Posts Tagged ‘Terror’

Tory plans to make us all Terrorists!

June 10, 2015

Tory plans to make us all Terrorists!

By Dark Politricks

This is a recent video from Russell Brand about the new UK Tory governments plans for a new anti terror bill that will crack down on free speech and other civil liberties.

It seems that with every new government we get a new “anti terrorism” law passed, Tony Blair passed at least 2 that I can remember. They were mostly used for memorable things such as:

  • Freezing all Icelandic money in UK banks after the Iceland Banking crisis – something which the Icelandic people have never forgiven us for. From my recent trip to Iceland I would not be surprised to see a statue of Gordon Brown put up in Reykjavik just so that people could throw tomatoes at it.
  • Throwing out and then arresting OAP protestors from Labour conferences who dared shout out “liar” as the warmongers on stage defended their illegal war on Iraq.
  • Allowing M16 / MI5 Agents to pass questions to CIA torturers at “black site” prisons and Gitmo, who then proceeded to abuse, humiliate and injure the prisoners many of which were innocent. The ones that are not, including leaders of the now destabilised mess of a country we “liberated” called Libya, are even now trying to sue the government for their complicity in torture e.g Abdul Hakim Belhaj. This included one incident in which one British jihadi’s fingernails were ripped out after MI6 suggested that a notorious Pakistani intelligence agency detain him, and MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up questions to be put to him.
  • Cracking down on tourists and other photographers within London taking photos of buildings as they could be “planning terrorist” attacks.

We should always be careful when “new” terrorism laws are proposed. Especially as with the current one it is to be “fast tracked” through government.

This means no proper debate over the merits of the bill and no proper time to propose amendments and changes to the bill.

Hopefully enough libertarian/liberal-minded Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and hopefully Tory back benchers will stand up against this act of tyranny.

As I said in my last piece, the UK Tory Government, freed of the shackles of coalition with liberals, are planning on repealing the Human Rights Act. A piece of legislation brought in by Tony Blair in the 90’s but created from the European Convention on Human Rights which was drawn up by the Tory post war government to show to the world how civilised we should all be in future.

It is sad that a future Tory government is now going to remove this legislation due to a minority of cases where they have not been able to deport criminal immigrants due to their “right to a family life”.

It seems that the Tories wish that if you are born in this country and your parents are not, that if they commit a crime they can now be ripped away from you leaving you with the choice to follow them to whatever horrible war-torn country they escaped from (Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Sudan…).

The question is what level of criminality requires this response. I can understand the Government wishing to get rid of terrorists, murderers and rapists but what about non-payment of Council Tax, a crime punishable by prison, which many British born OAPs have found themselves facing? What crimes would exact this level of response, does a list even exist?

It seems we English are sticklers for the rule of law even when we don’t agree with small parts of it.

Instead of just ignoring section 8 of the Human Rights Act like France does whenever it wants to do something the EU prohibits we decide to throw the whole law away.

Instead of just declaring that the house of Commons is the supreme will of the people, and that if it votes to decide to remove someone from these shores because of a REAL terrorist crime then so be it, family or not. The problem comes with all the guff these bills include that label you and me “domestic terrorists” for speaking out against the Government, war, its foreign policy, support of Israel, or other civil rights that are being chipped away bit by bit never to return.

I have no problem if a REAL terrorist who is not a British citizen is deported at the end of his or her sentence. The problem is that the Government is proposing to throw the whole Human Rights Act away to achieve this instead of coming up with another solution.

If the House of Commons IS supposed to be the supreme will of the people because we have voted for it – try to forget the UKIP member who got 0 votes despite voting for himself for a moment, we don’t have voter fraud in Western Democracies, it’s just nasty evil countries like Russia that do things like that. Then a vote in the house should be enough to override any appeal on Human Rights grounds due to section 8. This is as long as the case has been proved beyond doubt, the convict has had his chance at appeal, and the criminal does in fact pose a threat to the country.

I am perfectly happy to see a UK Bill of Rights on TOP of, not INSTEAD of, the Human Rights Act, to achieve such aims if needed. I just don’t want to see families ripped apart over nonsensical crimes or crimes that shouldn’t even exist e.g drugs, protest, freedom of speech that goes against popular view etc.

David Cameron has gone on record to say that the belief that if you as a citizen “just followed the law you would be left alone”, is now going to be turned on its head.

That in itself is worrying Hilter-esque language that could be taken to mean anything.

Wasn’t an Englishman’s home his castle?

Were we not the creators of law as it exists in many countries through the Magna Carta, Due Process, the idea that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

What about the social contract between citizen and state that meant we plebs had our rights and the government protected them and the country as long as we paid our taxes?

As Russell Brand says in the piece below, a similar piece of legislation which the Tories are basing their own law on, was recently brought into Canada and the people were appalled by it.

It meant that:

  • Innocent words can be interpreted as terrorism – make of that what you will.
  • Speaking “recklessly” which could lead to a terrorist act being committed is a crime. So speaking out about the increasing authoritarian nature of our world on this blog could lead to a mentally disturbed reader to go and fly a plane into a skyscraper and I would spend 5 years in jail – fair?
  • Protesting could lead to government surveillance. So any kind of protest by Unions, Students, Occupy, or anybody against the increasing Police State be warned.
  • Meddling with ANY CORPORTATE INTERESTS could be interpreted as terrorism under the new UK act. So protests that prevent Vodafone from opening their doors (UKUncut beware!) or the use of Bitcoin or other electronic currencies that stopped the banks from monitoring your money could now be considered a crime.

Watch the video to see more and spread it.

Our rights are being eroded and we could all soon be considered terrorists for speaking our minds, protesting corruption and the corporate take over of our life.

Is that really terrorism or just the rights we should expect to enjoy as a member of a supposedly free country?

View the original article at Dark Politricks.

© 2015 By Dark Politricks

Advertisements

Was the Egyptian bombing a pre-emptive strike by Israel to prevent revolution?

February 2, 2011

By Dark Politricks

This is just pure speculation on my part but something twigged early tonight when I read some news stories in a couple of Rupert Murdoch’s rags (for that is what they are) about official statements coming out of Israel. The story was regarding an official statement concerning the uprising in Egypt and it claimed that they had not seen any of this trouble coming and had basically been caught with their pants down unprepared without any fore knowledge at all.

When I read this I thought to myself really? This is coming from the country that is reported to have a direct tap into most communications systems in the world including the White House. A country that has some of the most powerful lobby groups ever known to man. A country that can control a multitude of agents and politicians all across the world with direct links to terrorist groups everywhere  and they were supposedly caught totally unaware by the events now unfolding in Egypt? Really?

“There is no doubt that Israel was caught with its pants down,” said a minister in Israel‘s defense cabinet. “We were completely surprised by what is happening in Egypt right now. Nobody predicted this.”

Now before anyone calls me biased I am 100% cynical of any official statement no matter what form of officialdom it comes from. Whenever a minister or leader of any kind says one thing you are almost always nearer the truth if you think the opposite of what is claimed.

This rule of thumb does not just apply to politicians either as it is a common feature in my national game of football that whenever the directors of a football club give the press an official statement that the manager has the full backing of the club or that rumours a top player is totally happy and seeing out their contract you can put your house on it that the manager is about to be sacked and the player is on their way out or already on the transfer list.

Therefore I am suspicious of any claim that no-one knew that an uprising in Egypt was likely especially when it comes from one of the leading proponents of game theory who play with countries and their peoples as if we were but pieces on a chess board. This is definitely amplified when it comes to Egypt a country Israel has been to war with on multiple occasions and a country that is a hotbed of Israeli intelligence. In fact when Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin handed over control of Military Intelligence to General Afif Khufifi in November 2010 he claimed that:

Egypt represents the biggest playing field for Israeli military intelligence activity. This activity has developed according to plan since 1979.”

We also know for a fact that Israel and the USA share intelligence and we also know that Israel is at the top of the list along with China and Russia for countries that spy within the states with many recorded instances from Johnathan Pollard to the White house Wiretap to the 9.11 Art Students and many more.

Therefore when we find out the USA has been training some of the key players within the Egyptian rebel movement and that an attempted revolution to overthrow President Mubarak was planned for 2011 we can guarantee that the Israeli’s also knew about this plan one way or another whether it was from their American sources or from their many Egyptian agents.

We all know Israel puts it’s own interests above all others and security is key. For obvious reasons it would be very worried about the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt as the outcome of any planned rebellion is never guaranteed.

Along with the USA and many other western countries they have been perfectly happy to pay lip service to democracy and modernisation whilst at the same time supporting and arming to the teeth dictators all over the region. In the grand scheme of things the human rights of millions of Egyptians comes second to having a bought and paid for leader who plays by their rules and succumbs to their every desire.

As Israel and the USA know from their own recent attempts at promoting democracy in Iraq and Palestine the people don’t always vote in the “right” party so to speak therefore it’s a lot easier to manage a strong man dictator rather than worry about another Islamic or pro-Iranian party being voted in by crazy Arabs who just don’t know what’s good for them.

It’s blatantly obvious that an Egypt that actually listened to the wishes of their people might not be so friendly to Israel. It might actually decide to do something to help their fellow Muslim brothers across the Sinai currently living in the biggest open air prison in the world instead of playing jailer. In fact a democratic Egypt that put human rights over the security of Israel might decide to open their end to the Gaza blockade and let in materials and food that so far have been blocked by both sides.

So taking Israel‘s legitimate concerns about security and it’s recent comments warning that:

Egypt could follow the path of Iran”.

Israel urges the world to curb criticism of Egypt’s Mubarak.”

“preserve stability in the region.”

“The Americans and the Europeans are being pulled along by public opinion and aren’t considering their genuine interests,”

Can we see the recent New Years day bombing in Egypt that killed 21 and injured 80 as a modern day Lavon affair designed to stoke up internal strife between Christians and Muslims in an effort to thwart the planned uprising that would have relied on national unity to be successful?

Egyptian intelligence sources blamed “foreign elements” which the western media took to mean Al Qaeda but many in Egypt believed that Israel had a roll to play and the bombing followed a recent round up of an Israel spy ring that revealed the following:

  • The Egypt-based Israeli ring had links with other Israeli espionage networks operating in Syria and Lebanon
  • The Mossad was conducting covert surveillance of the phone calls of top Egyptian officials.
  • Israel – in the post-Camp David era- is targeting the stability of Egypt by inciting the sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians in Egypt.
  • Israel was behind the mysterious cut of Egypt main Internet cable- connecting Egypt to the international network in January, 2008. The cut led to millions of dollars losses to the Egyptian economy especially the tourist sector.
  • The Mossad has recruited another Egyptian spy – still on the loose- who managed to infiltrate and work with the Islamists groups in Egypt.
Also there is a lot of evidence that Al Qaeda is a mere creation of an intelligence agency such as Mossad which is wheeled out from time to time in various countries to commit outrages that can then be used to further their own geo-political ambitions. The Israeli’s have been caught using fake Al Qaeda terror cells all over the place from Palestine to Iraq and it seems that after 9.11 they found the perfect excuse to draw Americans into supporting their cause right or wrong by framing it within the false “war on terror” paradigm.
Therefore to sum up:
  • Israel does not want democratic change in the countries that surround it as it fears the people will vote in pro-Iranian or Islamic parties as they have done in Gaza and Iraq. They would prefer to keep their bevy of corrupt dictators that ignore human rights and support Israeli interests.
  • Israel has a history of false flag attacks in Egypt and has recently been caught spying and stirring up trouble between Christians and Muslims.
  • Israeli agents like to pretend to be Al Qaeda agents from time to time. So much in fact that many people believe if Al Qaeda is in fact a real organisation it’s headquarters are a post office box in Tel Aviv.
  • A revolution in Egypt was planned for 2011.
  • The Americans were helping to train key players in this rebellion and there is a very high probability the Israelis knew about this plan.
  • If the New Year bombing had been successful in stirring up sectarian violence in a similar way to how Iraq fell apart due to Shi’a and Sunni violence the required national unity required for a successful national revolution wouldn’t have been possible.
Therefore there is a possibility that the New Year day bombing was a last roll of the dice by Israel aimed at stopping what they knew was coming which was a wave of revolts across North Africa and possibly the Middle East.
Unfortunately the bombing was unsuccessful in accomplishing any form of disunity as within the days following the blast the Christians and Muslims came together, just as they are doing now, to show the world how united they were.
Using an inspired idea of a human shield on the Orthodox Christmas day in which many Muslims turned out on the streets to form human shields around their fellow Egyptian Christians so that they could celebrate Christmas together in solidarity.
Tell me what you think about this idea. Do you believe Israel could have been complicit within the New Year Day’s bombing as an attempt to prevent the current national uprising or was it just a co-incidental attack by a “real” Al Qaeda terror cell.

Red Alert: Intelligence Chiefs “Certain” Their Bosses Will Stage Terror Attack Soon

February 3, 2010

Dissatisfied with the botched efforts of underwear bomber patsy Umar Abdul Muttalab, military-industrial complex promises to try again

Red Alert: Intelligence Chiefs Certain Their Bosses Will Stage Terror Attack Soon 030210top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Using information gleaned from the blatantly set-up underwear bomber patsy Umar Abdul Muttalab, intelligence chiefs have assured us that their bosses will stage another terror attack in the U.S. within the next three to six months.

“According to the nation’s intelligence chiefs, a terror attack in the United States will likely be launched within the next six months, reports WLS.

“ABC News has learned some of the intelligence has come from the accused Christmas Day bomber,” states the report.

Despite the fact that the official story behind the Christmas Day bombing has been discredited beyond all recognition, the establishment is still constantly invoking it as yet another reason for Americans to obediently line up for naked body scans in fear of whatever boogeyman is being waved in front of their faces this week.

Since federal and state authorities apparently now consider libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, gun owners and basically anyone with two brain cells left to rub together as potential domestic terrorists, whatever tricks they do decide to pull over the next six months will undoubtedly be used to tighten the screws against American dissidents that they have consistently characterized as extremist threats.

Authorities last week quietly reversed the official story behind the Christmas Day underwear bomber attack and acknowledged that an accomplice was involved, despite weeks of denial and derision of eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of a sharp-dressed man who helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell maintained from the beginning that he saw a well-dressed Indian man aid the accused bomber to board the plane despite the fact that he had no passport and was on a terror watch list.

“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time,’” reported the Michigan Live news website.

FBI agents interviewed Haskell and he told them about the sharp-dressed man but officials refused to admit that a wider conspiracy was at hand, stoically maintaining the official story that Abdulmutallab had acted alone. Authorities claimed that videotapes did not show a second man accompanying Abdulmutallab and yet they refused to release any footage of the alleged bomber.

There seems little doubt that Abdulmutallab had at least one accomplice if not more. Authorities have remained silent on other eyewitness reports which described a man intently filming the alleged terrorist throughout the whole flight, a connection that strongly suggests the attempted bomber was involved in some kind of drill and that his strings were being pulled by people in more senior positions.

The ludicrous spectacle of long-deceased boogeyman Osama bin Laden apparently claiming responsibility for the attempted attack last weekend only confirmed that a fairytale was being contrived which was totally at odds with what eyewitnesses described.

The glaringly obvious truth that Mutallab was at best a patsy and at worst an informant who was duped into believing he was involved in a drill renders fraudulent any supposed information attributed to him, specifically the notion that America faces the threat of another terrorist attack from anyone other than the only entity that always benefits from such attacks – the military-industrial complex itself.

// < ![CDATA[
ch_client = "Rob";
ch_type = "mpu";
ch_width = 468;
ch_height = 180;
ch_non_contextual = 4;
ch_vertical ="premium";
ch_sid = "Chitika Premium";
var ch_queries = new Array( );
var ch_selected=Math.floor((Math.random()*ch_queries.length));
if ( ch_selected

Hundreds of terror suspects (read: patsies and mental deficients) have been convicted in civilian federal courts, including convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid who attended the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Finsbury imam at the time was Abu Hamza al-Masri who began working with British Security Services in 1997. A large number of the supposed terrorists convicted in American courts were entrapped by the FBI in classic COINTELPRO fashion and did not have links to the CIA-created al-Qaeda. The entrapped were often fuzzy on al-Qaeda or what it represents.

In 2009, supposed terrorists in New York were so reluctant to participate in an FBI arranged undercover operation they had to be enticed with piles of cash, gifts, and bags of marijuana.

In the media lauded Miami terror case in 2007, the supposed ringleader Narseal “Prince Marina” Batiste “had heard of Al-Qaeda, but wasn’t sure what it stood for. The FBI instigators made Batiste swear loyalty to al-Qaida; then had him call on his local buddies to form an ‘Islamic army’ in Miami. None had military training. Some could barely read. But Batiste assured the group in the midst of its collective marijuana buzz of greatness ahead,” writes Saul Landau.

During the Senate “terror assessment hearing,” National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair also warned of the growing cyber threat, saying computer-related attacks have become “dynamic and malicious.”

Blair warned the United States faces a “cyber Pearl Harbor” that will have devastating consequences for America’s technological infrastructure. Blair said an increasingly sophisticated group of enemies has “severely threatened” the country’s information systems and he said the recent cyber attacks against Google should be treated as a “wake up call,” reports Channel 4 News.

The Google attacks, according to an American internet security firm, came from China or its proxies, not al-Qaeda.

The government also expects us to believe the sophisticated and coordinated attack occurring on September 11, 2001, was also the work of medieval terrorists located in remote caves. It was never explained how Osama bin Laden made NORAD stand down.

Likewise, Blair does not tell us how al-Qaeda will take down the most advanced and complex computer networks in the world, presumably from the backwaters of Pakistan’s tribal region.

CIA Tells Congress al-Qaeda to Attack in Three to Six Months

February 3, 2010

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 3, 2010

CIA boss Leon Panetta told Congress today that “homegrown extremists” working for al-Qaeda will strike America in three to six months. The recruits will be “clean” and have no traces to the phantom terrorist organization, according to Panetta and other intelligence officials.

“The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that al-Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect,” Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee. “It’s the lone-wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention to as the main threat to this country,” he said.

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said changes made since the ludicrous Christmas non-bombing over Detroit “would he able to identify and stop someone like the Detroit bomber before he got on the plane. But he warned a more careful and skilled would-be terrorist might not be detected,” reports the Associated Press.

Within hours of the hyped non-bombing evidence emerged revealing the incident was a false flag attack. “Eyewitness testimony pointing to a man helping the accused terrorist board without a passport, along with an unusual cameraman documenting the attempted attack on board the plane raise more than red flags– they point towards an intelligence operation, run as a drill, meant to conjure up public support for a number of fronts in the continuing ‘War on Terror,’” Aaron Dykes wrote for Infowars.com on December 29, 2009.

Over the weekend British “spies” (as described by the New York Post) reportedly found evidence al-Qaeda is planning to insert “surgical bombs” inside suicide bombers. “Male bombers would have the explosive implanted near their appendix or in their buttocks; women would have them inside their breasts, Britain’s Daily Mail reported over the weekend.”

MI5 said the development was triggered by the introduction of body scanners at airports

Hundreds of terror suspects (read: patsies and mental deficients) have been convicted in civilian federal courts, including convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid who attended the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Finsbury imam at the time was Abu Hamza al-Masri who began working with British Security Services in 1997. A large number of the supposed terrorists convicted in American courts were entrapped by the FBI in classic COINTELPRO fashion and did not have links to the CIA-created al-Qaeda. The entrapped were often fuzzy on al-Qaeda or what it represents.

In 2009, supposed terrorists in New York were so reluctant to participate in an FBI arranged undercover operation they had to be enticed with piles of cash, gifts, and bags of marijuana.

In the media lauded Miami terror case in 2007, the supposed ringleader Narseal “Prince Marina” Batiste “had heard of al-Qaida, but wasn’t sure what it stood for. The FBI instigators made Batiste swear loyalty to al-Qaida; then had him call on his local buddies to form an ‘Islamic army’ in Miami. None had military training. Some could barely read. But Batiste assured the group in the midst of its collective marijuana buzz of greatness ahead,” writes Saul Landau.

During the Senate “terror assessment hearing,” Blair also warned of the growing cyberthreat, saying computer-related attacks have become “dynamic and malicious.”

Blair warned the United States faces a “cyber Pearl Harbor” that will have devastating consequences for America’s technological infrastructure. Blair said an increasingly sophisticated group of enemies has “severely threatened” the country’s information systems and he said the recent cyber attacks against Google should be treated as a “wake up call,” reports Channel 4 News.

The Google attacks, according to an American internet security firm, came from China or its proxies, not al-Qaeda.

The government also expects us to believe the sophisticated and coordinated attack occurring on September 11, 2001, was also the work of medieval terrorists located in remote caves. It was never explained how Osama bin Laden made NORAD stand down.

Likewise, Blair does not tell us how al-Qaeda will take down the most advanced and complex computer networks in the world, presumably from the backwaters of Pakistan’s tribal region.

Passengers laid bare as full body scanners are introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airports

February 3, 2010

Anny Shaw
UK Daily Mail
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

The introduction of full body scanners at Heathrow and Manchester airports has today caused outrage among civil liberty campaigners who say that they are an invasion of privacy.

Campaigners claim the scanners, which act like a mini radar device ’seeing’ beneath ordinary clothing, breach privacy rules under the Human Rights Act.

The exemption of under 18s from being scanned, which was in place during the trial of the machines in Manchester amid fears the scanners could breach child protection laws, has also been removed.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) also warned that using profiling techniques to single out Muslims, Asians and black people for scanning at airports could breach race and religious discrimination laws introduced by the government.

Full article here

Intelligence chiefs say another terror attempt in U.S. is ‘certain’

February 3, 2010

CNN
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Another attempted terrorist attack on the United States in coming months is “certain,” the heads of major U.S intelligence agencies told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Al Qaeda remains the top security threat to the United States, but a growing cyber-security threat also must be addressed by the U.S. intelligence community, the heads of the CIA, the FBI and other agencies told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The hearing covered a range of security issues and became contentious, with Republicans on the committee arguing with Democratic counterparts and the intelligence chiefs on how the Obama administration has handled terrorism suspects such as the failed Christmas Day bomber of a U.S. airliner.

Asked by committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, of the likelihood of another attempted terror attack on the United States in the next three to six months, the officials agreed with Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair’s initial answer of “certain.”

Full article here

Washington DC transit system holds anti-terror drills

February 2, 2010

AFP
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Dozens of police officers swarmed one of Washington DC’s busiest stations with dogs and bomb technicians during Tuesday’s morning rush hour, to demonstrate that the US capital city’s transit system can thwart possible terror attacks.

At around 7:30 am (1330 GMT), some 50 officers from various Metro police units — including its new anti-terror team, special response teams and criminal investigators — began their work at the Union Station subway stop near the US Capitol building that houses Congress.

“The event is meant to remind riders that Metro remains vigilant against terrorist activity,” Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority spokeswoman Cathy Asato said in a recorded statement.

“It is important to remember there is no current threat to the transit agency or any elevated threat level.”

Full article here

UK Airport Refuses to Commit to Controversial Body Scanners

February 2, 2010

Rob Merrick
Darlington Northern Echo
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

ONE of the region’s airports is on a collision course with the government over controversial body scanners that produce a naked image of passengers.

Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) is refusing to give a commitment to install the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), which Gordon Brown has insisted is vital to defeat terrorists.

The prime minister backed the scanners – which allow security staff to detect explosives hidden on a passenger’s body – after the Christmas Day attempted bombing on a flight to Detroit.

Earlier today, the department for transport (Dft) ordered all airports to install them before the summer holiday season, stating they must be in place “in the coming months”.

Full article here


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.

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