RTAmerica — April 30, 2010 — As more oil is poured into the Gulf of Mexico, US President Barack Obama has sent SWAT teams to check out all oil rigs. Alex Jones says that this is all very suspicious, particularly because he says the government is trying to create artificial scarcity of oil in the United States.
Showing posts with label Government Secrets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Secrets. Show all posts
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
OKC Bombing an Inside Job
RDR: SEEKING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OKC BOMBING, GROUP HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE AT STATE CAPITOL
By Andrew W. Griffin - April 15, 2010 5:33 PMOKLAHOMA CITY – An important press conference addressing “unanswered questions” related to the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building was held Thursday afternoon on the second floor of the Oklahoma State Capitol.
These speakers, including American Free Press reporter Pat Shannan, who has reported extensively on the case, to former federal grand jury member Hoppy Heidelberg, the common thread was that the bombing was not accomplished by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols alone, that others were involved, including agents of the federal government.
Among the speakers assembled at the press conference, an event coordinated in part by documentary filmmaker Chris Emery, were Jannie Coverdale, whose two grandchildren, Aaron and Elijah, were killed in the bombing.
“We want to know who blew up the building,” Coverdale said. “I was told to attend the trials in Denver and my questions would be answered. They were not.”
Beyond a form letter from Gov. Brad Henry, which Coverdale promptly tore into small pieces, state and federal politicians have ignored her calls for a true investigation into the bombing and the numerous anomalies surrounding it.
“My grandchildren died in ’95. We lost a lot of babies that day. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about those babies and wonder who killed them,” Coverdale said.
Wendy Painting, a graduate student and researcher from upstate New York told the group that she has been thoroughly investigating various aspects of the bombing.
Noting the 1996 “suicide” of Oklahoma City Police Department Officer Terry Yeakey and the unsolved issues surrounding that case, Painting noted, “Questions can be mortally dangerous.”
Oklahoma City researcher Joe Cooley also spoke and said that after hearing about the Yeakey case he was “horrified.” But he began digging and was soon subject to “surveillance” by people who did not want him to seek the truth.
Cooley said a source told him that Yeakey – who was found brutally murdered in a remote area in Canadian County – had been killed by “federal agents” but that the source could not say much more than that.
Emery, who has been working for several years on a documentary about the mysteries still hanging over the Oklahoma City Bombing, reminded the press that those seeking the truth “have no political agenda” that this is simply “about right and wrong.”
One man who was in a victim of the blast that day in April 1995 was Oklahoma City resident V.Z. Lawton. He recalled feeling the building shake violently before being knocked out by something that hit him on the back of the head.
“I never heard the truck bomb,” Lawton said, who noted that retired USAF Brig. Gen. Ben Partin had reported that the building came down after “explosive devices were wrapped around the columns” of the Murrah building.
“Who wanted that building brought down?” asked Lawton. Speculating, he noted that documents and records related to the Clinton Whitewater case and information detailing BATF involvement in the massacre at the Mt. Carmel compound near Waco, Texas in 1993 were stored in that building and were either removed or destroyed.
Lawton continued and said that up to four “John Doe 2’s” were seen around downtown Oklahoma City that morning, one of which was with McVeigh. He speculated that McVeigh dropped off his accomplice who then stealthily removed the license plate from the ’77 Mercury McVeigh was driving. Lawton wondered if this was done so McVeigh would be caught driving the car without a tag – as he was, hours later, near Perry – and pinned with being the bomber.
Lawton also said that tag – stolen from a vehicle registered in Arkansas - eventually made its way to TV reporter Jayna Davis who then passed it on to the FBI.
Continuing, Harmon Taylor, the Dallas, Texas-based attorney who was granted a 30-day stay of execution of McVeigh in May 2001, spoke more about the legal aspects of the judicial system and how the system did not do things properly, including the fact that the case should never have been transferred to Denver, where the case was ultimately held.
“How does this system continue to murder people and get by with it?” Taylor asked.
Indeed.
Monday, April 19th, is the 15th anniversary of the bombing.
Copyright 2010 West Marie Media
Friday, April 2, 2010
Worst bomber Name... underware bomber really a government goon>!
Was the underwear bomber's father a CIA asset?
Was the underwear bomber's father a CIA asset?
Once again--why, after Umar Abdulmutullab had been denied a visa for entry into the U.S., was the denial reversed?
Abdulmutullab
Good reasons to overturn a visa denial for entry into the United States, when the applicant has been previously refused: Few, limited mainly to error in the previous application reversal. Even applicants who need compassionate succor, according to former foreign service personnel, are supposed to apply for asylum rather than for a visa.
Bad reason--make that the usual reason--for overturning an earlier visa denial: Being leaned on, if you are a consular officer, from above. That is, if your foreign service job in a U.S. consulate abroad is to make judgments about who should be allowed entry into the U.S., according to protocols--rules--clearly laid out, your decision can be reversed only by higher-ups in your organization.
Usual reason for such reversal: The higher-ups are answering to unofficial higher authority at the policy-making level. In a U.S. consulate, that would be--and was--the CIA. (See previous on this topic.)
Why was the identity of Abdulmutallab's father, the fact that his father was a Nigerian bank bigwig, even a factor?
Speaking of spook-related questions--why did Abdulmutullab attempt to set off an explosive device, located in his underwear, where he did, in full view of passengers and crew around him? Why didn't he go inside one of the plane's restrooms, if he really wanted to pull off the job? It is indeed wonderful that no other persons were harmed in the event, but the plan is still puzzling.
Richard Reid made the same inept mistake, attempting to detonate explosives in his shoe after returning from the aft restroom according to the federal filing against him. Reid's remarkably eccentric and rather conspicuous actions, like those of Abdulmutallab, were witnessed by crew members and passengers.
Following his immediate capture, Abdulmutallab talked copiously to law enforcement and other personnel. The synthetic outrage about his being mirandized, hours after the incident, is even more transparently bogus than most rightwing huffs.
Another question regarding the quality of the plan, if you call it that: Has the younger Abdulmutallab ever explained why he did not blow up the plane in the air? Why did Abdulmutallab wait until the plane was about to land, to try to set off his explosive? Why not simply detonate his explosives, whatever they were, when the plane was aloft, where destruction would have been magnified the utmost by gravity--a crash--and where presumably a large debris field and logistical difficulties would have impeded or at least slowed down investigation?
Presumably all the features of Abdulmutallab's projected attack are simply aspects of his ineptitude. They are indeed startlingly inept. Otherwise, why the maximum openness on the flight, himself drawing attention to what he was doing? Why the lengthy Chatty Cathy routine after he got off the plane, before he was mirandized?
Once again--why, after Umar Abdulmutullab had been denied a visa for entry into the U.S., was the denial reversed?
Abdulmutullab
Good reasons to overturn a visa denial for entry into the United States, when the applicant has been previously refused: Few, limited mainly to error in the previous application reversal. Even applicants who need compassionate succor, according to former foreign service personnel, are supposed to apply for asylum rather than for a visa.
Bad reason--make that the usual reason--for overturning an earlier visa denial: Being leaned on, if you are a consular officer, from above. That is, if your foreign service job in a U.S. consulate abroad is to make judgments about who should be allowed entry into the U.S., according to protocols--rules--clearly laid out, your decision can be reversed only by higher-ups in your organization.
Usual reason for such reversal: The higher-ups are answering to unofficial higher authority at the policy-making level. In a U.S. consulate, that would be--and was--the CIA. (See previous on this topic.)
Why was the identity of Abdulmutallab's father, the fact that his father was a Nigerian bank bigwig, even a factor?
Speaking of spook-related questions--why did Abdulmutullab attempt to set off an explosive device, located in his underwear, where he did, in full view of passengers and crew around him? Why didn't he go inside one of the plane's restrooms, if he really wanted to pull off the job? It is indeed wonderful that no other persons were harmed in the event, but the plan is still puzzling.
Richard Reid made the same inept mistake, attempting to detonate explosives in his shoe after returning from the aft restroom according to the federal filing against him. Reid's remarkably eccentric and rather conspicuous actions, like those of Abdulmutallab, were witnessed by crew members and passengers.
Following his immediate capture, Abdulmutallab talked copiously to law enforcement and other personnel. The synthetic outrage about his being mirandized, hours after the incident, is even more transparently bogus than most rightwing huffs.
Another question regarding the quality of the plan, if you call it that: Has the younger Abdulmutallab ever explained why he did not blow up the plane in the air? Why did Abdulmutallab wait until the plane was about to land, to try to set off his explosive? Why not simply detonate his explosives, whatever they were, when the plane was aloft, where destruction would have been magnified the utmost by gravity--a crash--and where presumably a large debris field and logistical difficulties would have impeded or at least slowed down investigation?
Presumably all the features of Abdulmutallab's projected attack are simply aspects of his ineptitude. They are indeed startlingly inept. Otherwise, why the maximum openness on the flight, himself drawing attention to what he was doing? Why the lengthy Chatty Cathy routine after he got off the plane, before he was mirandized?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Leaked CIA Report
Leaked CIA Report: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters" In Waging Endless Wars
A leaked CIA report says:
Public apathy enables leaders to ignore voters.
The report is discussing apathy among the French and German people to their countries' involvement in the war in Afghanistan, but the same is true to the apathy of Americans towards the Iraq and other wars as well.
For a little background on the manipulation of public opinion, see this and this.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
PROMISES, PROMISES, Lies and more Lies: Records not so open with Obama
PROMISES, PROMISES, Lies and more Lies: Records not so open with Obama
Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes.
Major agencies cited the exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored.
The government's track record under the Freedom of Information Act is widely considered a principal measurement of how transparently it makes decisions. When Obama promised last year to be more open he said doing so "encourages accountability through transparency," and said: "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."
In a new statement Tuesday, Obama noted the release of White Housevisitor logs and federal data online in recent months said his administration was recommitted "to be the most open and transparent ever."
"We are proud of these accomplishments, but our work is not done," Obama said. "We will continue to work toward an unmatched level of transparency, participation and accountability across the entire administration."
Also Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House Counsel Bob Bauerurged agencies to improve their handling of information requests and assess whether they are devoting the resources needed to respond to requests promptly and cooperatively.
The AP's review of annualFreedom of Information Actreports filed by 17 major agencies found that the administration's use of nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions to withhold information from the public increased during fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.
The agencies cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Over the same period, the number of information requests declined by about 11 percent, from 493,610 requests in fiscal 2008 to 444,924 in 2009.
The administration has stalled even over records about its own efforts to be more transparent. The AP is still waiting—after nearly three months—for records it requested about the White House's "Open Government Directive," rules it issued in December directing every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public.
The White House on Tuesday described the directive as "historic," but the Office of Management and Budget still has not responded to AP's request under the Freedom of Information Act to review internal e-mails and other documents related to that effort.
The Federal Aviation Administration cited the deliberative process exemption in refusing AP's request for internal memos on its decisions about data showing collisions between airplanes and birds. The FAAinitially tried to withhold the bird-strike database from the public, but later released it under pressure.
The FAA claimed the same exemption to withhold nearly all records about its approval for Air Force One to fly over New York City for publicity shots—a flight that prompted fears in the city of a Sept. 11-style attack. It also withheld internal communications during the aftermath of the public relations gaffe.
Other exemptions cover information on national defense and foreign relations, internal agency rules and practices, trade secrets, personal privacy, law enforcement proceedings, supervision of financial institutions and geological information on wells.
One, known as Exemption 3, covers dozens of types of information thatCongress shielded from disclosure when passing other laws.
In provisions often vaguely worded and buried deep in legislation,Congress has granted an array of special protection over the years: information related to grand jury investigations, additives in cigarettes, juvenile arrest records, the identities of people applying restricted-use pesticides to their crops, and the locations of historically significant caves. All can be legally withheld from the public.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy,D-Vt., was so concerned about what he called "exemption creep" that last year he successfully pressed for a new law that requires exemptions to be "clear and unambiguous."
The federal government cited Exemption 3 protections to withhold information at least 14,442 times in the last budget year, compared with at least 13,599 in the previous one.
Earlier this week, Attorney General Eric Holder said the government is making progress. In a speech Monday at the start of Sunshine Week,when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information, Holder noted that the Justice Department turned over all documents in information requests in more than 1,000 more cases than it had the previous year.
"Put simply, I asked that we make openness the default, not the exception," Holder said. "I'm pleased to report that the disturbing 2008 trend—a reduction in this department's rate of disclosures—has been completely reversed. While we aren't where we need to be just yet, we're certainly on the right path."
Much of the Obama administration's early effort seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still waiting past deadlines spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year. There is no way to tell whether people whose cases were closed ultimately received the information they sought.
The AP examined the 2008 and 2009 budget year audits from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy,Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasuryand Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; and theFederal Reserve Board.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EFRPJG0&show_article=1
Obama Afraid of a New Investigation into the 2001 Anthrax Attacks
Obama Veto Is Threatened on 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure as agencies call for a new investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks
March 15, 2010, 6:16 PM EDTBy Jeff Bliss
March 15 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama probably would veto legislation authorizing the next budget for U.S. intelligence agencies if it calls for a new investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, an administration official said.
A proposed probe by the intelligence agencies’ inspector general “would undermine public confidence” in an FBI probe of the attacks “and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions,” Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
On Feb. 19, the Obama administration released a 92-page summary of a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe that said the late Bruce Ivins, a government scientist, was behind the attacks. Lawmakers including Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, have questioned the thoroughness of the investigation.
Anthrax-laced letters sent to lawmakers and news outlets nine years ago infected 22 people, killing five.
Orszag said the administration also opposes other provisions in the intelligence budget that allow more scrutiny of spy operations. “The president’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill” unless those restrictions are removed, he said.
The White House objects to provisions that would require all members of the intelligence committees to receive briefings on matters that now are disclosed only to senior congressional leaders known as the “gang of eight,” Orszag said.
The administration also opposes letting the General Accountability Office, Congress’s auditing arm, conduct investigations of spy activities, he said.
The House and Senate are preparing to meet to resolve differences between their versions of the legislation.
Top Government stories: TOP GOV
--Editors: Jim Rubin, Don Frederick
To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jim Kirk at jkirk12@bloomberg.net
Related Articles
Monday, March 15, 2010
Court Rules Mercury-Containing Immunizations are Good for You... so go back to sleep
Court Rules Against Autism-Vaccine Link
|
Friday that were attempting to establish a link between
mercury-containing immunizations and autism, prompting
outrage among parents convinced of the connection.
Critics have accused the hearings of impropriety, citing the
fact that the Department of Health and Human Services was
a defendant in the case while producing and funding much
of the evidence purporting to exonerate the vaccines at taxpayer expense.
Mother Laura Bono, for example, one of the parents whose case was
dismissed, called the process “dysfunctional” and said that the law only
provides the illusion of having a day in court.
Other parents were equally disappointed by the ruling. "The deck is stacked
Coalition for Vaccine Safety. “Government attorneys defend a government
program, using government-funded science, before government judges.
Where's the justice in that?" After the rulings, an attorney for the group also
said it would seek congressional intervention and that several government
experts had provided fraudulent testimony.
Other organizations are also calling the proceedings into question. "Find
me another industry where the U.S. government defends their product in
court and funds the science that exonerates them," said Generation Rescue
founder J.B. Handley, also the father of an autistic child. "The average
citizen has no hope."
Analysts said the decision dealt a severe blow to the more than 5,300
similar cases pending before the special court, part of the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims. In 1986, the federal government created the courts
and established a tax-funded “National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program” to pay victims and protect drug companies from liability.
In the court decisions, the judge-like Special Masters ruled that the
science did not support the mercury-autism link. "The Meads believe
that [mercury-based preservative] thimerosal-containing vaccines
caused William's regressive autism,” wrote Special Master George
Hastings, a former tax expert with the Department of Justice, in his
ruling. “The undersigned finds that the Meads have not presented a
scientifically sound theory." The other two cases were thrown out using
similar arguments.
For years, countless parents of children with autism have blamed
mercury in vaccines for the illness. Mercury is, after all, a known
neurotoxin with devastating effects on the human body. But the
movement was dealt another blow earlier this year when a respected
However, the pro-mercury camp also came under fire recently. Dr. Poul
Thorsen, a scientist working for the U.S. government who published
one of the most important studies used to debunk the mercury-autism
dollars. The study in question has also attracted widespread criticism
Despite the angered parents, however, some groups saw the court ruling
as a positive step in putting the issue to rest. "It's time to move forward
and look for the real causes of autism," explained Autism Science
Foundation President Alison Singer. "There is not a bottomless pit of
money with which to fund autism science. We have to use our scarce
resources wisely."
But the battle is still far from over, according to anti-mercury campaigners.
Appeals to the vaccine court ruling are considered very likely. And last
makers from liability.
The case against pharmaceutical giant Wyeth is expect to begin in the
fall. After receiving the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, a six-month-old
girl began suffering a series of complications including seizures. An appeals
court in Pennsylvania ruled that the parents could not sue the drug maker
because of the 1986 law creating the vaccine courts that specifically
shielded manufacturers from liability. But a conflicting ruling in Georgia
said some lawsuits could be brought under state law, so the Supreme Court
is now expected to resolve the matter.
The battle over whether mercury in vaccines is linked to the epidemic of
one in four parents still believe there is a connection. But regardless of
what the truth regarding this issue is, federal laws purporting to exempt
manufacturers from liability in the event of adverse reactions are not only
unconstitutional, they are ridiculous. Why should tax payers assume the
risk while drug companies rake in billions? The special courts and the law
which created them should be dismantled so that evidence can be heard
in a proper venue.
Friday, March 12, 2010
French bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment
An American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD
In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.
For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War.
The mystery of Le Pain Maudit (Cursed Bread) still haunts the inhabitants of Pont-Saint-Esprit, in the Gard, southeast France.
On August 16, 1951, the inhabitants were suddenly racked with frightful hallucinations of terrifying beasts and fire.
One man tried to drown himself, screaming that his belly was being eaten by snakes. An 11-year-old tried to strangle his grandmother. Another man shouted: "I am a plane", before jumping out of a second-floor window, breaking his legs. He then got up and carried on for 50 yards. Another saw his heart escaping through his feet and begged a doctor to put it back. Many were taken to the local asylum in strait jackets.
Time magazine wrote at the time: "Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds, screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to molten lead."
Eventually, it was determined that the best-known local baker had unwittingly contaminated his flour with ergot, a hallucinogenic mould that infects rye grain. Another theory was the bread had been poisoned with organic mercury.
However, H P Albarelli Jr., an investigative journalist, claims the outbreak resulted from a covert experiment directed by the CIA and the US Army's top-secret Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
The scientists who produced both alternative explanations, he writes, worked for the Swiss-based Sandoz Pharmaceutical Company, which was then secretly supplying both the Army and CIA with LSD.
Mr Albarelli came across CIA documents while investigating the suspicious suicide of Frank Olson, a biochemist working for the SOD who fell from a 13th floor window two years after the Cursed Bread incident. One note transcribes a conversation between a CIA agent and a Sandoz official who mentions the "secret of Pont-Saint-Esprit" and explains that it was not "at all" caused by mould but by diethylamide, the D in LSD.
While compiling his book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments, Mr Albarelli spoke to former colleagues of Mr Olson, two of whom told him that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was part of a mind control experiment run by the CIA and US army.
After the Korean War the Americans launched a vast research programme into the mental manipulation of prisoners and enemy troops.
Scientists at Fort Detrick told him that agents had sprayed LSD into the air and also contaminated "local foot products".
Mr Albarelli said the real "smoking gun" was a White House document sent to members of the Rockefeller Commission formed in 1975 to investigate CIA abuses. It contained the names of a number of French nationals who had been secretly employed by the CIA and made direct reference to the "Pont St. Esprit incident." In its quest to research LSD as an offensive weapon, Mr Albarelli claims, the US army also drugged over 5,700 unwitting American servicemen between 1953 and 1965.
None of his sources would indicate whether the French secret services were aware of the alleged operation. According to US news reports, French intelligence chiefs have demanded the CIA explain itself following the book's revelations. French intelligence officially denies this.
Locals in Pont-Saint-Esprit still want to know why they were hit by such apocalyptic scenes. "At the time people brought up the theory of an experiment aimed at controlling a popular revolt," said Charles Granjoh, 71.
"I almost kicked the bucket," he told the weekly French magazine Les Inrockuptibles. "I'd like to know why."
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010
Panic Legislation: The Wrong Response
JURIST Guest Columnist Amos Guiora of the University of Utah College of Law says that the McCain-Lieberman military detention bill recently introduced in the Senate is yet another unfortunate instance of US national security legislation being driven by panic instead of principle.....
T
The proposed bill mandates that any person detained on suspicion of terrorist acts or material support for terrorism be placed in military custody. The detainee will not be entitled to Miranda rights and will remain in detention – and can be interrogated – while the Executive Branch makes a status determination. If determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the detainee will be held until the end of hostilities. Needless to say, unlike the POW in the war paradigm, for detainees, end of hostilities in the terrorism paradigm is a euphemism for ‘indefinite detention’.
The legislation’s panic response can be seen not only in the due process and rights denied, but in the categories of persons it addresses. By encompassing those suspected of material support for terrorism – a federal crime indeed but never part of the law of war – the bill subjects an extraordinarily broad group of persons to indefinite detention.
The proposed legislation’s impact would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice created by the unconstitutional denial of the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to be free from arbitrary, let alone indefinite detention, and the right to a day in court.
Past practice in the US and abroad demonstrates, unfortunately, that panic and the desire to respond plays a dominant role over legitimate national security interests, respect for constitutional and international law considerations and careful analysis of the threat posed. That is, the response becomes what is important; its legitimacy and justification take a back seat. While terrorism poses a threat, that threat does not justify throwing our principles out the door in panic.
After the December 13, 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) created an overly broad definition of terrorism, and provided for detention of suspects for up to three months without charge. On September 17, 2004, the new elected Indian government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that it would honor its election pledge to repeal the POTA, which dispensed with the presumption of innocence, allowed the compulsory denial of bail, and enabled the admissibility of confessions despite the rampant use of torture and coercion by police and security forces.
In the aftermath of the Passover eve bombing in Netanya, Israel, considered one of the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history, Israel extended the time for detention of Palestinians suspected of involvement in terrorism to 18 days without judicial review. In striking down the law, the High Court of Justice made two key observations. First, the legislation was a classic example of a short-term response that did not address the long-term impact or issues of morality and legality. Second, democracies must adopt self-imposed restraints, recognizing that they must fight terrorism with “one arm behind their backs.”
Republicans and Democrats alike have failed to articulate, create and implement a lawful interrogation, detention and trial regime for post-9/11 detainees. That is shameful and reflects negatively on two Presidents, the Congress and the Supreme Court.
The real issue runs deeper: how does American society define itself in the context of terrorism – by the rule of law or the rule of fear? The proposed McCain-Lieberman bill suggests a problematic stop-gap measure that significantly violates the rights of suspects. The examples from India and Israel highlight the danger of panic legislation, ultimately overturned.
Although we must address - and resolve – the trinity of detention, interrogation and trial, discarding core principles is not the way. I have proposed the establishment of national security court in conjunction withMiranda guarantees for detainees. A protectionless interrogation regime predicated on indefinite detention does not contribute to counterterrorism. All it does is reflect panic. That has not worked before – why should it work now?
Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at SJ Quinney College of Law, the University of Utah; his latest book isFreedom from Religion: Rights and National Security (Oxford University Press, 2009).
 | |
| |
The proposed bill mandates that any person detained on suspicion of terrorist acts or material support for terrorism be placed in military custody. The detainee will not be entitled to Miranda rights and will remain in detention – and can be interrogated – while the Executive Branch makes a status determination. If determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the detainee will be held until the end of hostilities. Needless to say, unlike the POW in the war paradigm, for detainees, end of hostilities in the terrorism paradigm is a euphemism for ‘indefinite detention’.
The legislation’s panic response can be seen not only in the due process and rights denied, but in the categories of persons it addresses. By encompassing those suspected of material support for terrorism – a federal crime indeed but never part of the law of war – the bill subjects an extraordinarily broad group of persons to indefinite detention.
The proposed legislation’s impact would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice created by the unconstitutional denial of the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to be free from arbitrary, let alone indefinite detention, and the right to a day in court.
Past practice in the US and abroad demonstrates, unfortunately, that panic and the desire to respond plays a dominant role over legitimate national security interests, respect for constitutional and international law considerations and careful analysis of the threat posed. That is, the response becomes what is important; its legitimacy and justification take a back seat. While terrorism poses a threat, that threat does not justify throwing our principles out the door in panic.
After the December 13, 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) created an overly broad definition of terrorism, and provided for detention of suspects for up to three months without charge. On September 17, 2004, the new elected Indian government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that it would honor its election pledge to repeal the POTA, which dispensed with the presumption of innocence, allowed the compulsory denial of bail, and enabled the admissibility of confessions despite the rampant use of torture and coercion by police and security forces.
In the aftermath of the Passover eve bombing in Netanya, Israel, considered one of the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history, Israel extended the time for detention of Palestinians suspected of involvement in terrorism to 18 days without judicial review. In striking down the law, the High Court of Justice made two key observations. First, the legislation was a classic example of a short-term response that did not address the long-term impact or issues of morality and legality. Second, democracies must adopt self-imposed restraints, recognizing that they must fight terrorism with “one arm behind their backs.”
Republicans and Democrats alike have failed to articulate, create and implement a lawful interrogation, detention and trial regime for post-9/11 detainees. That is shameful and reflects negatively on two Presidents, the Congress and the Supreme Court.
The real issue runs deeper: how does American society define itself in the context of terrorism – by the rule of law or the rule of fear? The proposed McCain-Lieberman bill suggests a problematic stop-gap measure that significantly violates the rights of suspects. The examples from India and Israel highlight the danger of panic legislation, ultimately overturned.
Although we must address - and resolve – the trinity of detention, interrogation and trial, discarding core principles is not the way. I have proposed the establishment of national security court in conjunction withMiranda guarantees for detainees. A protectionless interrogation regime predicated on indefinite detention does not contribute to counterterrorism. All it does is reflect panic. That has not worked before – why should it work now?
Amos N. Guiora is Professor of Law at SJ Quinney College of Law, the University of Utah; his latest book isFreedom from Religion: Rights and National Security (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Twelve New England towns demand 9/11 reinvestigation
Twelve New England towns demand 9/11 reinvestigation
Published 04 March, 2010, 07:21
Edited 09 March, 2010, 14:21
A new movement to reinvestigate the 9/11 attacks is gaining pace in the US. With major public support, 12 towns are set to decide whether to ask the federal government for a new independent probe.
New Hampshire is the Granite State of so-called self sufficiency. Less flash and cash, most famous for hosting the first U.S. presidential primary.New York is dubbed as the Empire State for its wealth and resources and is rightfully regarded as America’s most famous city, a beacon of fashion, finance and fast paced action.
New York and New Hampshire are more than 200 miles apart, but for all that distance, the two US locations intersect on one issue: the 9/11 attacks. While it was in Manhattan where three buildings fell, the people of Keene, New Hampshire are pushing for a new probe to find out why.
At 81 years old, Gerhard Bedding devotes nearly all his time to the Vote for Answers campaign. Though the movement for a new 9/11 investigation began in the Big Apple, it’s seeing more success in New Hampshire.
“This is so central to the future of this country. There is no future, as far as I’m concerned, if we do not get to the bottom of this, because we steep in lies upon lies, and soon we do not know what is what anymore,” Bedding said. “I do believe truth matters.”
Apparently, so do thousands of others. Twelve towns are making a new 9/11 inquiry a ballot box issue this spring. Voters heading to the polls will vote on a non-binding resolution that supporters hope eventually sparks momentum and legislative power nationwide.
Hundreds of citizens are expressing a desire to find out “the real truth” and are attending meetings where local experts, such as physicist John Wyndam, present alternative 9/11 theories, specifically surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Seven and the Twin Towers.
“Basically it is impossible for the top 12 stories to have crushed the lower structure with acceleration. Physically impossible and yet that is what you observe,”claimed Wyndam.
While most elected officials have ignored cries for a 9/11 probe, former Keene mayor Mike Blastos is an exception.
“The two biggest tragedies I can recall other than world wars concerning America was Kennedy’s assassination and the attack on 9/11. And they both remain completely unanswered,” Blastos said.
The 9/11 commission, like the Warren Commission, left millions of Americans doubtful over the official government’s version. Bedding withholds accusations, but demands answers.
“I do not like to speculate who did what, or who let something happening. That should be found out. Building 7 was not even mentioned in the original report. But I do know that a building that has not been hit by an airplane, such as Building 7, does not come down like perfectly controlled demolition.”
New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence from England in 1776. Only time will tell if the first sovereign US state will be where the push for a new 9/11 investigation could prevail.
http://rt.com/Politics/2010-03-04/twelve-new-england-towns.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=link}