Posts Tagged ‘Yemen’

Why the assassination of al-Awlaki is the final nail in the democratic coffin called America

October 3, 2011

By Dark Politricks

So the USA has finally gone and done it.

They have joined the likes of countries that they have denounced and even fought against over the years. Countries such as the Soviet Union, Libya, East Germany and many others who carried out extra judicial executions on their own citizens.

For all those people cheering the death of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by a done strike as something to be cheerful about I would say that you are an idiot and in all likelihood you have no conception of the enormity of the event that has just occurred in your countries name.

The USA has now executed one of it’s own citizens without any form of due process.

They have killed a US citizen abroad without any attempt at capture, imprisonment and trial and now that a precedent has been set – under a supposedly democratic president – the scope of these killings will only continue.

You might not like al-Awlaki, you might despise the things he says but investigate reporters and intelligence specialists have gone on record to state that he was not the head of al-Qaeda in Yemen as the lame stream media keep parroting.

In fact he wasn’t even a middle man in the loose confederation of like minded opponents to US and Israeli foreign policy who call themselves (or usually others call them) al-Qaeda and his status as “chief of external operations” for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula only came after his death by drone strike.

Even though the media like to think otherwise, he hasn’t been directly linked to any terrorist attack, and any claims to the contrary have yet to be proven. If evidence actually existed that linked this US citizen to terrorism and criminal organisations then there would have been no reason not to capture him for trial and punishment.

US Special forces are stationed all over the globe and as we supposedly saw with the attack in Abbottabad, Pakistan when Bin Laden supposedly died. The US government has no problem at all entering other countries airspace with or without jurisdiction and carrying out snatch n grab or as we are getting used to “hits” on their enemies.

Therefore in light of the lack of firm proof we should err on the side of caution because we all know where faulty intelligence gets us don’t we i.e war in Iraq, and probably coming soon Iran.

No despite all the unnamed sources claiming otherwise al-Awlaki was just someone who went on YouTube and spouted off now and then. Freedom of speech? Not if it goes outside the boundaries of what your POTUS wants you to think about.

We all know after 9.11 that he was outspoken about the attacks, denouncing them and even being invited to Government meetings – even dining at the Pentagon – before becoming disillusioned with the US response to the attack and moving to Yemen.

Therefore to claim that some major al-Qaeda terrorist has been slain by a righteous US automated fist in the sky is disingenuous at the least especially after we just helped arm them so that they could overthrow the Libyan government.

If he was a radical it was because he, like many other Americans, saw the US war on terror as nothing more than a land and resource grab that killed thousands of innocent Muslims and did nothing for American safety apart from creating a police state at home. He may have been classified as an enemy but he was still an American citizen.

His death is the final nail in the coffin of a free America as his murder is a sign that the US has moved that final step we had all feared into the realms of “the missing”, Cheney’s death squads and the President as the ultimate decider on who lives and dies.

We all know that the US Police have been shooting poor blacks and other ethnic people in the back on train station platforms for years and your great free country doesn’t mind the slightest if it’s ally and paymaster Israel executes you in full view of cameras on the high seas, with multiple shots to the head and back as you lie helpless on the floor. This has been the norm for some time now.

However I wonder if the outcry about al-Awlaki’s execution would be any different if he was white and was named Joe Six Pack Anderson instead.

What if he hadn’t of been spouting off about the war on Muslims but instead been attacking the TSA for groping his kid at an airport or demanding that the FED be audited?

What if he was just an American who had lost his job due to the financial meltdown and had been protesting on Wall St about the massive robbery being committed daily by US banksters on the Middle Class.

What if he were a Ron Paul supporting, gun owning, liberty loving good old American who just wanted to live in a country that wasn’t permanently at war and who was vehemently against the fact that his country was planning to use similar automated killing machine drones at home.

You might not have liked al-Awlaki or agreed with anything he said but in the light of any evidence to the contrary he shouldn’t have been executed without due process.

As an American citizen abroad he surely should have been accorded the same rights as an US citizen whether or not he was Muslim and against US foreign policy.

If he was involved in al-Qaeda in anyway, he should have been captured alive and then tried in a court of law before being convicted if the proof was beyond reasonable doubt. That is how supposedly democratic liberal nations handle their citizens when they break the law. They do not execute them on demand. We leave that sort of behaviour to countries like North Korea.

Just try to look past the Muslim sounding name and see the fact that an American citizen has just been killed on the President’s say so due to his political belief’s. If that doesn’t scare you in the slightest then I can only imagine the sort of FOX News watching and believing, ignoramus you most certainly are.

The Remaining Questions From Flight 253 And A Discussion Of The Possibilities

February 1, 2010

Kurt Haskell
Haskell Family Blog
Monday, February 1st, 2010

The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.

1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?

1. Who is the Man in Orange?

The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?

The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:

The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:

“Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon”.

The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:

1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.

There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.

While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.

The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?

2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:

1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from “Sudan”, which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.

The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:

1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.

3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?

The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab’s bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:

1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:

1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.

4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?

This is possibly the most important question to be answered.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named “Umar Farouk” would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff’s ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it’s citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab’s bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab’s underwear and may have been difficult to find.

5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?

One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.

The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).

The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:

1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.

6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?

Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:

1. “Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the ‘Sharp Dressed Man’. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out”.
2. “Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal”?
3. “I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened”.

Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.

The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:

1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.

The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to “shut me up”.

1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:

“The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy”.

This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.

7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?

It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the “official” story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.

I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.

Pentagon to Send More Special Forces Troops to Yemen

January 31, 2010

YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Wall St Journal
Sunday, January 31st, 2010

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon is assigning more special forces personnel to Yemen as part of a broad push to speed the training of the country’s counterterror forces in the wake of the failed Christmas Day attack on a crowded U.S. airliner.

Military officials familiar with the matter said the U.S. will begin rotating the same groups of special forces personnel through Yemen and keeping some of the elite troops there for longer tours, changes designed to help the American trainers develop closer relationships with their Yemeni counterparts.

The officials declined to specify how many new troops will be arriving in Yemen, but said it would be a significant increase above the roughly 200 special forces personnel who are currently in Yemen at any one time.

“The numbers are definitely going to grow,” said one military official familiar with the emerging plan, which is expected to be formally approved within weeks. “This will be a much more robust effort pretty much across the board.”

Full article here

The Obama Administration's Cover-up of the Flight 253 Affair

January 30, 2010

“New Smoking Gun” Disclosures

Global Research
Tom Burghardt

Relevant questions begging for answers include: Who made the decision not to “connect the dots”? Are right-wing elements and holdovers from the previous administration actively conspiring to destabilize the Obama government? Was the attempted bombing a planned provocation meant to incite new conflicts in the Middle East and restrict democratic rights at home?

As with the 9/11 attacks, these questions go unasked by corporate media. Indeed, such lines of inquiry are entirely off the table and are further signs that a cover-up is in full-swing, not a hard-hitting investigation.

Nearly one month after passengers foiled an attempted suicide bomb attack aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day, new information reveals that the White House and U.S. security agencies had specific intelligence on accused terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, far earlier than previously acknowledged.

Along with new reports, evidence suggests that the administration’s cover-up of the affair has very little to do with a failure by the intelligence apparatus to “connect the dots” and may have far more serious political implications for the Obama administration, and what little remains of a functioning democracy in the United States, than a botched bombing.

What the White House and security officials have previously described only as “vague” intercepts regarding “a Nigerian” has now morphed into a clear picture of the suspect–and the plot.

The New York Times revealed January 18 that the National Security Agency “learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named “Umar Farouk”–the first two names of the jetliner suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab–had volunteered for a coming operation.”

According to Times’ journalists Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “the American intelligence network was clearly listening in Yemen and sharing that information.” Indeed, additional NSA intercepts in December “mentioned the date of Dec. 25, and suggested that they were ‘looking for ways to get somebody out’ or ‘for ways to move people to the West,’ one senior administration official said.”

Clearly, the administration was “worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday.” These concerns led President Obama to meet December 22 “with top officials of the C.I.A., F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, who ticked off a list of possible plots against the United States and how their agencies were working to disrupt them,” the Times reports.

“In a separate White House meeting that day” the Times disclosed, “Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, John O. Brennan, led talks on Yemen, where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target, on Christmas Day.”

In mid-January, Newsweek reported that the “White House report on the foiled Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing provided only the sketchiest of details about what may have been the most politically sensitive of its findings: how the White House itself was repeatedly warned about the prospect of an attack on the U.S.,” Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff disclosed.

According to the newsmagazine, “intelligence analysts had ‘highlighted’ an evolving ‘strategic threat,'” and that “‘some of the improvised explosive device tactics AQAP might use against U.S. interests were highlighted’ in other ‘finished intelligence products’.”

However, the real bombshell came last Wednesday during hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Bushist embed, and current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission.

CongressDaily reported on January 22 that intelligence officials “have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities.”

Leiter told the Committee: “I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another.”

CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm, citing an unnamed “intelligence official” confirmed that Leiter’s statement reflected government policy and told the publication, “in certain situations it’s to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts.”

An alternative explanation fully in line with well-documented inaction, or worse, by U.S. security agencies prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and now, Christmas Day’s aborted airline bombing, offer clear evidence that a ruthless “choice” which facilitates the murder of American citizens are cynical pretexts in a wider game: advancing imperialism’s geostrategic goals abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.

Leiter’s revelation in an of itself should demolish continued government claims that the accused terror suspect succeeded in boarding NW Flight 253 due to a failure to “connect the dots.”

However, as far as Antifascist Calling can determine, no other media outlet has either reported or followed-up CongressDaily’s disclosure; a clear sign that its explosive nature, and where a further investigation might lead, are strictly off-limits.

Taking into account testimony by a high-level national security official that terrorists are allowed to enter the country for intelligence purposes, one can only conclude that the alleged “failure” to stop Abdulmutallab was neither a casual omission nor the result of bureaucratic incompetence but rather, a highly-charged political calculation.

Bushist Embeds: Destabilizing the Obama Administration?

One subject barely explored by corporate media throughout the Flight 253 affair, is the unsettling notion that the aborted Christmas day bombing may have been a move by rightist elements within the security apparatus to destabilize the Obama administration, a course of action facilitated by the Obama government itself as we will explore below.

This is not as implausible as it might appear at first blush. When one takes into account the meteoric rise to power by the 40-year-old former Navy pilot and federal prosecutor, Michael Leiter’s ascent tracks closely with his previous service as a cover-up specialist for the Bush-Cheney regime.

“In 2004, while working as a federal prosecutor,” a New York Times puff piece informs us, “Mr. Leiter joined the staff of a commission, appointed by President George W. Bush, to examine intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq. That led to a series of jobs in the intelligence world, and in 2008, Mr. Bush appointed him director of the counterterrorism center.”

A rather curious appointment, if Leiter were simply an ingénue with no prior experience in the murky world of intelligence and covert operations. However the former Navy pilot, who participated in the U.S. wars of aggression against the former Yugoslavia and Iraq seemed to have the requisite qualifications for work as an intelligence “specialist.”

While attending Harvard Law School, Leiter served as a “human rights fellow” with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the U.S.-sponsored kangaroo court that has prosecuted America’s official enemies in the Balkans whilst covering-up the crimes of their partners.

Amongst America’s more dubious “allies” in the decade-long campaign to destabilize socialist Yugoslavia were al-Qaeda’s Islamist brigade, responsible for carrying-out hideous massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo, with NATO approval and logistical support, as Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky, and others, have thoroughly documented.

As Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Director of the President’s Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States, the so-called “Robb-Silberman” cover-up commission, Leiter focused on what are euphemistically described in the media as “reforms” with the U.S. “Intelligence Community,” including the stand-up of the FBI’s repressive National Security Branch.

Prior to joining NCTC, Leiter was the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under former NSA Director and ten-year senior vice president of the spooky Booz Allen Hamilton security firm, John “Mike” McConnell.

From his perch in ODNI, Leiter coordinated all internal and external operations for the Office, including relations with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA.

Leiter’s résumé, and his role in concealing Bush administration war crimes, predicated on ginned-up “intelligence” invented by Dick Cheney’s minions in the Defense Department and the CIA, should have sent alarm bells ringing inside the incoming Obama administration.

As we have seen since Obama’s inauguration however, rather than cleaning house–and settling accounts–with the crimes, and criminals, of the previous regime, the “change” administration chose to retain senior- and mid-level bureaucrats in the security apparatus; employing officials who share the antidemocratic ideology, penchant for secrecy and ruthlessness of the Bush administration.

While the Times claims his “unblemished résumé” has taken a hit over the Flight 253 plot, an interview with National Public Radio shortly before the Abdulmutallab affair, provides chilling insight into Leiter’s agenda, particularly in light of his January 20 statement to the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Presciently perhaps, the NCTC chief told NPR: “We’re not going to stop every attack. Americans have to very much understand that it is impossible to stop every terrorist event. But we have to do our best, and we have to adjust, based on, again, how the enemy changes their tactics.”

It becomes a painfully simple matter for “the enemy” to gain advantage and “change their tactics” when those charged with protecting the public actually facilitate their entrée into the country “for some reason or another”!

According to the Times, the White House has kept Leiter at the helm and that it came as “no surprise to Bush officials” because, get this, “Michael wasn’t political,” if we’re to believe the carefully-constructed legend of former Bushist Deputy National Security Adviser Juan Zarate.

If the Bush-Cheney years tell us anything it’s that appointments by the previous regime were ruthlessly political. As The Washington Post reported shortly after Obama’s election, these appointments were made permanent across a multitude of federal agencies and departments, including the security apparat, in a cynical maneuver designed to reward Bush loyalists.

“The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions” the Post disclosed, “called ‘burrowing’ by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.”

The Times reports that the White House has publicly defended Leiter “and aides to the president said Mr. Obama called to convey his support.” Perhaps not so curiously, the allegedly “nonpolitical” NCTC Director “has been mentioned as a possible future head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and how he performs might help determine whether he remains on the fast track.”

One can only wonder, how many other counterterrorist officials have “burrowed” their way into, and hold key positions in the current administration, ticking political time-bombs inside America’s permanent shadow government.

Senate Whitewash Fuel Attacks on Democratic Rights

During Wednesday’s Senate hearings, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, in keeping with the former Bush administration’s assault on democratic rights, assailed the decision by the Justice Department to try the suspect in a court of law.

This is fully in line with the rhetoric of ultra-right Republicans and so-called “centrist Democrats” such as arch neocon Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Newsweek reports that new details “surrounding the Christmas Day interrogation of the bombing suspect aboard Northwest Flight 253 raise questions about the accuracy of testimony provided Wednesday by senior U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security officials.”

Last week, the newsmagazine reported that “Obama administration officials were flabbergasted Wednesday when Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair testified that an alleged Qaeda operative who tried to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation unit that doesn’t exist, rather than the FBI.”

This theme was quickly picked-up by Senate Republicans.

The overarching sentiments expressed by this gaggle of war criminals and corporate toadies was not to demand accountability from the responsible parties, but to call for further attacks on Americans’ democratic rights.

Republicans on the committee lambasted Obama’s Justice Department for its decision to try Abdulmutallab in a civilian court. John McCain (R-AZ), the Republican party’s failed candidate in the 2008 presidential election, said the decision was “a terrible, terrible mistake,” while the execrable Jeff Sessions (R-AL) claimed that the hapless suspect should have been delivered to the U.S. military as an “enemy combatant.”

Ranking Republicans on the committee, Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Ensign (R-NV) went so far as to imply that Abdulmutallab should have been tortured. Collins inquired: “how can we uncover plots” if accused criminal suspects are allowed to “lawyer up and stop answering questions?” Ensign, a staunch supporter of policies articulated by the Bush administration, particularly former Vice President and war criminal, Dick Cheney, argued that “limiting” CIA interrogators to the methods laid out in the Army Field Manual would allow terrorists to “train” in advance of interrogations.

But the harshest criticism of the administration came in the form of a stealth attack by Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair.

The Wall Street Journal reported January 21 that “nation’s intelligence chief said the man accused of trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation team instead of being handled as an ordinary criminal suspect.”

Rather than coming to terms and halting the Bush regime’s practice of torturing so-called terrorist suspects, the Obama administration has compounded the crime by creating a secretive group of interrogators called the High-Value Interrogation Group or HIG.

Blair told the Senate that the administration had “botched” the handling of suspect Abdulmutallab, by, wait, not handing him over to a group that as of this writing, exists only on paper, a salient fact of which Blair was certainly knowledgeable!

In his testimony however, the DNI told the Homeland Security Committee that the HIG “was created exactly for this purpose–to make a decision on whether a certain person who’s detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means.”

Blair implicitly criticized the Justice Department’s decision to uphold constitutional protections that guarantee a suspect a right to a trial in a court of law and not a one-way ticket to an American gulag. Blair said, “we did not invoke the HIG in this case; we should have. Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh, you know, we didn’t put it [in action] then.”

Mendaciously, the DNI claimed “I was not consulted. The decision was made on the scene, [and] seemed logical to the people there, but it should have been taken using this HIG format, at a higher level.”

Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff disclosed January 20 that “senior administration officials” told him that Blair was “misinformed on multiple levels” and that the DNI’s assertions were “all the more damaging because they immediately fueled Republican criticism that the administration mishandled the Christmas Day incident in its treatment of the accused Qaeda operative as a criminal suspect rather than an enemy combatant.”

Isikoff reported January 22 that Blair, Leiter and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were asked about the decision to try Abdulmutallab and all gave the same answer when queried by right-wing Senator Susan Collins, the Committee’s ranking Republican: “Were you consulted regarding the decision to file criminal charges against [suspect Umar Farouk] Abdulmutallab in civilian court?”

Leiter and Napolitano both replied: “I was not.” According to Newsweek, Blair also said he was “not consulted” and claims that the government “should have” brought in the yet-to-be activated HIG “to conduct the questioning of the suspect.”

As with every aspect of this strange affair, Newsweek reports, these statements are riddled with lies and mischaracterizations.

Isikoff writes that “all the relevant national-security agencies, including top aides to Blair and Napolitano, were fully informed about the plans to charge the suspect in federal court hours before he was read his Miranda rights and stopped cooperating.”

Newsweek further reveals that a “key event” was a secure videoconference on Christmas Day “that included Leiter” and Jane Lute, DHS’ No. 2 official and that “neither Leiter nor any of the other participants, including representatives from the FBI and the CIA, raised any questions about the Justice Department’s plans to charge the suspect in federal court, the officials said.”

“If you participate in a conference call and you don’t raise any objections, that suggests you were consulted,” said one senior law-enforcement official. Another added that “nobody at any point” raised any objections, either during the meeting or during a four-hour period afterward when Abdulmutallab was informed of his Miranda rights to be represented by a lawyer,” according to Newsweek.

Ultra-right Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a witting accomplice to the previous regime’s high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people said, “That this administration chose to shut out our top intelligence officials and forgo collecting potentially life-saving intelligence is a dangerous sign.”

It’s a “dangerous sign” to be sure, for America’s battered democracy.

An On-Going Cover-Up

As events continue to unfold and new information shreds the official story, is Leiter’s chilling testimony that suspected terrorists are allowed to enter the United States “because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another,” merely a banal slip or something far more sinister that betrays the real order of things in post-democratic America?

Relevant questions begging for answers include: Who made the decision not to “connect the dots”? Are right-wing elements and holdovers from the previous administration actively conspiring to destabilize the Obama government? Was the attempted bombing a planned provocation meant to incite new conflicts in the Middle East and restrict democratic rights at home?

As with the 9/11 attacks, these questions go unasked by corporate media. Indeed, such lines of inquiry are entirely off the table and are further signs that a cover-up is in full-swing, not a hard-hitting investigation.

In truth, what we are dealing with here as we stagger into the second decade of the 21st century, is not a “conspiracy” per se but a modus operandi as the World Socialist Web Site has argued, rooted in a bankrupt system quickly reaching the end of the line.

View the original article at Global Research

Report: Bush order allowing murder of US citizens abroad still in effect

January 27, 2010

Stephen C. Webster
Raw Story
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

If a United States citizen was determined to have joined a foreign terrorist group, that person could be legally murdered under orders given by President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks.

In spite of an administration change in Washington, D.C., that allowance is still in effect, according to a late-breaking report in The Washington Post on Tuesday.

The report delves into an increasing American role in Yemen, spotlighting an effort to capture or kill Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen who exchanged e-mails with alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan.

“After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said,” the Post reported. “The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose ‘a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,’ said one former intelligence official.

“The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, ‘it doesn’t really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them,’ said a senior administration official. ‘They are then part of the enemy.’”

“Awlaki has not been charged with any crimes under U.S. law,” ABC News noted.

ABC added that unnamed officials had expressed concern that chances to “take out” al Awlaki had been missed while authorities grappled with the legal ramifications of murdering a U.S. citizen.

U.S. involvement in Yemen is largely being directed by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), according to the Post. The command was perhaps best known as former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “executive assassination squad,” first revealed by veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.

“Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called the ‘High Value Targets’ and ‘High Value Individuals,’ whom they seek to kill or capture,” the Post continued. “The JSOC list includes three Americans, including Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year.”

Jet bomb plot review shows more missed clues

January 19, 2010

Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti
NY Times
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

WASHINGTON – Worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday, President Obama met on Dec. 22 with top officials of the C.I.A., F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, who ticked off a list of possible plots against the United States and how their agencies were working to disrupt them.

In a separate White House meeting that day, Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, John O. Brennan, led talks on Yemen, where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target, on Christmas Day.

Yet in those sessions, government officials never considered or connected links that, with the benefit of hindsight, now seem so evident and indicated that the gathering threat in Yemen would reach into the United States.

Just as lower-level counterterrorism analysts failed to stitch together the pieces of information that would have alerted them to the possibility of a suicide bomber aboard a Detroit-bound jetliner on Christmas, top national security officials failed to fully appreciate mounting evidence of the dangers beyond the Arabian Peninsula posed by extremists linked to Yemen.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

View the original article at NY Times

‘Saudi jets bombard N Yemen, kill dozen’

January 19, 2010

Press TV
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Saudi fighter jets keep bombing Houthi positions in northern Yemen along the border the country shares with the oil-rich kingdom, killing more than a dozen people.

According to a statement released by the fighters on Monday, Saudi forces carried out 17 aerial attacks on Dammaj, destroying a mosque in the northern region.

The warplanes also bombarded Muhazat, Wadi’a, Sha’af, Jebel Razih, al-Malaheet districts as well as the rugged villages in close proximity to the border regions of northern Yemen.

Several homes were demolished while more than a dozen died in the strikes, the statement added.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

During the operation, Saudi forces reportedly fired some 450 rockets against the beleaguered areas of Jebel al-Dukhan, Jebel al-Madood, Marwi, Shada, Qamamat, al-Safih as well as al-Jabiri, some 600 miles (966 kilometers) from the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

The conflict in northern Yemen began in 2004 between Sana’a and the Houthi fighters. It intensified in August 2009 when the Yemeni army launched ‘Operation Scorched Earth’ in an attempt to crush the fighters in the northern province of Sa’ada.

The Houthis accuse the Yemeni government of violating of their civil liberties, political, economic and religious marginalization as well as large-scale corruption.

Saudi forces began fighting with Yemeni Shia resistance fighters, known as Houthis, and bombing their positions on November 4th after accusing the fighters of killing Saudi border guards.

Houthi fighters say that Saudi forces continually strike Yemeni villages and indiscriminately target civilians. According to the fighters, the Saudis use banned toxic materials, including white phosphorus bombs, indiscriminately in northern Yemen.

The US military also has been involved in bombing Yemen’s northern regions of Amran, Hajjah and Sa’ada, according to Houthi fighters.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that since 2004, up to 175,000 people have been forced to leave their homes in Sa’ada and take refuge at overcrowded camps set up by the United Nations.

View the original article at Press TV

Guantánamo and Yemen: Obama Capitulates to Critics and Suspends Prisoner Transfers

January 8, 2010

Andy Worthington
Campaign For LIberty
Friday, January 8th, 2010

For the last 12 days, since Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab slipped through every security net going, and allegedly tried and failed to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, Republican critics of Barack Obama have tried every trick in the book to undermine the president’s authority, with former Vice President Dick Cheney claiming that the incident demonstrated that Obama’s “low key response” to the failed attack “makes us less safe,” and numerous lawmakers and pundits — joined by a few easily frightened Democrats — stating that no more Yemeni prisoners should be released from Guantánamo, following the transfer to Yemeni custody of six men the weekend before the failed attack.

Supporters of Guantánamo, and critics of releasing any more of the 198 men still held, were fired up in particular by an inaccurate report on ABC News, in which it was stated that two former Guantánamo prisoners were amongst the leaders of the al-Qaeda-inspired group in Yemen that claimed responsibility for the failed attack. ABC News later conceded that one of these two men had in fact surrendered to the Yemeni authorities in February 2009, and therefore could have had nothing to do with the plot, but by then the damage had been done.

For these critics, the truth is nothing more than an inconvenient obstacle to their political maneuvering. None of them care that the solitary former prisoner accused of involvement with the terrorist group is a Saudi, and that he was released by President George W. Bush, despite the intelligence services’ insistence that he posed a threat to the United States. Neither do they care that no proof has been provided that he was directly involved in the failed plane bombing. Moreover, none of them has paused for a moment to consider that there is no reason whatsoever to dream up connections between the Saudi — Said al-Shihri — and the 40 or so Yemenis in Guantánamo that the Obama administration proposes to transfer to Yemeni custody, because, unlike President Bush, the Obama administration had been reviewing the cases of these men throughout 2009, and has no intention of repeating its predecessors’ mistakes.

On Sunday, John Brennan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, attempted to seize the initiative on this issue. A CIA veteran who was “widely seen as Mr. Obama’s likeliest choice to head the intelligence agency,” until he “withdrew his name from consideration after liberal critics attacked his alleged role in the agency’s detention and interrogation program” (as the New York Times explained in December 2008), Brennan has the necessary experience to challenge Republican opportunists. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” when Gloria Borger named a second Saudi — Ibrahim al-Rubaysh — who is reportedly connected to the Yemeni al-Qaeda cell, declared (without providing proof) that he was connected to the Christmas plot, and asked, “Does it make you rethink your decision to release six prisoners back into Yemen last month from Guantánamo?” Brennan delivered a stout defense of the administration’s policies:

No, it doesn’t, because that was the result of a very meticulous and rigorous process that we’ve had in place since the beginning of this administration. Now let me put some facts out here. The last administration released 532 detainees from Guantánamo. During this administration, we have transferred in fact 42 of these individuals overseas. I have been in constant dialogue with the Yemenis about the arrangements that are in place.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

Several of those individuals were put into custody as soon as they returned to Yemen. So we are making sure that we don’t do anything that is going to put American citizens, whether they be in Yemen or here in the States, at risk by our decisions about releasing — transferring these detainees.

Pressed as to what would happen to the Yemenis approved for transfer to Yemen by the administration’s interagency Task Force (up to half of the 90 or so Yemenis still in Guantánamo), Brennan explained that they would be “transferred back to Yemen at the right time and the right pace and in the right way,” and elaborated on the procedures that had already taken place regarding the release of the six men on the weekend of December 19/20, whose stories I described in an article last week:

[W]e made a decision that we would send back six because we were very pleased with the way of Yemeni government handled the one individual we sent back about eight weeks ago [Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, whose release was ordered by a U.S. judge in May]. And so we’re making sure that the situation on the ground is taken into account. That we continue to work with the Yemeni government, and we do this in a very common-sense fashion because we want to make sure that we are able to close Guantánamo. Guantánamo has been used as a propaganda tool by al-Qaeda and others. We need to close that facility. And we’re determined to do that.

Pressed further, Brennan refused to draw spurious connections between the Christmas plot and the cleared Yemenis in Guantánamo, telling Borger, “The attempted attack by Mr. Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day was a unique incident. We have been monitoring and watching the situation in Yemen develop over time. That one incident on the 25th of December doesn’t change the situation on the ground in Yemen one bit.”

As far as I was concerned, John Brennan’s appearance was a masterful display of common sense in the face of a whirlwind of manufactured fear, but it is a sign of how skewed what passes for debate is nowadays that his resounding defense of his boss’s anti-terror credentials is necessary at all, as, for the most part, Obama’s defense of Bush-era policies regarding Military Commissions, indefinite detention, Bagram and “state secrets” — as well as his surge in Afghanistan — has left everyone else (from progressives to libertarians) wondering how much difference there actually is between Obama and his predecessor.

Moreover, it seems that not everyone in the White House was impressed by Brennan’s performance, and, no doubt making decisions based on voter feedback rather than on fixed principles, the administration took a step back on Tuesday, sending White House spokesman Robert Gibbs out to tell reporters, “While we remain committed to closing the facility, the determination has been made that right now any additional transfers to Yemen is not a good idea.”

Later in the evening, in a televised statement, President Obama reiterated the message, saying, “Given the unsettled situation, I’ve spoken to the attorney general and we’ve agreed that we will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time.” He added, “Make no mistake. We will close Guantánamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”

If this is the case, it might have made more sense to defuse the “recruiting tool” sooner rather than later, sending back some more of the patently innocent Yemenis still in Guantánamo rather than allowing the eighth anniversary of the prison’s opening on Monday to be marked by inaction.

Moreover, by capitulating to pressure from unprincipled critics, the Obama administration has also tacitly acknowledged that Cheney-style rhetoric, and mistaken inferences about Saudi prisoners released by George W. Bush, in spite of advice not to do so, are being allowed to dictate the current government’s more considered response to Yemenis deprived of their liberty for no reason for eight years. As the Center for Constitutional Rights complained in a press release following the announcement:

Dozens of men from Yemen who have been cleared for release after extensive scrutiny by the government’s Guantánamo Review Task Force are about to be left in limbo once more due to politics, not facts … Halting the repatriation of Yemeni men cleared by the Task Force after months of careful review is unconscionable.

When he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama said, “We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.” What he said in December should be just a true a month later.

View the original article at Campaign For LIberty

Yemen and the War of the Worlds

January 7, 2010

Imagine if you will a country dominated by heavily armed tribesmen who are fiercely independent, frequently engaged in activities that most observers would regard as criminal, deeply conservative in religion and culture but further divided along sectarian lines, and ruled over by a highly corrupt government that is fighting both a civil war and an insurgency. Throw into the hopper extremely rugged trackless terrain, porous borders, and security forces incapable of exercising jurisdiction outside of the capital city and it is a virtual witches’ brew. Many would immediately think of Afghanistan, where all of the above applies but the description equally fits Yemen, which also enjoys crushing poverty and high unemployment coupled with declining oil revenues and water supplies that can no longer sustain the population. Intelligence officers who are familiar with Yemen agree that coming to grips with the country’s tribesmen in an attempt to root out al-Qaeda will make Afghanistan look like a walk in the park.

Yemen might well become the next American quagmire if the plans of the Obama Administration in its global war on terrorism that is now referred to as “overseas contingency operations” are implemented. As is frequently the case in the imperial capital city Washington, the Obamas see another Yemen. It is an opportunity for nation building, to strengthen institutions and the economy and support an ostensibly friendly government to suppress terrorism. But it doesn’t take much to see what’s wrong with that approach. The Yemenis themselves are fearful of the consequences of too tight an embrace by Washington and are already trying to distance themselves. They see gangsterism and tribalism as their greatest internal security threats, not terrorism, and the best estimates for the number of al-Qaeda adherents in the country number in the low hundreds. And many of those are believed to be the grapes of wrath fruit of Guantanamo Bay, where the United States successfully confined Yemenis who were completely innocent, radicalizing them and turning them into terrorism proselytizers upon their return home.

Let’s face it, there is no such thing as complete security. Whatever security arrangements are made for air travel it will still be possible for someone to circumvent the system either through guile or luck. The Obama Administration’s response to a single thwarted terrorist incident involving an airline in which a small number of Yemenis were involved has proven that American presidents appear to need war, and an identifiable enemy to rally against, more than they need a foreign and security policy that is both proportionate and answerable to the national interest. Yemen is no more a threat to the United States than was Iraq even if its wild deserts do harbor a small number of terrorists. If one accepts at face value the claim of al-Qaeda in Yemen that the attempted airline bombing was in response to several American drone strikes, most particularly a devastating attack on December 17 that killed twenty-three, largely civilians, then it is clear that Congressman Ron Paul’s analysis that “they’re over here because we’re over there” is accurate.

The correct response to the Nigerian underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is to fix the information sharing problems and modify existing screening procedures in light of the new developments. That would be the sane thing to do, but apparently it is not good enough for the White House. Instead, President Obama has designated a new front for a military confrontation with the terrorist menace, and that will be Yemen. There are reports that special ops soldiers are already in country with plans to introduce still more US soldiers and double the military assistance to Sana’a. By my tally, the US is now actively fighting terrorists in a number of lands to include Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, the Philippines, and Yemen. That makes a minimum of six separate and distinct overseas wars all being engaged in without an act of war from Congress and directed against enemies that do not actually directly threaten the United States.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

The US is also redefining its relationships with a basket of fourteen countries that are defined as “state sponsors of terrorism and countries of interest.” Citizens of those countries will be required to undergo special security screening that might include invasive body and cavity searches. Twelve of the countries in question are overwhelmingly Muslim. One is half Muslim (Nigeria) and one is communist (Cuba). The inclusion of Cuba is bizarre as there has never been a suicide bomber from Cuba but it reveals the mindset of the Obama Administration — let’s make it look like we’re doing something even if it is ridiculous.

The use of nationality as a defining issue in airport security screening is unprecedented. It will be seen as an insult to the citizens of the countries involved, implying that that they are all somehow being regarded as terrorists, and will further harden already negative views about the United States. It also is illogical as many of the world’s most radicalized young men carry European passports. Profiling of passengers to concentrate on young Muslim men, whatever passports they might be carrying, would at least be understandable given the fact that all of the terrorists who have targeted air travel have fit that category, but to broaden the security sweep to include any and all travelers from certain countries will create difficulties for the security system and for air travel in general. This is already being seen in Europe, where the demands from the Transportation Security Administration and the Obama White House have effectively created a two tier security system which no one has quite figured out how to implement. It is also creating a backlash in the Muslim world, where media reports emphasize the anti-Islamic message being sent by the new procedures, suggesting that the new administration in Washington is again signaling its intent to engage in conflict the entire Muslim world. The lesson of Guantanamo — i.e. that you will turn innocent people into terrorists by treating them as such — is also being ignored.

The Obama Administration needs to step back from what it is doing. It must first recognize that Yemen is not a threat to the United States, must realize that it will not fix the country through the addition of American soldiers, and that the best thing to do when dealing with a complex and poorly understood situation is to leave it alone. Regarding airport and airline security, Washington must fix the failure to communicate and other disconnects in the system without throwing out the baby with the bath water, repairing what must be repaired and retaining what works. It must establish security standards that apply to everyone without appearing to accuse entire nations of being prone to terrorism. If it does all that, the ability of Americans and others to travel safely will be improved and the United States will avoid yet another tragic involvement in a faraway land where there is no vital national interest at stake.

View the original article at Campaign For Liberty

Scanning the Abdulmutallab story for more lies

January 7, 2010

Jerry Mazza
Online Journal
Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Returning to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to blow up a Northwest airliner on Christmas day, let’s scan the body of evidence for government lies, the real explosive elements. Let’s give Umar a good dose of radiation with the knowledge that first reveals the 80 grams of PETN explosive he carried in his crotch lacked a blasting cap to blow him and the plane away. Instead, lighting with an injection of liquid did nothing but set him on fire. As if no one in the military or intelligence knew that.

After reading my article Scripting the ‘fear of flying,’ my friend John McCarthy, retired Marine captain from the Vietnam War clued me via email: “Jerry, the false flaggers forgot that a blasting cap is required to detonate PETN and other plastic explosives. Sure, it will burn and we used it in winter to heat our cans of food, but a blasting cap is missing from the mix. So, the PTB’s [Powers That Be] wanted to raise the fear factor, which this incident did, without loss of life and a $75 million dollar airplane . . . now the Israeli firms that make the full body scanners will reap millions!”

Also, another former Marine combat captain, Gordon Duff, wrote in Veterans Today, Evidence Mounts for US Complicity in Terrorism, “We do know a couple of things. [Farouk Abdal’s’] Dad [Alhaji Umaru Abdulmutallab], back in Nigeria, ran the national arms industry (DICON) in partnership with Israel, in particular, the Mossad. He was in daily contact with them. They run everything in Nigeria, from arms production to counter-terrorism. Though Islamic, Abdulmutallab was a close associate of Israel. He has been misrepresented. His ‘banking’ is a cover. Next, what do we know about the two Al Qaeda leaders Bush had released, the ones who planned this?

“According to ABC news, the Al Qaeda leaders running the insurgency in Yemen were released from Guantanamo, although two of the highest ranking known terrorists there, without trial.

TuneUp Utilities 2010

“Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody.

“Both of the former Guantanamo detainees are described as military commanders and appear on a January 2009 video, along with the man described as the top leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Abu Basir Naser al-Wahishi, formerly Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary.

“With all the hoopla about trials in New York, not a word is said when top level terrorists are released to Saudi friends of the Bush family who let them go. We are now fighting these two Bush friends in Yemen. They are running a major insurgency there. We have been using Cruise missiles and our jets to attack their bases in the last weeks.”

Please, read the whole article for a full frontal scan that includes the CIA admitting that in its November 29, 2009, interview with Papa Abdulmutallab, they were told that his son had ties to extremists in Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity. The information was not acted on responsibly [and “the terrorist” son, Umar Farouk], they were warned about in November was the same one they had been tracking since August . . .”

“Why do they call it an Intelligence Agency?

Once again, the Agency was caught with its pants down, scanned being involved with Israel and Yemen, and the fact that the ‘terrorists’ released by Bush [were] really Israeli agents who have organized attacks against US targets.”

In my article, I also wrote about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab being assisted at the Northwest airlines desk by a well-dressed ‘Indian’ man. The 50-something, dapper gentleman helped Umar get on the plane without a passport, just a visa. He claimed that Umar was a Sudanese refugee who had no money.

And so, Umar was walked by the Indian gent through Schipol (Amsterdam Airport) past passport review, something that could happen only if an intelligence agency had approved it. Otherwise, it’s a total no-no, no passport, no flight. So was the agency on the other side? Duff also writes that reports from Pakistan show “that India and Israel have been involved in terrorist attacks against US supporters . . .” Surprised?

Of course, little of the key facts are exposed in the mainstream media so you now have to expose your body to scanners and their radiation when you fly, one more dehumanizing event brought to you by the Department of Homeland Insecurity. This brings us to another bit of scanning from CommonDreams.org, revealing that Ex-Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff Abused his Public Trust by Touting Body Scanners.

This scan follows the money involved in purchasing the scanners to a Chertoff company client. “What Chertoff made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

The question came from an airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday that “criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.”

Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners, said that “Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive.” What you really have to scan for is conspiracy. And there is one here.

Chertoff’s push for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. Back in 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of scanners — five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. These days, “40 body scanners are in use at 19 U.S. airports.” But here’s the kicker: The number is expected to skyrocket at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. “The Transportation Security Administration this week said it will order 300 more machines.” That’s your money, taxpayer, frequent or infrequent flyer. And it’s your life these profiteer terrorists are playing with.

What’s more, “In the summer, TSA purchased 150 machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds,” which was not what that money was intended for. “Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)” But give them time.

Insidiously, “Over the past week, Chertoff has repeatedly talked about the need for expanding the use of the technology in airports, saying it could detect bombs like the one federal authorities say Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian, carried onto the Detroit-bound aircraft.” How’s that for an opportunist?

“We could deploy the scanning machines that we currently are beginning to deploy in the U.S. that will give us the ability to see what someone has concealed underneath their clothing,” Chertoff said last week in an interview on CNN. The incident on the Detroit-bound plane provided “a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery,” he said.” It also provided a huge profit opportunity for him and his pals to spin.

In fact, we ought to scan and strip Michael Chertoff, dual Israeli/American citizen, of his scam to push the machines for the juice he’s squeezing out of it. Then, send him to jail on conflict of interest charges, perhaps at GITMO. That would be real justice. Funny, how the lies appear ruthlessly clear when the scanner of genuine intelligence is applied to them.

BTW, the Chertoff story originally appeared in the mainstream Washington Post and was then picked up by many Internet sites. This only proves how far a little bit of truth can go, not to mention what a scam Homeland Security is. It has $60 billion to throw around on these anti-terror gimmicks that never seem to work except to make their pushers rich and richer. Each tragedy (or brush with it) brings a new call for more gimmicks, but the possibility of harm doesn’t diminish. It’s funny how that works.

Net-net, scanning the news for the lies and the truth is the only real protection we have against our faux protectors, who aid and abet “terrorists,” who virtually create them, and set them on their track to commit false-flag operations. These acts suck up our blood and assets, like the corrupt bailouts, and continue the dismantling of America.

We need to know we are in the hands of thieves and assassins on many levels. The real army of protectors is comprised of all those exposing the above; whether as whistleblowers, writing about them, standing up to or speaking out to protest these murderous rip-offs. Yet it is difficult to keep scanning accurately under the relentless pressure of the larger entity, the government, pressing for more fear, surveillance, and gouging of rights. All this is done to continue the barbarous wars in search of OPO, other people’s oil, some of which, believe it or not, we are contemplating pipelining to Israel, as Haaretz tells us.

As to our real enemies out there, we have to take a long hard look in the mirror of memory to realize what the US as a hegemonic, colonizing Empire has done to others to create the anger, rage and response to US appropriation of their assets, territory, their freedom and lives. To quote Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in ourselves.”

This is not to say that foreign governments with intentions of suppressing their people or purloining their assets and natural resources for our money and support are not partners in crime and murderous wars. That is exactly the case. But the scanner of human intelligence has to be on at all times determining who, what and where these true terrorists are. What we as Americans don’t have is a lock on good or evil. Both are shaded like light and dark throughout the world. The trick is keep up with the bad guys and expose them for what they are.

View the original article at Online Journal


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers