-serving) assertions of “the authorities.”
It is the job of journalism not only to report what authorities say, but also to confirm their claims, and address anomalies, errors, inconsistencies, outright lies, and cover-ups, large and small.
RFK Assassination Legal Case Update
By Russ Baker
Published on Mar 13, 2013
Abby Martin talks to Russ Baker, managing editor of WhoWhatWhy.com, about President Obama withholding more than 50 thousand pages of JFK assassination-related documents and outlines the unanswered questions about the case.
When the United States decided to invade Afghanistan to grab Osama bin Laden—and failed, but stayed on like an unwanted guest—could it have known that the Afghans were sitting on some of the world’s greatest reserves of mineral wealth?
By Russ Baker on Jul 31, 2012
History has shown us, however, that acts of violence, with or without declared sponsorship, are not the exclusive province of crazy loners or renegade regimes. In fact, we know from experience that, as horrendous as it sounds, those in power have sometimes terrorized their own populace while blaming the violence on others. The reasons for this vary widely, but include justifying retributive acts abroad or domestic repression.
One classic technique of creating disorder to justify subsequent repression or military action is the “false flag” attack, so named to describe a ship’s flying an enemy flag while attacking one of its own country’s vessels. The cases in which such attacks were intended to become the basis for a severe reaction could fill a book. Here are a few:
Is the Government Holding Back Crucial Documents? Would you like to know what the government really knows about the death of JFK? About 9/11? Other big mysteries? It’s “eat your broccoli time!” Here’s why you should pay attention to federal policy on releasing—and not releasing—documents.
By Russ Baker on May 30, 2012
Next year will be a half-century since the death of JFK. And the Obama Administration thinks we need to keep secret the records on the matter….a little longer yet.
Believe it or not, more than 50,000 pages of JFK assassination-related documents are being withheld in full. And an untold number of documents have been partially withheld, or released with everything interesting blacked out. But why?
Since the government and the big media keep telling us there was no conspiracy, and that it was all Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, why continue to keep the wraps on?
We don’t have an answer, but in understanding this and any number of other mysteries, we can begin looking for patterns in the way the administration handles information policy.
From a piece over at his very excellent Whowhatwhy.com, Russ Baker dissects the NBC charade of "White House Exclusive" on the Bin Laden killing. I know Russ has made statements here and there around the web about 9/11 Truth and it doesn't seem to be in our camp....but this kind of reporting has an implicit feeling that he does understand the crime of the 21st century happened in front of our faces and continues.
"The lesson that NBC is kind enough to offer seems to be this: We’re further than ever from having public officials who level with us, and we’re further than ever from having large news organizations that….do actual journalism. (On a tenth of Brian Williams’ salary, WhoWhatWhy could field a whole team of real journalists who ask real questions.) Oh, and one more lesson—that all those people must think we’re really, really, stupid".
By Russ Baker on May 1, 2012
Crime is going down in America, but more Americans than ever are in prison—and more and more money is being spent and made turning this country into a giant armed camp.
At WhoWhatWhy, we know you’re busy. So we’re going to give you the key points here in bullet form (links in box at bottom):
-America’s system of detaining and monitoring “criminals” impacts more people than ever before. Including those who are either in some form of incarceration or in the parole and probation process, you’re looking at an affected population of….six million. One out of every 100 Americans is behind bars now. And every year, about 13 million Americans spend some time in jail for at least a brief spell.
-State legislators faced with dwindling revenues are eager to offload inmates to “cheap” private facilities
-The private prison industry grew 350 percent over the past fifteen years.
By Russ Baker on Apr 10, 2012
Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?
We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.
Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”
The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious. For example, scores, perhaps hundreds of credible eyewitnesses have cast doubt on the official “lone kook” scenario that is a staple of every domestic assassination.
But these whistleblowers are quickly discredited, suppressed, or worse. From time to time people even come out of the national security establishment to testify to such wrongdoing, but they almost always pay a heavy price –which of course discourages others from bearing witness.
From Russ Baker's
"Tantalizing but untrue. The back story is revealing about the tragic ways in which the public is jerked around: manipulated and lied to both by the government and by irresponsible critics of the government who benefit from selling fear and scandal. ** The kerfuffle over Osama’s body got impetus recently when the website WikiLeaks began publishing a vast trove of e-mails from the private US security company Stratfor.
They had been obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous and its splinter group Lulzsec. Quite a few of the e-mails are interesting, but one set stood out. They were from the day after the US raid on a Pakistani compound where, we are told, Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, then flew his body to a ship, whence it was dumped in the ocean.
Suddenly, the “Saudi-9/11 connection” is on the table for the media. But it certainly wasn’t, for the longest time.
Our story about apparent Saudi royal ties to the 9/11 hijackers caused a minor sensation via social media sharing when it came out in September, 2011, but was resolutely ignored by virtually all news organizations, including the vaunted online “alternative media.” Not surprisingly, the traditional corporate-owned mainstream media (MSM) managed to ignore the massive revelations—even though they were documented in exactly the same manner that the traditional media uses, and they were on a topic of tremendous importance and public interest.
We know they ignored it because we know them, and we sent it to them. And we heard that it would be and was being ignored. They were only willing to do maudlin, “human interest” stories for the 10th anniversary of this monumental and still-mysterious event.
Now, however, the MSM has suddenly found a “safe” way into the dark underbelly: Let officials’ statements pave the route. Here’s the New York Times:
Read the Full Story: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/03/05/medias-belated-acknowledgment-of-saudi-911-story/
Russ Baker on Deep History and Little-Known Origins of Current Problems
Russ Baker talks about deep history, the origins of the intelligence establishment, the military-industrial-financial-oil complex, the JFK assassination, and his book Family of Secrets, with Craig Barnes on KSFR-FM, Santa Fe, NM, January 27, 2012