Friday, June 13, 2015 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ National Whistleblower Center ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Friday, June 13, 2015 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ National Whistleblower Center ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Monday, August 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Project - N.N.O.M.Y ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Monday, August 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Project - N.N.O.M.Y ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ The National Network Opposing The Militarization of Youth ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Monday, August 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Project - Y.A.N:D ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Monday, August 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Project - Y.A.N:D ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ The National Network Opposing The Militarization of Youth ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Sunday, July 13, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ One Nation Under Surveillance ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Sunday, July 13, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ One Nation Under Surveillance ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Nullify The NSA - ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Nullify The NSA - ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[ Whatis - Income Tax Research ]]]]]]]]]]]]

Saturday, January 18, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[ Whatis - Income Tax Research ]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Stop Funding Criminal Government - Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ The Lone Gladio By Sibel Edmonds ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ The Lone Gladio By Sibel Edmonds ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[ Bin Laden Worked With U.S. Government After 9/11 ]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[ Bin Laden Worked With U.S. Government After 9/11 ]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[ U.S. Government 'Directly Involved' In Terror Plots ]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[ U.S. Government 'Directly Involved' In Terror Plots ]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, October 12, 2015 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[ The Attacks Will Be Spectacular ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, October 12, 2015 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[ The Attacks Will Be Spectacular ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Disseminate Widely ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[ Reality Check More Americans Rethinking 9/11 ]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[ Reality Check More Americans Rethinking 9/11 ]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ We Will N.E.V.E.R. Forget ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Thursday, Sept 11, 2014 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ We Will N.E.V.E.R. Forget ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ N.E.V.E.R. Forget ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Cost of War to the United States

Friday, December 30, 2011

9/11 Iran Charges, Tapestry of Lies - IRAQ WMD Replay

By PressTV - Posting #188

A senior US analyst believes Western media reports about Iran's complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks are nothing more than “a tapestry of recycled fabrications and distortions of fact from a bizarre cast of characters.”

In an article posted on Truthout, Gareth Porter said the story first published by the Associated Press on December 23, about Iran having assisted al-Qaeda in the planning of 9/11 attacks suffers on the side of evidence and witnesses.

The lawyers" and the 'expert witnesses' behind the accusation of Iran in regard to 9/11 hoped to sell the press and public on recycled claims first made by Iranian defectors several years ago that they had personal knowledge of Iranian participation in the 9/11 plot,” he added.

Porter noted that the main body of evidence in the case has been provided by two allegedly defectors of Iran's intelligence apparatus, later identified as Abolqasem Mesbahi and Hamid Reza Zakeri.

Both of them, he adds, had tried to contact the US intelligence officials through the right-wing journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman, who is a brazen supporter of White House's neocon policies.

Mesbahi claimed to have inside information about Iranian involvement in the terrorist attacks and had tried to warn the US Embassy in Berlin but was “unsuccessful” in several attempts.

Later investigations, however, revealed that Mesbahi had no contact with high-level Iranian intelligence officials throughout the 1990s and later.

The FBI Hezbollah Office's James Bernazzani later noted that the Bureau considered Mesbahi as “someone who was desperate for money and ready to provide testimony to any country on any case involving Iran.”

The second defector, Hamid Reza Zakeri, claimed that he had been an officer of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and had provided security for a meeting at an airbase near Tehran on May 4, 2001, attended by high-ranking Iran and al-Qaeda officials, including Osama bin Laden's son, Saad bin Laden.

He claimed that he had told the US Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, on July 26, 2001, about the alleged meeting and had warned its officials about a possible plan by Iranians and al-Qaeda to attack some US targets on September 11, 2001.

The CIA officials, however, categorically denied that Zakeri had given any such warning to the embassy and called Zakeri “a fabricator of monumental proportions.” He also failed an FBI polygraph test in 2003.

According to Porter, the second area of weakness which further discredits the story about Iran's part in 9/11 attacks is composition of “expert witnesses” who were asked to judge the testimony of Iranian defectors.

They included Clare M. Lopez and Bruce Tefft, both former CIA covert operations case officers.
Both of them, Porter said, are also staunch advocates of neocon ideas who explicitly argue that there is a worldwide war against Islam.

“The most egregious allegations of Iranian complicity in 9/11 come from three former staff members of the 9/11 Commission - Daniel Byman, Dietrich Snell, and Janice Kephart,” he added.

They claimed that Iran has provided “material support” to al-Qaeda operatives by facilitating their passage through the country and failure to stamp their passports.

Contradicting their claims, Porter says, the 9/11 Commission report has noted on page 169 that the Iranian practice of not stamping visas directly into passports applied to everyone, not simply to al-Qaeda operatives.

The Commission report further acknowledged that there was no evidence of Iranian foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the visa policy did not support the thesis that Iran provided “material support” for the al-Qaeda plot.

Refuting claims that Tehran provided a “safe haven” for al-Qaeda operatives, Porter said, Iran actually arrested 300 al-Qaeda operatives and gave a dossier with their names, passport pictures, and fingerprints to the United Nations while repatriating 200 of them to the new government in Afghanistan.

“One of the senior al-Qaeda detainees apparently detained by Iran during 2002-03 period, Saif al-Adel, later told a Jordanian journalist that Iran's operations against al-Qaeda had 'confused us and aborted 75 percent of our plans'” Porter added.

Wrapping up his analysis, Porter concluded that the only real effect of the case against Iran is to promote right-wing political myths about the country because in such cases, the witnesses are not subject to cross examination in court and, therefore, indulge in false testimony, knowing that there will be no one to challenge them.

He noted that “the ostensible purpose” of the case brought by families of 9/11 terror attack victims against Iran is to win compensation for alleged damages as has happened in many other cases where “default judgments” have been made against Iran by US courts.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Report [.pdf]

BFP: Iraq Began with Big Lies; Ending with Big Lies; Never Forget

Perception Management

9/11 Fraud

9/11 Commisson Is A Fraud

Al Qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication – a Made in the USA production

New 9/11 Timeline Entries: Nuclear War Exercise on 9/11, NORAD Commanders’ Delayed Response to Attacks, Increase in Military Alert Status

9/11 Hijackers Passports were issued by the CIA :o

Time To Attack Iran

Crackpot Anti-Islam Activists, "Serial Fabricators" and the Tale of Iran and 9/11

Judge: Iran, Taliban, al Qaeda liable for 9/11 - LOL LOL LOL

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Demonizing The Enemy: Preparing Americans And The World for an All Out Attack Against Iran

by Russ Baker - Posting #187

A growing body of evidence points to a concerted campaign to prepare Americans and the world for war against Iran. This is not idle speculation. It fits a pattern that repeatedly preceded previous hostilities.

Here are the recent examples on Iran:

-The claim that Iran is a WMD threat. Pretty much everyone is familiar with the long-term, continuing efforts to paint Iran as some kind of nuclear threat. This ignores the possibility that Iran is telling the truth in contending it is embarked on solely non-military nuclear research (debatable), and serious doubts among many experts that Iran is preparing nuclear weapons. Perhaps most important, it discounts the fact that many countries (including Iran’s arch-enemy Israel) have nuclear weapons, and disregards the undoubted truth that if a country like Iran ever did launch nuclear weapons, it would be wiped out in a nanosecond, creating a very strong disincentive for offensive use. At the same time, by encouraging other countries and internal foes to believe that it has nuclear weapons, Iran creates an inexpensive protective shield for its regime. A dangerous game, to be sure, but without further evidence of Iranian nukes, hardly a reason to launch a war that would surely cause even more death and destruction than the misguided Iraq invasion.

-The claim that Iran tried to hire Mexican drug cartel hit squads to kill a Saudi ambassador on US soil (fizzled). Remember this one? So ludicrous that even ultra-cautious corporate news organizations laughed it out of the spotlight. Still, it may have been a test of what will fly—and likely did impact a percentage of the population, particularly those getting their info from jingoistic outlets like Fox.
-The claim that Iran was complicit in the 9/11 attacks (current). A federal judge, reviewing evidence presented in a lawsuit on behalf of 9/11 victims, concluded this month that it proved Iran “provided direct support to Al Qaeda specifically for the attacks…on September 11, 2001.” This one may gain traction due to powerful lingering emotions on the topic. Because this ruling and the underlying lawsuit are based largely on the claims of defectors (and past experience shows that defectors frequently trade politically valuable assertions for personal benefits), more research is needed on this. (Remember discredited CIA Iraq source “Curveball”?) The cited “NSA intercepts” also bring to mind the intercepts put forward as proof that Saddam had WMDs.

It is further worth noting that the defendant, Iran, was not present to challenge the assertions. In addition, examination of many of the plaintiff assertions shows that they may misrepresent circumstantial evidence. (Example: “Several of the 9/11 hijackers transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports.” This ignores the fact that Iran, which is an enemy of Saudi Arabia, makes a practice of not stamping Saudi passports so that Saudi nationals, especially minority Shiites, do not get in trouble with Saudi authorities on their return—similar to Cuba’s practice of not stamping American passports.)

This story has yet to break big, but count on the ruling to be cited increasingly in the months ahead by those pushing for war.

And here are a few past examples of fake accusations and media distortions (1990 to 2011).
Blame Saddam for Incubator baby deaths and plots against Bush’s father; provoke him by slant drilling from Kuwait, then imply no objection if he takes action; blame him for 9/11 complicity, falsely tie him to Al Qaeda, claim he possesses WMDs and poses an imminent threat, misrepresent claims to make it seem that he did not destroy WMD stocks as ordered.. More here and here and here.

-Blame Qaddafi for Lockerbie bombing, mass rapes, mass murder, fund an uprising, then bomb him for “humanitarian” reasons when he responds in order to assure his survival. Click here and here for more on this.

You don’t have to approve of these regimes to see that these appear to be (and in many cases certainly were) false provocations that reek of ulterior motives (hint: how many of these countries are oil exporters?) In fact, you can abhor these regimes and hope that they will not survive, and still realize how problematical it is for the American government to repeatedly foist big lies on its own people. This kind of thing is beneath any administration claiming lofty ideals and purporting to serve the public interest—and something that none of us should feel comfortable being party to.

If the public interest is defined as “seizing oil wherever it may be found,” then, well, that’s a conversation we need to have…and quick. There are severe consequences of this definition. Among them, the empowerment of those forces, both corporate and governmental, that profit most from the unbridled development of fossil fuels—and that have good reasons to block the development of renewable sources of energy. They’re known today as the One Percent, and they are destroying our world.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: The US-Iran Economic War

BFP: Imperialism & the “Anti-Imperialism of the Fools”

Tensions Rise as U.S. Imposes 'Nuclear Option' on Iran's Economy

Sayanim: Israeli Operatives in the U.S.

The Big LIE

How PR Sold The War In IRAQ

The Proof Is In The Padding

Libya: Connect The Dots And You Get A Big Dollar Sign

The Libya Secret: How The West Cooked Up "Peoples Uprising"

Red Lines and Ticking Clocks: U.S. War Plans Against Iran

Sunday, December 25, 2011

'Israel Prime Culprit In 9/11 Attacks' - Tempus Omnia Revelat

By PressTV - Posting #186

The latest US allegation against Iran accusing the country of being involved in the 9/11 incident is utterly “preposterous,” as numerous independent probes have established Israel's key role in the deadly attacks, a political analyst tells Press TV.

James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for the 9/11 Truth, questioned the legality of a Thursday ruling by a US federal judge in Manhattan, alleging Iran's involvement in the terrorist attacks, describing the judicial ruling as “quite preposterous on its face.”

In an extraordinary move, the court also withdrew Saudi Arabia from the ten-year-old case, even though 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were Saudi nationals.

Fetzer pointed to multiple investigations on the 9/11 incident by independent journalists, including Alan Subrosky, Christopher Bolyn, Wayne Madsen as well as other websites exclusively devoted to probe into the issue, insisting all those researches have revealed that “Israel, the MOSSAD, have played a key role on 9/11.”

The political analyst also made reference to the proposal by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his address to the UN General Assembly, calling for an independent international probe into the 9/11 incident.

In his September 22 speech, Ahmadinejad said the US government has been involved in the 9/11 attacks or has allowed them to happen to find an excuse to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fetzer referred to Washington's massive media campaign to put the blame of 9/11 on al-Qaeda in the wake of Ahmadinejad's proposal, and questioned, “So who was it - Iran or al-Qaeda?”

On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks were carried out in the United States, reportedly leaving nearly 3,000 people dead.

The US government claimed that 19 terrorists, allegedly affiliated with the shadowy, Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda group, had hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners to carry out the attacks.

The official US account of the September 11 events has, however, been widely challenged by various quarters in the US and worldwide.

The US, under the administration of former President Bush, invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after claiming that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the members of al-Qaeda harbored by the then Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The US also attacked Iraq in 2003, insisting that the oil-rich country was in possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: BFP: The Origins of Imperial Israel- Part II :o

BFP: The Origins of Imperial Israel- Part I :o

US silent war, loud weapons on Iran

Israeli Spying in the United States

After 10 years, US blames Iran for 9/11

'9/11 allegation US ploy for Iran war'

Iran rejects US allegations as baseless

Friday, December 23, 2011

AIPAC and Israel Compromised Sensitive US Industry Secrets

By IRmep - Posting #185

Washington, DC-Following a three year Freedom of Information Act battle, US Trade Ambassador Ron Kirk has been forced to publicly release a secret report about America's first bilateral trade agreement. The 1984 report predicted which US industries would be most harmed by massive trade preferences for Israel.

In 2009 the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), a Washington nonprofit that works to improve policy formulation, sought public release of the report. The USTR refused. IRmep appealed to an outside review panel arguing that declassified FBI files revealed both the Israeli government and American Israel Public Affairs Committee unlawfully obtained the report in 1984. A declassified FBI investigation uncovered AIPAC's receipt of the report from Israel's Economics Minister, who refused to divulge how he obtained it. IRmep successfully argued that Americans most harmed by the data theft should also have access to the report.

The International Trade Commission compiled "Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty-Free Treatment for Imports from Israel" by soliciting confidential business information from all concerned industries. US tomato growers and canners wanted to protect domestic production and jobs while discounting Israel as a significant market for US products. Arkansas bromine producers were concerned that Israel's state-owned producer would displace private sector US jobs in an economically challenged region.

According to the secret trade report "Opposition to the duty-free tariff treatment for jewelry was voiced by the largest national jewelry trade association and several domestic producers...Support for the elimination of jewelry tariffs came from an importer and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee....The implementation of this proposal would eliminate uncertainty about the future of the GSP program, a program which is the key to Israel's competitiveness in the US market."

Passage of Israel trade preferences into law in 1985 created a chronic US deficit averaging $10 billion per year. In May of 2011, IRmep's Center for Policy and Law Enforcement filed a petition with the USTR Section 301 Committee demanding $6.64 billion in compensation for exporters that suffered confidential business information loss to AIPAC and Israel. Although USTR refused to pursue the petition, the report's public release now provides crucial evidence for civil damage claims to be filed in court against AIPAC. Stakeholders may now download released sections of the report and links to FBI files at:

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: The diversion of US weapons-grade uranium to Israel

Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP)

Investigation of AIPAC for Espionage and Theft of Government Property

Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty Free Treatment for Imports from Israel

Monday, December 19, 2011

From America to Amerika: The End Game - TIs - Heads Up

By James Fetzer - Posting #184

According to James Fetzer, the progressive erosion of civil rights in the United States started with "Operation Paperclip" and the recruitment of criminal Nazi scientists for employment by U.S. intelligence. The further trashing of the Bill of Rights under the Patriot Act, in the wake of 9/11, has now been surpassed by a Gestapo-like bill that legalizes arrest, indefinite detention, torture and interrogation of U.S. citizens without any charge or trial. On the back of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the U.S. government may be taking its citizens down the road to tyranny.

The brutal suppression of the exercise of freedom of speech and of the right to petition our government for redress of grievances of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement by local and campus police departments, who are clad in riot gear and helmets with masks, appears to be a manifestation of the increasing militarization of police departments at the local, state, and federal level through the creation of “fusion centers” supervised by the Department of Homeland Security.

These events, in turn, reflect the increasingly fascistic character of the national police state into which the US has evolved, not least of all as a consequence of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was justified by the fabricated events of 9/11. Those who have any concerns about the ramifications of the Patriot Act in subverting the U.S. Constitution, at this point in time, should have no lingering doubts.

The most striking indication that all is not well turns out to be the activation of FEMA detention facilities across the county upon 72 hours notice, which has been taking place over the past few years, with bids now being taken for vendors to supply these centers. Staffing those facilities represents the final step preparing for their opening along with arranging for vendors contracted to start service with that same 72 hours notice. This has now been confirmed by published Army advertisements for “Internment Specialists”, which, it now appears, is being given legal cover by Senate Bill 1867, better known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), which authorizes holding U.S. citizens in indefinite detention with no legal rights of representation or due process provisions.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), has now explained on the floor of the Senate that language which would have precluded those conditions from applying to U.S. citizens (in its Section 1031) was removed at the request of the administration, which thus reflects President Obama’s position.

Empowering the military to implement these policies represents the death throes of the Posse Comitatus Act, which was meant to delimit and constrain the powers of local and state governments and law enforcement agencies from the use of federal military personnel to enforce federal laws, which, as RT has reported, is being done by transforming local and state police agencies into an ersatz “standing army”.

Much of this represents the culmination of corrupt practices since World War II, including special “Operation Paperclip,” by which high-level Nazi intelligence operatives along with research scientists were brought to the U.S. and integrated into our intelligence agencies and research operations. While some of us expected Barack Obama to repeal the Patriot Act, rescind the Military Commissions Act and close Guantanamo, none of that has come to pass and the situation has only grown more grave.

I therefore invited Dennis Cimino to join me in addressing these issues from an historical point of view and reflecting on what, if anything, U.S. citizens can do about it.

America: The End Game with Dennis Cimino

If you haven’t heard, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) gives the U.S. military the authority to indefinitely detain without charge and incarcerate any U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, for reasons and on grounds that the military does not have to disclose. It is stunning that this act subverts habeas corpus, originally formalized by an Act of Parliament in England (1679), but which recognized the long standing practice that a citizen cannot be detained for prosecution by a court of law without due process, including the right to know the charges being brought against him and the right to legal representation. If you ask perhaps how this Senate bill and the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor are related, the answer is not difficult to discern for multiple reasons, including the treatment of Japanese-Americans in the wake of Pearl Harbor, but especially because of the early warnings involved.

Warning the American people that the American military is coming for them may initially appear to be comparable to the Japanese warning the United States that it was about to attack Pearl Harbor. Were the Japanese aware that we had broken their code, sending President Franklin D. Roosevelt an advisory message warning him of Japan’s intention to attack would have been a rather odd thing to have done. Looking at the McCain and Levin amendments to this appropriations bill may bear comparison to Hirohito telling an Adversary who has embargoed his country’s access to oil that he planned to retaliate.

In the case of the McCain/Levin amendment, this is a warning to every U.S. citizen who takes issue with this corrupt, murderous, even illegitimate government in Washington, D.C., no matter where they are here in the United States, that the military now has a hunting license to come to get you and ferret you off to a secret stalag for torture and indefinite incarceration.

Internment Camp Services Bid Arrives After NDAA

On 6 December 2011, Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones reported that has received a document originating from KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, that offers details of plans to activate FEMA and U.S. Army camps around the United States. Entitled "Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements," the document describes services that KBR is looking to farm out to subcontractors. As they explain, “Services up for bid include catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, refuse collection, and other services required for temporary ‘emergency environment’ camps located in five regions of the United States.” This means that the activation of those camps is not a distant event but has become imminent.

KBR’s call for FEMA camp service bids arrived soon after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects (including Occupy Wall Street movement protesters) in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus. Section 1031 of the NDAA bill declares the whole of the United States as a "battlefield" and allows U.S. citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay.

The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), the nation’s oldest and largest Asian American civil and human rights organization, which is not surprising given the treatment Japanese-Americans received in the wake of Pearl Harbor. Thus, “In a letter addressed to Congress, S. Floyd Mori, the national director of JACL, said the NDAA is the first time that Congress has scaled back on the protections provided by the Non-Detention Act of 1971, including Section 1031. Mori said the legislation, if enacted and put into use, would be reminiscent of the unconstitutional indefinite detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.”

KBR Instrumental in Establishing Camps in 2006

As they also explain, “In 2006, KBR was awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security, allegedly to support its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency, Market Watch reported. The contract was effective immediately and provided for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company explained."

The sentence alluding to “the rapid development of new programs”, of course, offers no indication of what those “new programs” might be. But, at this point in time, given the inclusion of language in NDAA 2012 authorizing the apprehension and indefinite detention of American citizens in violation of habeas corpus at the request of the Obama administration, there can be scant reason to doubt that these “new programs” are intended to suppress dissent by the most powerful possible means, no matter how much the Constitution and Bill of Rights are thereby obviated. There are precursors for these events in European history, of course, including the Enabling Act passed by the German Parliament at the insistence of then-Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Most U.S. citizens are ignorant of those developments, even though they paved the way for The Third Reich. And others remain infatuated with the notion of “American exceptionalism”, which is a form of mass delusion that “it can’t happen here.” Unfortunately, it not only can but actually is “happening here”!

Army Civilian Inmate Labor Program

As Nimmo and Jones also report, “Soon after KBR’s announcement, a little-known Army document surfaced. Entitled the ‘Civilian Inmate Labor Program’, the unclassified document describes in detail Army Regulation 210-35. The regulation, first drafted in 1997, underwent a "rapid act revision" in January 2005 and now provides a policy for the creation of labor programs and prison camps on Army installations.” Moreover, “In 2009, the National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 was introduced in Congress. It mandates the establishment of ‘national emergency centers’ to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing ‘temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster’, according to the bill. In addition to emergencies, the legislation is designed to ‘meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security’, an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse, as Paul Joseph Watson noted in January of 2009.” Those fears, alas, are now coming to fruition.

Pearl Harbor and the "New Pearl Harbor”

As history records, the U.S. Navy took one massive pasting in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. B-17 bombers were arrayed in neat rows at the Naval Air Station, Ford Island, in the middle of the harbor, while battleships—which were no longer the core of the fleet and thus were moderately expendable, while the carriers, which would be necessary to a war in the Pacific, had been put to sea—were left at pier side. The military was not on any alert status of any kind, in spite of the fact that the intelligence community in the United States had plenty of reason to do so. The old “Pearl Harbor” has now been succeeded by the "new ‘Pearl Harbor’” as a fabricated attack intended to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate us to promote a political agenda.

The first event was allowed to happen to induce the citizens of this nation to abandon isolationism and engage with our allies in World War II. The second event was made to happen to induce us to support wars of aggression against nations that had never attacked us, with regard to our foreign policy, and to surrender civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution, as a matter of domestic politics, both of which were strikingly contrary to our values and traditions. The consequences of the “new” Pearl Harbor are now coming to their culmination in the complete abdication of our Constitution and the emplacement of a national security/police state.

The question thus becomes what we should do about it.

Telegraphing the actions that the government is about to take may have been an unavoidable consequence of securing Congressional approval by the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. It was something that those who are about to enslave us simply could not avoid. But we have to ask ourselves:

If you were issued advance warning that your government was about to “go rogue” and abandon the last vestiges of the rule of law by shredding the Constitution in front of you, would you not be disposed to take certain actions to make it , if not “very difficult”, at least “very stupid” for them to send soldiers to seize you for exercising your right of dissent? Is our own government counting on our naivete to take for granted that our Senators and Representatives are looking out for our best interests, just as Bush and Cheney were looking our for us on 9/11? And when Sen. Carl Levin has explained Obama himself wanted these provisions, how dumb are we?

We would guess that the number of citizens who have valid and quite genuine disagreement with the outrageous and criminal policies of the government in Washington, D.C., might represent as much as 20-30% of the adult population and possibly more. Applied to 300,000,000 citizens, that might equal roughly 60,000,000. If it’s half that, around 30,000,000; and half that, only 15,000,000. Calculations done on the basis of the number of railroad cars that Halliburton has been commissioned to construct times the number of those they can carry using the shackles with which they are equipped approximates 15,000,000 detainees. So maybe that number is the closer approximation.

Estimates have it that some 80,000,000 American citizens are armed, where the certainty is that more than a hundred and fifty million households in the U.S. have some form of firearm beyond a .22 caliber “Saturday night special”, and at least two or three members of that household may well be able to aim and fire it at an intruder, be they a thief or a person in a police or a military uniform. In any case, since 9/11, we have had the government put every one of us on the highest paranoia alert status in American history with a series of fear mongering, wholly unjustified reasons for us to either look for Muslims coming from every nook and cranny, as well as the recent advice by Janet Napolitano, who would have each of us conduct surveillance on our friends and neighbors

Where do we go from here?

We have experienced the FBI having set up dozens of fake terror suspects, and have had to endure insane scenarios such as “underpants” and “shoe” bombers who either can’t get the loads in their pants to go off or effectively light a cigarette with repeated attempts. We are told that a guy with no passport was waltzed past security to board an international flight without any problems, apparently because he was escorted by some official no one has been able to identify. We were conned about 19 Arab hijackers magically overcoming the totality of the entire North American Defense Command on 9/11 using box cutters as their weapons. But it turns out that the government has never been able to prove that they were actually aboard any of those planes. And the alleged phone calls from all four planes turn out to have been faked. How dumb are we supposed to be?

The government, it now appears, has given us a two year head start on arming and loading to protect ourselves, even if it would have preferred not to have done so. By putting an advertisement for "Internment Specialists with an MOS of 31 ECHO" in the advertising section of The Wall Street Journal and in other printed media, when, since the Patriot Act was morphed three times, they didn’t have to say a public word and could have hired these specialists in secret with a far more covert approach than by announcements in these publications. But the point may be to make it appear as though these moves were undertaken in the public interest. After all, if something terrifying and subversive were going on, it could be argued, why would it be done in such a public fashion? But to ask the question is to answer it. As Hitler observed, BIG LIES are simply beyond the comprehension of most citizens—of Germany or of any other country.

Tactically, it doesn’t make any sense. Militarily the U.S. does not have the troop strength to quell massive civil unrest without the use of non-conventional force application. Which is it? Is it another Pearl Harbor “let it happen on purpose” like 7 December 1941 and, for that matter, also similar to the 9/11 “made it happen on purpose” gambit used to psychologically traumatize and induce fear into the the American public by fabricating a non-existent enemy striking from the caves of Tora Bora? The threat of NDAA appears to be ‘real’ but, to those of us who understand what it represents, as ludicrous as Emperor Hirohito calling FDR on the phone and telling him that on Sunday, 7 December 1941, he was going to attack the U.S. fleet. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. Perhaps they want to provoke a civil war that would justify to complete deconstruction of America. Perhaps they are simply playing us for saps. It has worked before. It can work again.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy



S.1867 NDAA [.pdf]

Internment / Resettlement Specialist (31E)

Posse Comitatus Act

Operation Paperclip

Military Commissions Act

The secret behind Guantánamo

Project Overview and Anticipated Project Requirements [.pdf]

Japanese American Citizens League

The Non-Detention Act 1971

ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program

The Enabling Act 1933

Civilian Inmate Labor Program [.pdf]

Monday, December 12, 2011

CIA Use of Nazi War Criminals - Worse Than Most People Realize

By Gibrielle Pickard - Posting #182

The severity and the extent of the CIA’s involvement with Nazi war criminals has remained undisclosed for years, with the U.S. Department of Justice stifling masses of pages and documents of a frank and open history of how the U.S. government collaborated and even protected Nazis.

In 2005, the National Security Archive finally posted formerly classified secret documents that linked the CIA to the notorious Nazi general Reinhard Gehlen, despite the fact that Gehlen had employed numerous known Nazi war criminals.

The released two-volume history, known as the “Secret Relger”, was compiled by Kevin Ruffner, a CIA historian. In 1999, the report was presented to the German Intelligence Service by Jack Downing, CIA Deputy Director for Operations, in remembrance of the “new and close ties” formed between the CIA and German officials during post-war Germany.

Close Ties Between CIA and Nazi Criminals

The history of these close ties was made public by work carried out by The Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG). The IWG had lodged public grievances stating that the CIA had not conformed to the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, and was concealing documents that proved close ties between the CIA and Nazi war criminals.

In 2010, the entire document that had earlier been censored by the Department of Justice was leaked to the New York Times.

The 600-page report was published in the New York Times, and revealed new evidence that numerous notorious Nazi war criminals had been involved with the CIA in the last three decades.

While previous government reports had emerged which recognized, “the CIA’s use of Nazi for post-war intelligence purposes”, the Justice Department report published in the New York Times just over a year ago is by far the most damning expose of those activities.

The shocking report provides the world with evidence about the U.S. government’s posthumous pursuit of the “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz, Dr. Josef Mengele. In a surreal revelation, the report revealed that part of Josef’s scalp was being kept in a Justice Department official’s drawer.

The report also detailed the government’s mistaken identity of ‘Ivan the Terrible’, a Treblinka concentration camp guard, as well as the vigilante killing of a former Waffen SS soldier in New Jersey.

More Evidence on Operation Paperclip

But the report’s most incriminatory revelation, as highlighted by the New York Times, was its assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency’s association with Nazi émigrés.

Nazi’s, according to the report, were given a “safe haven” in the U.S. This isn’t really news to the many so-called conspiracy theorist that have been investigating activities related to Project Paperclip, however these documents finally provide conclusive and undeniable evidence that the U.S. government knowingly and willingly harbored known Nazi war criminals.

The investigators that produced the report discovered that some Nazis, “were indeed knowingly granted entry” into the United States, and that:

“America, which prided itself on being a safe haven for the persecuted, became – in some small measure – a safe haven for persecutors as well.”

Alongside the numerous cases chronicled, describing American intelligence officials aiding and protecting Nazis, the report also disclosed that in 1954, the CIA provided help to Otto Von Bolschwing. Otto was an associate of Adolf Eichmenn, who had assisted the plan to “purge Germany of the Jews,” and who had later worked for the CIA in the United States.

Another shocking case highlighted by the report that implicates the CIA with Nazi war criminals was made in a memo written by the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, urging immigration officers to let the notorious Nazi scientist Arthur L. Rudolph back into the country.

The motivation behind his immigration in 1945 was to bring him to the U.S. to be involved in the rocket-making operation well-known as “Operation Paperclip”. The memo stated that a failure to let him in would be a “detriment to the country.”

The Cover-Up by the Justice Department

It does seem somewhat baffling that the Justice Department would attempt to keep such an important part of history a secret for so long, but as Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive said on the Archive’s website:

“Embarrassment suffered by public officials is the price they pay for power. It goes with the territory, but here, their cover-up is not nearly as bad as the crime, which was to shelter Nazi war criminals in the name of national security. This the public needs to know and has a right to know.”

In the wake of the accountability investigations for Holocaust victims, Elizabeth Holtman, former congresswoman and member of the IWG said in an interview with the New York Times:

“I think that the CIA has defied he law, and in so doing has also trivialised the holocaust, thumbed its nose at the survivors of the Holocaust and also at the Americans who gave their lives in the effort to defeat the Nazis in World War II.”

In light of the damning report, with content that has been kept secret for far too long, it is hardly surprising that the CIA is now developing an “ethical inventory”, as Kent Pekel, Special Adviser to the Deputy Secretary of State, said on the CIA website’s Need for Improvement article:

“Given our shared conviction that ethics is as much an organizational as a personal issue, the members of our working group decided that an ‘ethical inventory’ of the Agency’s operating culture might be useful in our effort to design a new Agency-wide program of ethics education.”

It is a sentiment that feels hollow and empty, given the nature of what the CIA has done. It also begs the important question, if it took so long for the truth about this activity to make it into the public domain – just how many other unethical activities are being hidden away in the deep, dark recesses of the Intelligence Community?

And if such actions could take place so long ago in the name of America, without the permission of Americans – what sort of practices are taking place today by the CIA without the oversight and consent of the American people?

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


Operation Paperclip

The American Nazi Party

The Lost Von Braun

The CIA and Nazi War Criminals

Justice Department Censors Nazi-Hunting History

The Terrible Nazi Medical Experiments of WWII


Thursday, December 8, 2011

Air Force Dumped Ashes Of Troops’ Remains In Virginia Landfill

By Craig Whitlock and Mary Pat Flaherty - Posting #182

The Air Force dumped the incinerated partial remains of at least 274 American troops in a Virginia landfill, far more than the military had acknowledged, before halting the secretive practice three years ago, records show.

The landfill dumping was concealed from families who had authorized the military to dispose of the remains in a dignified and respectful manner, Air Force officials said. There are no plans, they said, to alert those families now.

The Air Force had maintained that it could not estimate how many troops might have had their remains sent to a landfill. The practice was revealed last month by The Washington Post, which was able to document a single case of a soldier whose partial remains were sent to the King George County landfill in Virginia. The new data, for the first time, show the scope of what has become an embarrassing episode for vaunted Dover Air Base, the main port of entry for America’s war dead.

The landfill disposals were never formally authorized under military policies or regulations. They also were not disclosed to senior Pentagon officials who conducted a high-level review of cremation policies at the Dover mortuary in 2008, records show.

Air Force and Pentagon officials said last month that determining how many remains went to the landfill would require searching through the records of more than 6,300 troops whose remains have passed through the mortuary since 2001.

“It would require a massive effort and time to recall records and research individually,” Jo Ann Rooney, the Pentagon’s acting undersecretary for personnel, wrote in a Nov. 22 letter to Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.).

Holt, who has pressed the Pentagon for answers on behalf of a constituent whose husband was killed in Iraq, accused the Air Force and Defense Department of hiding the truth.

“What the hell?” Holt said in a phone interview. “We spent millions, tens of millions, to find any trace of soldiers killed, and they’re concerned about a ‘massive’ effort to go back and pull out the files and find out how many soldiers were disrespected this way?” He added: “They just don’t want to ask questions or look very hard.”

Senior Air Force leaders said there was no intent to deceive. “Absolutely not,” said Lt. Gen. Darrell D. Jones, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for personnel.

This week, after The Post pressed for information contained in the Dover mortuary’s electronic database, the Air Force produced a tally based on those records. It showed that 976 fragments from 274 military personnel were cremated, incinerated and taken to the landfill between 2004 and 2008.

An additional group of 1,762 unidentified remains were collected from the battlefield and disposed of in the same manner, the Air Force said. Those fragments could not undergo DNA testing because they had been badly burned or damaged in explosions. The total number of incinerated fragments dumped in the landfill exceeded 2,700.

A separate federal investigation of the mortuary last month, prompted by whistleblower complaints, uncovered “gross mismanagement” and documented how body parts recovered from bomb blasts stacked up in the morgue’s coolers for months or years before they were identified and disposed of....continued here

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: Portions of 9/11 victims’ remains taken to landfill Hmmmm?

Dover mortuary landfill dumping: Congressman asked Pentagon about practice in Sept

The Remains Of The Fallen Return Home

Remains Of War Dead Dumped In Landfill

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Bringing the ‘War on Terror’ Home - Can Ya Hear Me Now?

By Coleen Rowley - Posting #181 - The Enabling Act REMIX

The American TI Issue Comes Front and Center

U.S. intelligence says the terror threat from al-Qaeda is receding, but Congress keeps on expanding the scope of this “war” so as not to look “weak on terror,” now adding new military powers that could be used against American citizens, writes ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley.
The political, military industrial, corporate class in Washington DC continues to re-make our Constitutional Republic into a powerful, unaccountable Military Empire.

The U.S. Senate has just voted 93 to 7 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, which allows the military to operate domestically within the borders of the United States and to possibly (or most probably) detain U.S. citizens without trial.

U.S. Capitol Building

Forget that the ACLU called it “an historic threat to American citizens,” this bill is so dangerous not only to our rights but to our country’s security that it was criticized by the Directors of the FBI and the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Defense Secretary!

For the first time in our history, if this Act is not vetoed, American citizens may not be guaranteed their Article III right to trial. The government would be able to decide who gets an old-fashioned trial (along with right to attorney and right against self-incrimination) and who gets detained without due process and put into a modern legal limbo.

Does anyone remember that none of the first thousand people the FBI rounded up after 9/11, and who were imprisoned for several months (some brutalized) were ever charged with terrorism? Does anyone remember that hundreds of the Gitmo detainees who were handed over to their American military captors in exchange for monetary bounties were found, after years of imprisonment, to have no connection to terrorism?

When in doubt about a case, what do you think the government will again do? Does it prefer to submit its evidence to a jury’s scrutiny and its witnesses to the trouble of being cross-examined in court by a defense attorney or would it be easier to have no questions asked and dump the accused into detainee prison without rights? I think we already know that answer from the nearly ten years of experience at Guantanamo.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, declared that suspected citizens open themselves up “to imprisonment and death” He added: “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Of course, the politicians will say we are just talking about a few cases. But in fact the sky’s probably the limit given the current legal ambiguity in the Patriot Act expansion of “material support for terrorism” to now include humanitarian aid and even mere advocacy speech without any need to prove an accused person intended to support any kind of terrorist violence.

The Department of Justice has been currently using this ambiguity for over a year to investigate 23 American citizens [Bullshit, this has been going on for years] who are anti-war activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. Additionally, the “war on terror” will undoubtedly expand even more when it is de-linked from 9/11.

See “The War on Terrorism Congress Never Declared — But Soon Might” by Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor, expert on these issues and associate dean for scholarship at American University Washington College of Law, which states:

“An individual may be detained for providing ‘direct support’ (which, in the government’s view, may be nothing more than minor financial or logistical assistance) in aid of ‘associated forces’ that are ‘engaged in hostilities against … coalition partners.’

“Thus, the NDAA effectively authorizes the military detention of any individual who provides such assistance anywhere in the world to any group engaged in hostilities against any of our coalition partners, whether or not the United States is in any way involved in (or even affected by) that particular conflict.”

Given this expansion of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force contained in the 2012 NDAA to encompass undefined “associated forces,” we could witness the U.S. government targeting a large range of political dissidents, human rights activists, humanitarians, and maybe even “occupiers.”

The NDAA is deliberately confusing for political purposes but much is at stake. President Barack Obama’s determination as to whether or not he will veto the problematic 2012 war funding bill will determine how Benjamin Franklin’s glib response to the woman waiting outside the Constitutional Convention is ultimately answered. Franklin and other founding fathers had created “a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

But a lawless Military Empire could now await where U.S. “emergency war powers” trump the Constitution, where the Commander in Chief becomes king for a term(s), the military enters into domestic police-state actions in violation of 130 years of Posse Comitatus law, and the Constitution becomes as quaint as the Geneva Conventions were for Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush Administration.

Corrupted, compliant politicians have already allowed their fears to get the better of them by going along with pre-emptive war in violation of the Nuremberg Principles and international law and torturing in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture.

So why should they also not go for detaining American citizens without constitutional rights or trial?

You can tell President Obama he needs to live up to his threat to veto this legislation or you can sign Sen. Mark Udall’s petition.

Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She wrote a “whistleblower” memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI’s pre 9-11 failures. She retired at the end of 2004, and now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: The Ominous Parallels Orginal Report

The Peter Collins Show Interview With Susan Lindauer And Coleen Rowley [.mp3]

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

The War on Terrorism Congress Never Declared — But Soon Might

Senate Votes Not To Vote On Indefinite Detention On Americans

Guantanamo on Main Street? Tell the President No.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Former US Senator Condemns Israel's Lies about Iran

By FARS News Agency - Posting #180

TEHRAN (FNA)- Ex-Senator and former US presidential candidate Mike Gravel condemned Israeli lies about Iran's nuclear activities, and warned Tel Aviv and the US that threatening Iran means playing with fire.

Gravel underlined that beating the drums about attacking Iran is very dangerous and marks the irresponsibility of the Israeli leadership.

"I'm not saying anything new - Sarkozy says Netanyahu is a liar - so in my humble status as a private citizen - I tell you Netanyahu is a liar, because he has made statements about Iran that are absolutely ridiculous - all this to create fear among people in Israel," he said.

Gravel recalled the Bush-created syndrome of 'bunker mentality' that rules people with fear.

"Iran is neither Syria nor Lebanon. Iran is a proud nation and they have missile capabilities - not nuclear-capable - that can rain down on Tel Aviv. I can tell you: if they are attacked - they would attack back. And (because) Israel is so vulnerable and so small that it (Israel) would retaliate with nukes - because they cannot suffer to be destroyed," Gravel predicted, adding that Pakistan and China would join in, with the US to follow - and that is a ready scenario for a nuclear WWIII.

"The best way to solve the problem with Iran is to leave it alone to build a democracy of its own."

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: Nuclear Experts Reject IAEA Iran Report :o

War With Iran Would Be Madness

IAEA Exposed as Israeli Spy Front

Iran Controlling US Warships Passing Through Strait of Hormoz

All of Israel Within Iran Missile Reach

Iran Will Not Sit Back And Watch Threats

Illicit Israeli Military Technology Transfers Continued Amidst US State Department Infighting

By IRmep - Posting #179

In March of 1992 US State Department inspector general Sherman Funk issued a classified report about illegal Israeli transfers of US military technology.

The report finds Israel "is systematically violating U.S. arms control laws." The "Blue Lantern" system used in-country checks conducted by Customs officials or other qualified US embassy personnel to verify that "sensitive U.S. Munitions List items and technology are used only for authorized purposes."

The audit uncovered a breakdown in US inspection regimes. The State Department relied on "government to government" assurances that items were not "retransferred" or "used for unauthorized purposes." Shipments to non-government entities could only be checked if Israeli government officials granted permission.

The auditor discovered that "After reviewing the end use procedures, we stated to post officials that relying entirely on government-to-government assurances is an inadequate verification procedure. This is especially true for a country which, according to numerous intelligence reports, is systematically violating U.S. arms control laws." But the US State Department's own Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs (PM) reined in Blue Lantern investigators stating "investigations were generally not to be conducted unless authorized." One Blue Lantern audit found US telemetry equipment being put to prohibited uses. When notified, the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Control refused to take action and closed the Blue Lantern case.

At the time, the executive and some members of the legislative branch were deeply concerned about the ongoing Israeli diversion to China of military technology from the controversial American-funded Lavi jet fighter project. But /Report of Audit/ reveals a highly dysfunctional inspection regime dominated by political infighting. An attached memo from the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs (PM) challenged the inspector general's premises. "There are two glaring
deficiencies in this section. First, the report is premised on two notions; that if a story appears in an intelligence publication, it must be true; that if some agency not charged with responsibility for a program (in this case low level officials in ACDA) [U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency], they must be correct. As is indicated below, these assumptions do not always pertain. It is not PM's job to react in a knee-jerk fashion to intelligence reports, but to analyze and investigate."

Release notes. On August 14, 2009 the US State Department "denied in full" IRmep's February 14, 2009 Freedom of Information Act request for the Funk audit. IRmep appealed twice to the US Department of State Appeals Review Panel, winning a redacted release on August 1, 2011. IRmep then appealed that Israel, the subject of the entire report, be restored to all areas of the document where State Department censors redacted the country reference.

On September 28, 2011 the State Department refused, responding that "the decision of the Appeals Review Panel is the final decision for the Department of State. Your only available option is litigation." The Wall Street Journal allegedly obtained the report in 1992, but never made it available to the public.

Document/File Date: March of 1992 (PDF)

Contents: Report of Audit - Defense Controls Annex, 2-CI-016A United States Department of State Office of Inspector General, Sherman M. Funk - 3.2 MB

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy



Arms-Export Reports Further Strain U. S. - Israeli Ties

Americans Pay Dearly to Maintain Israel's Nuclear Secrets

Secret CIA/FBI files of NUMEC nuclear diversions to Israel could aid $170 million toxic cleanup

Tribunal Finds Bush - Blair Guilty of War Crimes

By Mathaba - Posting #178 - Yessssssssssssss!!!

Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal Hearing Issues Verdict: Former Prime Minister Blair and Former President Bush Guilty of War Crimes

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) entered its fourth and final day of hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

The Tribunal had decided the previous day that a prima facie case had been made out against both the accused. The Defense team presented their case and submission defending the accused. Some of the points submitted and argued are stated in the following paragraphs.

The Defense adopted their prior submissions and proceeded to raise additional grounds, relying additionally on the memoirs of the first and second accused. The Defence highlighted that as an amicus curiae, his function is to assist the Tribunal by raising points of law that are in doubt and to organise information or raise awareness of some aspect of the case that the Tribunal otherwise may miss.

No one knows what it is like to have the weight of the nation on his shoulders except a head of state. Both the accused, as former heads of state, took their nations to war. The question now is whether their actions amounted to the offence of Crimes against Peace. Did they ‘plan, prepared and invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the UN Charter’?

9/11 changed the world and cast it into a new atmosphere of fear. The world would be a different place. The Prosecution objected to the Defence attempts to show a video recording of the 9/11 attack, as there is no factual basis for the association of 9/11 with Iraq. The fact that the war occurred had been admitted. The war has taken its toll. The question is, was a crime committed by the accused. The Tribunal ruled that it has taken judicial notice (not having to tender evidence to established a fact) of the 9/11 attack and there was no need for the showing of the video.

The Defence submitted, that the first accused in his memoirs, on the issue of the absence of WMD, the accusation that ‘Bush lied, and people died’, would be illogical because he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernible after the war.

The second accused in his memoir said that he understood the need for the 2nd UN resolution for political legitimacy but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members. And also that there was no UN resolution for the action in Kosovo. While the first accused was of the view that Saddam had not adhered to numerous UN Security Council resolutions

There was a moral ground that many critics of the war do not appreciate. Liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam seems to be lost on the critics. The Defence also referred that the first accused had said that Saddam was a threat. Saddam had invaded two neighbours, Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s. He had killed his own people. Had used chemical weapons. Had links with terrorists. And Saddam was developing WMD. And after 9/11, Saddam was a threat that could no longer be ignored.

Some have seen the brutality of war while many are fortunate to have experienced peace. In any event the Defence urged the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence and return a verdict of non-guilty.

Prosecution in their reply stated that everyone has a right to lead unmolested lives governed by law. And in the case before the Tribunal that law is international law. We have to adhere to treaties and conventions that govern international relations. From the documents tendered the first accused had conducted himself in manner that showed that he had decided to invade Iraq long before 2003. And this is also evident from his memoir, which amounts to an admission.

In a criminal trial such as this, there are two elements that need to be proven. The actus rea (the act), which was the war, which is an accepted fact. The mens rea (intention) is shown clearly from the planning and preparation as early as November 2001 when he had asked his Secretary of Defence to draw up plans for the invasion of Iraq. And that in September 2002, the Defence Secretary had informed the first accused, who was the commander in chief that it would take six months to mobilise for invasion. On 4 November 2002, the UN resolution 1441 was passed and the invasion was launched on 19 March 2003. On 17 March 2003 the first accused stated “…Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing”. And on 19 March, the ‘shock and awe’ campaign called Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

The same is true of the second accused who had attacked Iraq. And that he had planned and prepared to invade since 1998. The reason is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from Saddam through the use of military action.

There are 40 UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel but no action is taken. But Saddam had not adhered to 16 resolutions and Iraq is invaded. This is gangsterism.

This is a historic moment for the Tribunal to hear the distance drums of war rumbling even today due to the actions of the first and second accused. War criminals have to be dealt with, convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice.

The Verdict - Guilty!

The Tribunal deliberated over the case and decided unanimously that the first accused George W Bush and second accused Anthony L Blair have been found guilty of the Crimes against Peace.

The second accused at the material time as heads of state launched an invasion on Iraq on 19 March 2003. The charge was duly served in accordance with the Charter of the Commission. The accused did not appear and an amicus curiae was appointed.

The evidence showed that as far back as 15 September 2001 the accused had planned to invade Iraq. Documents showed that this plan was conveyed by the first accused to the second accused. The accused had attempted to seek he UN approval for invasion. On 2 November 2002, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Weapons investigators had confirmed that there were no WMD. It was also established that the Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.

Humanitarian intervention was not a basis for the invasion. The UN Security Council must authorise any use of force. An individual state cannot replace the UN in deciding the use of force. The 9/11 attack did not show any connection with Iraq but instead the US had used this as a pretext to invade Iraq. Invasion to effect regime change has no legal basis under international law.

The Evidence showed that the drums of wars were being beaten long before the invasion. The accused in their own memoirs have admitted their own intention to invade Iraq regardless of international law. Unlawful use of force threatens the world to return to a state of lawlessness. The acts of the accused were unlawful.

The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are found guilty. The Tribunal orders that the names of the 2 convicted criminals be included in the war register of the KL War Crimes Commission. And the findings of this Tribunal be publicised to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statue.

Despite all the facts both the accused had nevertheless invaded Iraq. A detailed written judgment will be published at a later date.

The trial was held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Further Information

For further information, please contact:

Dato’ Dr Yaacob Merican
Secretary General of the KLWCC Secretariat
Tel: +6012-227 8680

Ms Malkeet Kaur
Media Representative of KLWCC
Tel: +6012-3737 886

The Tribunal Members

Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman
Dato' Zakaria Yatim (Recused)
Tunku Sofiah Jewa
Prof Salleh Buang
Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre :o
Prof Emeritus Datuk
Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi
Prof Niloufer Bhagwat (Recused)

The Prosecution

Prof Gurdial S Nijar
Prof Francis Boyle
Mr Avtaran Singh

Amicus Curiae (appointed Defence team)

Mr Jason Kay and (((3))) other counsels.

The Charge

Crimes Against Peace filed against George W Bush (former President of the U.S.) and Anthony L Blair (former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) wherein they are charged as follows:

The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented on facts and law as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement. The verdict and the names of the persons found guilty will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide.

“WHY is it that the murder of one man is considered a criminal act whereas the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people committed in wars, is not considered so?" -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: Report: Pentagon Assists Mossad in Assassination of Iraqi Scientists, Elites

Government, Parliament and military of Sweden reported for war crimes in Libya

Saturday, November 19, 2011

On 9/11, U.S. Military Was Preparing for a Simulated Nuclear War

By Shoestring 9/11 - Posting #177

While September 11, 2001 is well known as the day when the U.S. suffered its worst terrorist attack, what is little known is that it was also a day when large sections of the armed forces around the nation had been preparing to fight a simulated nuclear war, as part of major training exercises being conducted at the time.

In their annual exercises "Vigilant Guardian" and "Global Guardian," the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the United States Strategic Command (Stratcom) were scheduled to carry out what has been described as a "simulated air war," a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise, a "fictional nuclear war," and a "practice Armageddon."

No official attempts have been made to fully investigate these exercises and what effect they had on the military's response to the 9/11 attacks. But evidence indicates they caused at least some confusion over what was "real-world" and what was simulation, and they may also have been a factor behind the communication problems experienced by military personnel that day. Other evidence suggests that some actions that have been presented as reactions to the terrorist attacks may actually have been related to these exercises--actions such as raising the alert status of American armed services to Defcon 3 and closing the huge "blast doors" to NORAD's operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. There is also evidence that other "practice Armageddon" exercises were being conducted at the time of the 9/11 attacks, but details of these are unknown.


Perhaps the most important exercise to consider is NORAD's exercise called "Vigilant Guardian." Close examination of this exercise is imperative due to the crucial role NORAD had to play in responding to the 9/11 attacks.

NORAD is the military organization responsible for monitoring and defending U.S. airspace. It was created during the Cold War, to protect North American airspace against nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union. Its Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado, where numerous staffers were involved in Vigilant Guardian, was described by the BBC as "the nerve centre of North America's air defense." [1] The center's role, according to the Toronto Star, was "to fuse every critical piece of information NORAD has into a concise and crystalline snapshot." [2] And NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York, which was also participating in the exercise, was responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings on September 11. [3]

Vigilant Guardian, described as a "Cold War-style training exercise," was held annually by NORAD. It was reportedly scheduled to last two weeks and was several days underway on September 11. [4] All of NORAD, including its subordinate units, was participating in the exercise that day. [5] NORAD's CMOC was fully staffed for the exercise, with more than 50 members of staff in the Battle Management Center taking part. [6] According to Ken Merchant, NORAD's joint exercise design manager, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon--which also played a key role in the military's response to the 9/11 attacks--regularly contributed to NORAD exercises. It was therefore presumably set to play a role in Vigilant Guardian on September 11. [7]


Full details of Vigilant Guardian are unknown, but various accounts have given indications of what it involved. The 1st Air Force's book about the 9/11 attacks described Vigilant Guardian as a "simulated air war" and as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States." [8] It was a "transition to wartime operations command post exercise," according to an information page for exercise participants. [9] Ken Merchant called Vigilant Guardian a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise. [10] According to the Denver Post, it would involve "ever-escalating scenarios, from strained diplomacy to the outbreak of conventional warfare that headed inexorably toward nuclear conflict." [11]

Lieutenant Colonel William Glover, the commander of NORAD's Air Warning Center on September 11, said Vigilant Guardian involved NORAD "simulating war," with "attacks coming from the outside, Soviet-style bombers coming in, cruise-missile attacks, that type of thing." [12] The 9/11 Commission Report said the exercise "postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union." [13] According to Merchant, it included "bomber response and intercontinental ballistic missile response." [14]

The imagined enemy in Vigilant Guardian was Russia. [15] Merchant told the 9/11 Commission that "NORAD must use Russia in its exercises at the strategic level since no other country poses a great enough threat to NORAD's capabilities and responsibilities." [16]


Full details of what scenarios were scheduled for September 11 are unknown, but some information has been revealed. Vanity Fair reported that Vigilant Guardian had been "designed to run a range of scenarios" that day, "including a 'traditional' simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum." [17] Jeff Ford, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was working in the CMOC on September 11, recalled that it involved "air exercise events and then some scripted inputs that we were reacting to ... whether it be unknown aircraft that we scramble aircraft for to intercept, or whatever." According to Ford, "The big event that day was supposed to be a B-1 bomber that was flying out of Fairchild Air Force Base [in Washington State] and going out over the Pacific." [18]


The other major exercise simulating a nuclear war that is known to have been taking place on September 11 was Global Guardian. This annual exercise was run by Stratcom, which is "the single U.S. military command responsible for the day-to-day readiness of nuclear forces." [19] Like Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian was scheduled to last about two weeks and had already been running for several days by September 11. [20]

Global Guardian was in fact held "in cooperation with" a number of other military exercises, including Vigilant Guardian. [21] Ken Merchant told the 9/11 Commission that it "was coordinated with Vigilant Guardian so the combined Stratcom offensive abilities and the NORAD defensive abilities could be exercised." [22]

Global Guardian, according to an official after-action report on the exercise, was designed to exercise Stratcom "and supporting forces during a simulated crisis, validate war-fighting procedures, and verify command relationships." [23] Military analyst William Arkin described it as an "all-out game involving multiple regional conflicts that lead to a global nuclear war." [24]

The goal of the exercise, according to the Omaha World-Herald, was to test Stratcom's "ability to fight a nuclear war." [25] One reporter said it would involve America fighting "a fictional nuclear war," and would test the "response to a fictional attack from another nation." [26] The adversary preparing this nuclear attack on the United States was a fictional rogue nation called "Slumonia," a small nuclear power in northeast Asia. [27]


Numerous military units were participating in Global Guardian in September 2001. [28] Around the U.S. and off its shores, bombers, missile crews, and submarines were taking part, following orders from Stratcom's command bunker at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. [29] As well as Offutt, other Air Force bases around the U.S. that were involved in the exercise included Barksdale, Minot, and Whiteman Air Force bases, where "dozens of aircraft and hundreds of personnel" were participating. [30]

"Other support" for the exercise was provided by personnel at the Pentagon, Camp H. M. Smith in Hawaii, Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, and NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center. [31] According to William Arkin, several senior civilian and military leaders participated in Global Guardian exercises, including individuals from the offices of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so presumably this was the case in the September 2001 Global Guardian. [32]


Admiral Richard Mies, at that time the commander in chief of Stratcom, has described how Global Guardian was proceeding when the 9/11 attacks took place. He said Stratcom had been "ready to respond to a potential attack from a hypothetical adversary. ... We had intelligence indicating that they were preparing to attack us." Stratcom was positioning its forces "to be ready to offer the president the ability to respond in a wide variety of ways. A lot of our command and control systems that, in peacetime, are normally not on alert were at a much, much higher state of alert and we had a number of aircraft, manned control aircraft that were airborne that were simulating their wartime roles." Preparations underway in the exercise included "elevating our readiness status to a heightened state of readiness," "preparing bombers to potentially launch, if required," and "getting submarines that were in port ready to go to sea."

Mies added that Global Guardian involved "a lot of the elements of what ultimately would be the nuclear command and control system in support of a national emergency." It included "an exercise secretary of defense" and "an exercise president." [33] Among the exercise's objectives were disseminating "presidential nuclear decisions ... to the forces," and preparing and issuing National Command Authority directives, so presumably the participants acting as the president and the secretary of defense were involved in these activities. [34] (The National Command Authority refers collectively to the president and the secretary of defense.)


At Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, according to journalists Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, air crews taking part in the exercise were "pulling nuclear bombs and missiles out of their heavily guarded storage sites and loading them aboard B-52s" on the morning of September 11. Real, live nuclear weapons were being used, but "their triggers were not armed." [35]

American History magazine described the scene at the base: "Even though it was only a drill, the command center was tense, everyone proceeding as if the planes would soon take off on bombing runs, instead of just idling at the end of the runway." Then, at precisely 9:00 a.m. (Eastern time), "an alarm sounded across the base and the crews raced to their planes." After news was received about the terrorist attacks in New York, the base's command staff "ended the drill, but left the fueled and armed planes where they were." [36]

Also as part of Global Guardian, three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes that were based at Offutt Air Force Base were airborne on September 11. The E-4B, nicknamed the "Doomsday" plane during the Cold War, is a militarized version of a Boeing 747-200. It is equipped with advanced communications equipment, and in times of national emergency can act as an alternative command post from which top government officials can direct forces, execute war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities. Even after Global Guardian was terminated, the three E-4Bs remained in the air. [37]


That these training exercises were being conducted on the morning of September 11 raises important questions. As the Omaha World-Herald noted, the fact that Global Guardian was "in full swing" when the United States came under attack was "at least an odd coincidence." [38]

We need to investigate how much confusion military personnel experienced because they were preparing for a simulated attack on America at the time an actual attack on America took place. We already know of some instances of confusion caused by the exercises. For example, when Lieutenant General Thomas Keck, the commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base, who had been monitoring the Global Guardian exercise, was told a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, he initially thought this was a simulated scenario. He therefore told the junior officer who had brought him the news: "That's not the way you interject a situation into a training exercise! When you have a scenario injection, you say, 'Sir, this is an exercise input,' and then you give me the information."

Additionally, some of the airmen at Barksdale who had been participating in the exercise appear to have been only vaguely aware of the real-world crisis. American History noted that after Global Guardian was called off, the crews in the B-52 bombers knew only "that something very serious was happening and they were not being ordered to stand down." Even by early afternoon, they had only heard "the most basic reports about the attacks on New York and the Pentagon." [39]


We also need to consider whether actions incorporated into the training exercises affected lines of communication that would have been critical for enabling a swift response to the terrorist attacks. Some evidence indicates this may have been the case. For example, one of the listed objectives of the September 2001 Global Guardian was to "simulate outages between NC2 [nuclear command and control] nodes requiring alternate routes to maintain connectivity." Another objective was for participants to "determine operational impacts and work-arounds to simulated C4I [command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence] outages." The official after-action report on the exercise did not elaborate on what these "simulated C4I outages" involved. [40]

Certainly, those in NORAD's CMOC, who had been participating in Vigilant Guardian, appear to have experienced significant communication problems. William Glover recalled that the time of the 9/11 attacks was his "first time, you know, thinking about the fog of war, because we didn't know what was going on." [41] Major General Rick Findley, NORAD's director of operations, commented, "I wouldn't call it flat-footed, but we were a little bit behind the power curve most of that morning as we were trying to figure out exactly what transpired." [42] And Lieutenant Colonel Steven Armstrong, NORAD's chief of plans and forces, has complained that he and his colleagues "were out there in an information void, just looking for anything that we could find." He said, "All the information we were getting at the time was really off the TV." [43]

The causes of this "information void" surely need to be investigated. Might it have been the result, at least partly, of an attack on military communications systems that was incorporated into one (or more) of the exercises that day?

Some actions carried out on September 11 have been reported as if they were responses to the terrorist attacks, but evidence suggests they may actually have been conducted as part of an exercise, or at least perceived within the military as being part of an exercise. Two such actions, described below, are the closing of the blast doors to NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center and the order to raise the military's alert status to Defcon 3. If these actions were connected to the exercises taking place that day, it would raise further questions about how much confusion was caused by these exercises, and would indicate that the exercises continued even after it became obvious the U.S. was suffering a major terrorist attack.


On the morning of September 11, the thick steel doors to NORAD's operations center in Cheyenne Mountain were closed for the first time in a real-world crisis since the CMOC opened in 1966. [44] The two doors are three feet thick and each weighs 25 tons. [45] They were designed to seal the operations center, to protect it from a nuclear blast. [46]

The time the blast doors were closed at is unknown, although a BBC documentary placed the event at 10:15 a.m. [47] The reason they were shut is also unclear. A number of reports suggested they were closed in response to information the CMOC received about an aircraft that was incorrectly thought to have been hijacked and targeting Cheyenne Mountain. [48] However, as the Regina Leader-Post pointed out, "Protected by 2,600 feet of granite, the NORAD command center and hundreds of personnel in their green flight suits were actually in the safest place in North America." [49] The CMOC was therefore already safe against an aircraft crashing into the mountain.

Furthermore, the blast doors are located at the end of a tunnel, about a third of a mile into the mountain. [50] Closing them would therefore have been a needless action as protection against a threatening aircraft, as a plane could hardly have made it all the way along the tunnel to the entrance to the CMOC! Brigadier General Jim Hunter, the vice commander of the CMOC on September 11, commented on the lack of danger, saying, "They could have driven airliners into that mountain all day." [51]


It is worth considering if there was a different reason why the blast doors were shut. Might they have been closed as part of one of the exercises? Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian both involved simulating a nuclear war. And since the doors were designed to protect the CMOC from a nuclear strike, it would seem logical that they might be closed during an exercise simulating a nuclear attack on the United States.

Furthermore, while the doors had never been closed in a real-world crisis before September 11, they had been closed during exercises. Air Force officer William Astore wrote that when he worked inside Cheyenne Mountain between 1985 and 1988, the blast doors were kept open, "except, of course, during 'exercises,' when the mountain 'buttoned up' its self-contained world." [52]


Another event on September 11 that has yet to be properly explained is the order to raise the defense readiness condition from Defcon 5, the lowest possible level, to Defcon 3, the highest alert level for 28 years. [53]

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued the order to go to Defcon 3 at around 10:45 a.m. after conferring with General Richard Myers, the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld also discussed the issue with Vice President Dick Cheney over the air threat conference call, and later briefed President Bush on his actions and was given the president's approval for what he had done. [54]....continued

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"


Love "Light" and Energy


References: NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe

The 911Dataset Project [Added 9/11 Studies Page]

Clear the Skies. BBC

The Scene at NORAD on Sept. 11

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

"NORAD" The Early Edition

Vigilant Guardian: Northeast Air Defense Sector

References continued......

TOPs Blogger Role