Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Clowntime is Over: The Last Stand of the American Republic
So now, at last, the crisis is upon us. Now the cards are finally on the table, laid out so starkly that even the Big Media sycophants and Beltway bootlickers can no longer ignore them. Now the choice for the American Establishment is clear, and inescapable: do you hold for the Republic, or for autocracy? There is no third way here, no other option, no wiggle room, no ambiguity. The much-belated exposure of George W. Bush's warrantless spy program has forced the Bush-Cheney Regime to openly declare what they have long implied -- and enacted -- in secret: that the president is above the law, a military autocrat with unlimited powers, beyond the restraint or supervision of any other institution or branch of government. Outed as rank deceivers, perverters of the law and rapists of the Constitution, the Bush gang has decided that their best defense -- their only defense, really -- is a belligerent offense. "Yeah, we broke the law," they now say; "so what? We'll break it again whenever we want to, because law don't stick to our Big Boss Man. What are you going to do about it, chump?" That is the essence, the substance and pretty much the style of the entire Bushist response to the domestic spying scandal. They are scarcely bothering to gussy it up with the usual rhetorical circumlocutions. The attack is being led by the fat, sneering coward, Dick Cheney, who has crawled out of his luxurious hidey-holes to re-animate the rotting husk of Richard Nixon and send it tottering back onto the national stage. Through the facade of Cheney's pig-squint and peevish snarl, we can see the long-dead Nixonian visage, his grave-green, worm-filled jowls muttering once more the lunatic mantra he brought to the Oval Office: "If the president does it, it can't be illegal." This is what we've come to, this is American leadership today: ugly, stupid men mouthing the witless drivel of failed, dead, discredited, would-be petty tyrants. But not even Nixon was as foul as this crew. When he was caught, he folded; some faint spark of republican conscience restrained him from pushing the crisis to the end. He was a vain, stupid, greedy, grasping, dirty man with blood on his hands, but in the end, he did not identify himself with the government as a whole. He did not say, "l'etat, c'est moi," he had no messianic belief that the life of the nation was somehow bound up with his personal fate, or that he and his clique and his cronies had a God-given right to rule. They just wanted power and loot -- as much of it as they could get -- and they pushed and pushed until the Establishment pushed back. It has long been evident, however, that Bush and Cheney do believe their clique should by all rights rule the country -- and that anyone who opposes their unrestrained dominion is automatically "anti-American," an enemy of the state. For them, there is no "loyal opposition," or even political opponents in any traditional understanding of the term; there are only enemies to be destroyed, and herd-like masses to be manipulated. They believe that their dominion is more important than democracy, which they despise as a brake and hindrance to the arbitrary leadership of an all-wise elite -- i.e., them. They are the state; a police state.Elections are just necessary evils, a way to manufacture the illusion of consent, shake down corporations for big bucks and calibrate the loyalty of courtiers. Democracy is simply another system to be gamed, subverted, turned to factional advantage -- in precisely the same way that Enron gamed the California electric grid. This accounts for the strange, omnipresent tang of unreality that permeated the last three national elections, in 2000, 2002, and 2004. It's because they were unreal: the results were gamed, sometimes in secret, sometimes in plain sight; the "issues" and rhetoric were divorced from the reality that we all actually lived and felt -- and the outcomes were as phony as an Enron balance sheet. Dominion seized on such sinister and cynical terms will almost certainly be defended -- and extended -- by any means necessary. That is the great danger. The Bushists have already pushed on further than Nixon ever dared; will they "bear it out even to the edge of doom"? This is the crux of the matter; this is the crossroads where we now stand. Will the American Establishment push back at last? Will they say, This far we will go, but no further; this much we will swallow, but no more? Some of us have been writing for years about Bush's piecemeal assumption of dictatorial powers. We have watched in rage and amazement as the Establishment meekly accepted Bush's repeated, brutal insults to democracy. Time and again, I've quoted the words of the Emperor Tiberius, after the lackeys of the Senate grovelled to do his bidding: "Men fit to be slaves." In one sense, then, the Rubicon was crossed long ago. Yet "we live in hope and die in despair," as my father always says. In the back of the minds of many an embittered dissident, there has been a spark of hope that somewhere down the line, one of the many, many Bush outrages would somehow take hold, gain critical mass, and force the Establishment to act, to rein in the renegade, break him, box him in if not remove him from office. For let's be clear about this: only the Establishment -- the institutional powers-that-be -- can break an outlaw president. Millions marched in the street against Nixon and the system; whole city quadrants went up in flames in those days; but none of this was decisive in the corridors of power. (Nor to much of the American public, to be frank; after Kent State, after My Lai, after Cambodia, Nixon was still re-elected in a landslide.) It was his insult to the institutions -- the Watergate break-in of Democratic headquarters, the subsequent cover-up and subversion of the legal system, the defiance of Congress -- that led to his downfall. He pushed too far, tried to grab too much -- and the Establishment pulled him short. And it will have to be the Establishment that breaks Bush -- or he won't be broken. All the blogs in the world won't bring him down, no matter how much truth they tell, how much bloodsoaked Bushist dirt they expose. Yes, perhaps if we had millions of outraged citizens marching in the street day after day across America, a sustained mass movement and popular uprising for liberty and democracy, this might obviate the need for Establishment action. But we all know that such marches are not going to happen. If there was sufficient fire for liberty and democracy in America, there would have already been a popular uprising -- and Bush would never have garnered enough public support to keep the election results close enough to be fudged. No, it will be the Establishment -- or no one. That's why the spy scandal is so pivotal. Because it is a direct, open and unignorable challenge to the institutional life of the American Establishment. In it, the Bush Regime is saying to the various powers-that-be, especially in Congress and the courts, but also to centers of power and influence outside government: you no longer have any power. All real power is now in our gift. Your laws, your institutions, your traditions, the whole complex infrastructure of checks and balances that have sustained society are now essentially meaningless. As in ancient Rome, we will keep the old forms, but the life of the state has now passed into the hands of the autocrat and his court. His arbitrary will can override any law -- although of course, strong law will still be applied to his enemies, and to the riff-raff in the lower orders. How will the Establishment deal with this direct challenge? The past few years give little grounds for hope: the Democrats spineless, conflicted, co-opted and corrupt; the Republicans slavish, bellicose, cruel and criminal; the media timorous, witless, corporate-controlled; big business absolutely rolling in gravy from the autocrat's larder; academia cowed, silenced, ignored, demonized; the military acquiescent in criminal aggression, top-heavy with time-servers currying autocratic favor. Only the courts provide some stray sparks of hope, although they too are now loaded with political sycophants, corporate bagmen and knuckle-dragging throwbacks produced by the Right's decades-long devolution of American jurisprudence. Prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald and Elliot Spitzer "keep hope alive," but their efforts will mean little in a system where lawlessness at the top has been countenanced by the rest of the Establishment. And in any case, the outcome of their work lies ultimately with the Supreme Court -- the same court that shredded the Constitution in awarding power to Bush in the first place, and which is now led by a Bushist apparatchik. Still, you don't go through a constitutional crisis with the Establishment you want; you go through a constitutional crisis with the Establishment you have. And this sad, sick crew, ladies and gentlemen, is all we have. If they swallow the spy scandal, if they don't push back now -- and I mean really push back, not just make a lot of harrumphing noise or hold a few toothless hearings or get a couple of underlings offered up as ritual sacrifices to save the Leader -- then we will have well and truly and finally lost the Republic that Franklin, Jefferson and Madison gave us so long ago. The next few weeks will show us if there is still some hope of restoring the Republic through the old institutions, or if we will have to follow the course laid out by Bob Dylan some 40 years ago: "Strike another match, go start anew." Who knows? Maybe we can make a better republic next time: one not born of blood, greed and fury -- those all-too-common elements of human organization -- but made from a new compound of mercy, justice, communion and liberty. Still imperfect, of course, still corrupt -- because that's our intractable human nature -- but with our worst instincts restrained by enlightened, ever-evolving law, and the predatory ambitions of the rich and powerful reined by elaborate checks and balances. It's just a dream, of course; probably a vain one. But we will need some vision to guide us if, as seems likely, we must soon set forth into the unknown territory of an openly declared American autocracy. .
Comments
FilmWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:48:33
,,,Honest to goodness, nobody could write a screenplay as good as the real life tragidrama is these days.
Look out kids...Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:40:18
In reference to Helios, "....the phone's tapped anyway, Maggie says they must bust in early May, orders from the DA, look out kids
Floyd's right.Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:38:33
Yes,it's make or break time now.And Floyd is right;only the system can push back. If it wants to.If it thinks that eventually, this crew will threaten all its profits.
The Republic is DEADWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:37:55
Personally, I think the Republic is DEAD. It's been dead ever since Dec. 12, 2000 whenthe SCOTUS basically acted in the partisan interest of 1 man and his criminal gang. The coup happened back then and we all were too naive to realize what we were in fact seeing. We can forget about the demos they're a toothless bunch of whining spineless wimps. As to the courts forget it. The media is totally subservient now. I watched in disbelief last night as one media whore after another bowed and scrapped at W's feet. It's over folks we need a miracle to save us now. The velvetta gloves are off were fucked!!
HeliosWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:37:08
That "rotting husk" isn't Nixon. Nixon was a pussycat beside these monsters.....and remember, this drama hasn't unfolded yet, not by half. But Chris Floyd is absolutely correct. It is the time of what William Burroughs would call the naked lunch, where what is on the end of everybody's fork is plainly and painfully visible to all at the table. This is the defining moment---now is when we will find out which way the scales will tip. Chris Floyd is obviously a Bob Dylan fan. He takes his blog name from a Dylan album and he quotes a line from Dylan's "It's all over now, baby blue". Well Mr. Floyd, there's a Dylan song that I keep hearing in my head lately that was written forty years ago but has come back around full circle in meaning, for me at least----Subterranean Homesick Blues. I know that Dylan penned a bunch of timeless anthems, but that particular song describes America in 2005 as well as it once described the America of 1965. It seems as if we gave back every inch we had gained in four decades...and now we're losing ground.
donescobarWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 16:47:35
Who in the "establishment"could possibly care as long as the bucks flow in and power is held on to? Political establishment? No. Corporate establishment? No The old WASP/Brahmin educational/legal establishment? No. Financial establishment? No. Go through Mills' "The Power Elite" and sort out the segments, interlocked as they are, of "the establishment." All now deeply connected, in spirit, flesh, and gold to the Bushies. WHO in the establishment even senses or sees a violation, a betrayal? And who in this many-splendored establishment gives a rat's ass about the people? Hell, not even the people care about the people. Asleep, dreaming of the next DVD and purchase at the mall, the next NFL victory for the "home team." All in the bubble, together. Economic collapse could burst the bubble. What else? "The shepherds change, the sheep remain," Nietzsche wrote. Hell, we won't even change the shepherds anymore.
Crossposted from Booman TribuneWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 15:26:45
Ah, Mr. Floyd. The music of the seers. Trust a musician to know how to sing. One thing, though... Be of good cheer. All is NEVER lost, and the establishment with which we must go to war...the establishment that we have, crude, venal, selfish and shortsighted though it may be...is doing a FINE job of finally boxing these incompetent motherfuckers in, tying a good stout twine around the box and then throwing them into the Potomac. Leak after leak after leak over the last year, the redirection of Station WOMD (Weapons Of Mass Distraction...the media) AT them rather than being used in support of their plans, masterful use of a long game quarterbacked by Patrick Fitzgerald and coached by...coached by who? (A question that will probably NEVER be answered, but I believe his initials are C. I. A. The police force of the old establishment no matter WHAT functionary is figureheaded into place as its executive.), the clear and unambiguous "No" message that was recently sent from at least a large portion of the regular military establishment and delivered by their boy in Congress, John Murtha...and don't forget those so far mysteriously unreleased Abu Ghraib photos. Lions and tigers and bears and homosexual rape and pedophilia and such oh my!!! In color!!! The last salvo, if necessary, the end of the fireworks display that is plainly still building towards its inevitable, booming climax. The game is up, and it is now just a matter of deciding how many spoils the new guys get to keep and/or which fallguys will be set up to take the blame. (Please,Lord, let it be Butch and Cheney...20 to 1 against, but we can dream, can't we?) Do not lay for justice, Chris. Justice is cosmic, and comes over long increments of time. ("The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. " Martin Luther King Jr. Yup. Bet on it.) Meanwhile, be happy that evolution is still in action and these chimps, this side trip proved to be merely another of life's small experiments that did not quite pan out. ("Life will try anything once." Jan Cox. Yup. Bet on THAT one, too.) Short of a nuclear or other mass attack...either on us by some fools on the other side who don't realize that they have already won as much as they are going to win this time or BY "us" on say Iran or Detroit...these people are done. I do not think that the administration has the clout with the military anymore...overt OR covert...to pull that one off, and incompetent as our security forces really are, they are dealing with some fairly simple terrorists who like to blow themselves up in the expectation of eternity surrounded by a harem of ever-renewable virgins, which is why we have had so little successful terrorist action here over the past several years. (They are exactly not rocket scientists on the other side, either, most of them. Bet on it.) The REAL power is going to hire another cook. Another set of CEOs. And then go back to their life of hustle, golf and skiing in Gstaad. They may not...make that WILL not...hire people who would please you or me for this task (I'm betting Hillary vs. McCain in the next election), but then, we haven't paid the several generations of dues in the form of theft, murder and general bad karma that have put that "establishment" in the catbird seat. So it goes. And evolution stumbles on just as it always has, a drunken sailor headed back to his ship. Falling down here, then forward a few feet, mugged in the alley, stops for a drink or two, passes out, wakes up, makes it another block or so in a headlong, drunken rush, sits down abruptly lost, gets up again, back three steps, ahead four and a half, bloody but unbowed...always headed back to the mothership. Always headed home. So it goes. And please remember... Have fun. Who needs to go to the movies? We have a front row seat at the greatest show on earth. The ONLY show. Enjoy. You have a lifetime ticket. AG
Written by chris on 2005-12-28 08:42:30
Re "Re:Clowntime," I don't think we can count on the Establishment to bring down Bush; that was part of the point I was trying to make -- that you certainly can't count on those sad sacks of shinola for anything, as they have repeatedly demonstrated during the past few years. I was just saying that if Bush is to be brought down, they will have to do it; and if they don't do it now, in the face of egregious provocation, they will never do it. I don't have any real hope that they will, but, as I said, the next few weeks will show us once and for all exactly where we stand.
Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 02:52:01
Like you said after 9/11 Chris,"This is not a new evil. It's as old as the hills, and it is with us always." I think we have a long battle ahead, and the people will prevail.
Re: "Clowntime"Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 01:18:57
The "establishment" put the Jester-in-Chief where he is: so how can we count on it to remove him? And he's already attacked institutions at the core of America repeatedly--to no effect.
No easy solutionWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 01:17:11
It has been said that once a government gains as much unchecked power as the present administration has, the only way it can be brought down is either through violent revolution or economic collapse. I would argue that the latter is well underway.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Friends of Liberty - We The People get the Government We Deserve: Lessons of 9/11
Friends of Liberty - We The People get the Government We Deserve: Lessons of 9/11
We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this cannot be factually disputed. However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once proven, will establish complicity. Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then our job to indict. Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives, limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning information, lie by omission, etc. Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that can. There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. However, there is no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we only need ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence" exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because (as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly suspect. Analogy:Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked, two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it was promptly incinerated. Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so. Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to was the official account? What if the available information regarding this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision." What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it. The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story must be protected from information that undermines it. If the conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention, vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements (in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: Keep you from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth. 1. Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined2. Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas, because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did kill himself gets lost. In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built... (Clearly, two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an act of self-defense from that point forward. It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only strong evidence can destroy the illusion - Strong evidence that turns their attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all descendents of the original lie. b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points, rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic, nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd and any evidence they present isn't credible."
Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible evidence?" Isn't that something a reasonably intelligent person could determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into consideration? In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so. The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a "conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible. Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwoods document? How about the real story behind the USS Maine; the Lusitania; the Gulf of Tonkin; the USS Liberty...or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl Harbor?" Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence, decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand. Since it might take another few weeks for me to write the final installment, here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself. The first clip is about 5 minutes long and comes from the "Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police State." 5 Minute clip (Bombs in the Buildings)
http://0402.netclime.net/1_5/I/D/L/bombs.wmv1
hour clip:
http://ns1.netclime.net/stl/rise2.wmv
Parts 1 and 2 of this essay available here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
09/11/2001
We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this cannot be factually disputed. However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once proven, will establish complicity. Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then our job to indict. Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives, limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning information, lie by omission, etc. Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that can. There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. However, there is no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we only need ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence" exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because (as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly suspect. Analogy:Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked, two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it was promptly incinerated. Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so. Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to was the official account? What if the available information regarding this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision." What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it. The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story must be protected from information that undermines it. If the conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention, vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements (in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: Keep you from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth. 1. Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined2. Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas, because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did kill himself gets lost. In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built... (Clearly, two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an act of self-defense from that point forward. It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only strong evidence can destroy the illusion - Strong evidence that turns their attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all descendents of the original lie. b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points, rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic, nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd and any evidence they present isn't credible."
Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible evidence?" Isn't that something a reasonably intelligent person could determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into consideration? In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so. The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a "conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible. Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwoods document? How about the real story behind the USS Maine; the Lusitania; the Gulf of Tonkin; the USS Liberty...or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl Harbor?" Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence, decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand. Since it might take another few weeks for me to write the final installment, here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself. The first clip is about 5 minutes long and comes from the "Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police State." 5 Minute clip (Bombs in the Buildings)
http://0402.netclime.net/1_5/I/D/L/bombs.wmv1
hour clip:
http://ns1.netclime.net/stl/rise2.wmv
Parts 1 and 2 of this essay available here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
09/11/2001
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
-THE CUNNING REALIST-: Reeds In The Wind
-THE CUNNING REALIST-: Reeds In The Wind
Reeds In The Wind
One of the recurring themes of this blog has been the way in which many self-described "conservatives" have been exposed as little more than opportunistic hypocrites during the past few years. It's both fascinating and a bit sad, because a decade ago I considered some of these people or their employers in the media to be standard-bearers of clear thinking when the premium on that was dear.I don't know much about Mark Levin other than he's an attorney who contributes frequently to National Review. I also recall that during the Clinton administration he was a vocal critic of both the president and Janet Reno, particularly on the subject of intrusive government. One of Levin's pet issues was the shootout at Ruby Ridge in 1992, in which the FBI and U.S. Marshals laid siege to Randy Weaver and his family at a remote mountain cabin. Here are some excerpts from a longer piece Levin wrote in National Review in 1995 defending Weaver (my bolds):
The Weavers' ordeal began in 1989 when a confidential informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms persuaded Randy Weaver to sell him two sawed-off shotguns, thereby entrapping him. The ATF informant received $5,000 for his help. There is no indication that, prior to meeting the informant, Weaver had ever sold illegal weapons to anyone.The ATF then informed Weaver the United States attorney was considering bringing criminal charges against him for the gun sales, but might go easier on him if he turned informer against the Aryan Nations. Weaver refused, saying he would not become a "snitch."Weaver was then charged. But why had the ATF entrapped him in the first place? His views were and are repugnant to most Americans, but he was not involved in unlawful activities.There's more:
For an astonishing 18 months, marshals mounted a surveillance operation on the Weavers -- including 16-year-old Sara, 14-year-old Sammy, 10-year-old Rachel, and, later, 10-month-old Elisheba -- and their live-in family friend, Kevin Harris.And this:
Larry Potts, head of the FBI's criminal division, ordered the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team, commanded by Richard Rogers, to go to Ruby Ridge. Rogers, apparently concerned about protecting his men, drafted new rules of engagement, which departed dramatically from existing rules.The kicker: as Levin himself notes in the article, he wrote the above in response to testimony on Ruby Ridge heard by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on---you guessed it---Terrorism.Levin was also a strident defender of civil liberties during the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, and---if memory serves---during the seizure of Elian Gonzalez and his forced return to Cuba. (Others on the Right were as well; here's an Ann Coulter piece in which she sympathetically calls David Koresh and the Branch Davidians "harmless American citizens" and Elian Gonzalez "a small Cuban boy.") Both incidents, of course, occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency.These days, Levin's singing a different tune. He's been an apologist for one abuse of power after another, from torture to NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. This week, he defended John Yoo in this post at NRO, concluding with:
John Yoo deserves a medal. He's a patriot.During the 1990's, Levin carried the torch for Randy Weaver---criticizing government surveillance of a man Levin concedes had attended Aryan Nation meetings and trafficked in illegal weapons, decrying the FBI's secret drafting of new rules designed to get around existing rules of engagement, and advocating strong civilian oversight of the agencies of government power in order to safeguard civil liberties. And Levin did that in the context of Senate hearings on terrorism, arguing essentially that we can't allow terrorists to win by making us lose ourselves and our ideals to hysteria. Today, Levin is president of the John Yoo Fan Club and a tireless advocate of the chief executive's power to create new rules for conduct when existing ones are inconvenient. Quite a turnabout, eh? Can there be any doubt that if Ruby Ridge or Waco happened today, Mark Levin would be joined by others on the Titular Right in calling Randy Weaver and David Koresh "terrorists" against whom the full power of the U.S. government should be brought to bear?If the Democrats (particularly if it's Hillary Clinton) retake the White House in 2008, the sound you'll hear will be readers cackling as Levin and the other windblown reeds---driven by the exigencies of opportunism and reader subscriptions---come full circle and once again hoist the flag of outrage against intrusive government and abuse of power.And so it goes.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Tuesday, December 27, 2005
6 Comments:
scott_api said...
Not to disagree with you, TCR, but the sound you hear will be the bleating of sheep as the legions of FOX and Rush fans turn 180 degrees to follow their 'leaders' on this new crusade against intrusive government and executive power grabs...
12/27/2005 9:55 PM
Mitchell J. Freedman said...
I agree with the Cunning Realists' overall point, but Levin deserves a bit of defense since he did stand against the Bush I administration's treatment of the Weavers at Ruby Ridge. That event occurred in 1992 while Bush I was still president.Again, though, Levin's over the top attacks on Clinton for the Waco disaster (a left over project of the Bush I administration) and Clinton's protection of family values by rescuing Elian Gonzalez from clutching Miami relatives and hangers on cannot be reconciled in any honest way with a defense of the Terrible President's conduct over the past five years.Another example of the lack of integrity among the Terrible President's defenders.
12/28/2005 1:23 AM
mjs said...
Don't ever forget that "9/11 changed everything." Someone recently said, I believe it was Digby, that modern day conservatives are scared of their own shadows. They act like this country has never had enemies or been through difficult seasons. They are so afraid that otherwise thoughtful people will tolerate incremental destruction of our basic civil liberties.
12/28/2005 1:34 AM
mjs said...
On the other hand, they [M. Levin and the rest of the sycophants at NRO] may just be partisan whores.
12/28/2005 1:36 AM
debcoop said...
I think that if another Ruby Ridge or Waco occurred then people like Mark Levin might very well still be apologists for them because we remember that these two incidents, were committed not by the "other" but by right wingers just like him.It is not just the action that would be considered but the actor.
12/28/2005 2:04 AM
Anonymous said...
Nice post TCR, sums up a lot quite well.
12/28/2005 10:38 AM
Reeds In The Wind
One of the recurring themes of this blog has been the way in which many self-described "conservatives" have been exposed as little more than opportunistic hypocrites during the past few years. It's both fascinating and a bit sad, because a decade ago I considered some of these people or their employers in the media to be standard-bearers of clear thinking when the premium on that was dear.I don't know much about Mark Levin other than he's an attorney who contributes frequently to National Review. I also recall that during the Clinton administration he was a vocal critic of both the president and Janet Reno, particularly on the subject of intrusive government. One of Levin's pet issues was the shootout at Ruby Ridge in 1992, in which the FBI and U.S. Marshals laid siege to Randy Weaver and his family at a remote mountain cabin. Here are some excerpts from a longer piece Levin wrote in National Review in 1995 defending Weaver (my bolds):
The Weavers' ordeal began in 1989 when a confidential informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms persuaded Randy Weaver to sell him two sawed-off shotguns, thereby entrapping him. The ATF informant received $5,000 for his help. There is no indication that, prior to meeting the informant, Weaver had ever sold illegal weapons to anyone.The ATF then informed Weaver the United States attorney was considering bringing criminal charges against him for the gun sales, but might go easier on him if he turned informer against the Aryan Nations. Weaver refused, saying he would not become a "snitch."Weaver was then charged. But why had the ATF entrapped him in the first place? His views were and are repugnant to most Americans, but he was not involved in unlawful activities.There's more:
For an astonishing 18 months, marshals mounted a surveillance operation on the Weavers -- including 16-year-old Sara, 14-year-old Sammy, 10-year-old Rachel, and, later, 10-month-old Elisheba -- and their live-in family friend, Kevin Harris.And this:
Larry Potts, head of the FBI's criminal division, ordered the FBI's elite Hostage Rescue Team, commanded by Richard Rogers, to go to Ruby Ridge. Rogers, apparently concerned about protecting his men, drafted new rules of engagement, which departed dramatically from existing rules.The kicker: as Levin himself notes in the article, he wrote the above in response to testimony on Ruby Ridge heard by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on---you guessed it---Terrorism.Levin was also a strident defender of civil liberties during the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, and---if memory serves---during the seizure of Elian Gonzalez and his forced return to Cuba. (Others on the Right were as well; here's an Ann Coulter piece in which she sympathetically calls David Koresh and the Branch Davidians "harmless American citizens" and Elian Gonzalez "a small Cuban boy.") Both incidents, of course, occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency.These days, Levin's singing a different tune. He's been an apologist for one abuse of power after another, from torture to NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. This week, he defended John Yoo in this post at NRO, concluding with:
John Yoo deserves a medal. He's a patriot.During the 1990's, Levin carried the torch for Randy Weaver---criticizing government surveillance of a man Levin concedes had attended Aryan Nation meetings and trafficked in illegal weapons, decrying the FBI's secret drafting of new rules designed to get around existing rules of engagement, and advocating strong civilian oversight of the agencies of government power in order to safeguard civil liberties. And Levin did that in the context of Senate hearings on terrorism, arguing essentially that we can't allow terrorists to win by making us lose ourselves and our ideals to hysteria. Today, Levin is president of the John Yoo Fan Club and a tireless advocate of the chief executive's power to create new rules for conduct when existing ones are inconvenient. Quite a turnabout, eh? Can there be any doubt that if Ruby Ridge or Waco happened today, Mark Levin would be joined by others on the Titular Right in calling Randy Weaver and David Koresh "terrorists" against whom the full power of the U.S. government should be brought to bear?If the Democrats (particularly if it's Hillary Clinton) retake the White House in 2008, the sound you'll hear will be readers cackling as Levin and the other windblown reeds---driven by the exigencies of opportunism and reader subscriptions---come full circle and once again hoist the flag of outrage against intrusive government and abuse of power.And so it goes.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Tuesday, December 27, 2005
6 Comments:
scott_api said...
Not to disagree with you, TCR, but the sound you hear will be the bleating of sheep as the legions of FOX and Rush fans turn 180 degrees to follow their 'leaders' on this new crusade against intrusive government and executive power grabs...
12/27/2005 9:55 PM
Mitchell J. Freedman said...
I agree with the Cunning Realists' overall point, but Levin deserves a bit of defense since he did stand against the Bush I administration's treatment of the Weavers at Ruby Ridge. That event occurred in 1992 while Bush I was still president.Again, though, Levin's over the top attacks on Clinton for the Waco disaster (a left over project of the Bush I administration) and Clinton's protection of family values by rescuing Elian Gonzalez from clutching Miami relatives and hangers on cannot be reconciled in any honest way with a defense of the Terrible President's conduct over the past five years.Another example of the lack of integrity among the Terrible President's defenders.
12/28/2005 1:23 AM
mjs said...
Don't ever forget that "9/11 changed everything." Someone recently said, I believe it was Digby, that modern day conservatives are scared of their own shadows. They act like this country has never had enemies or been through difficult seasons. They are so afraid that otherwise thoughtful people will tolerate incremental destruction of our basic civil liberties.
12/28/2005 1:34 AM
mjs said...
On the other hand, they [M. Levin and the rest of the sycophants at NRO] may just be partisan whores.
12/28/2005 1:36 AM
debcoop said...
I think that if another Ruby Ridge or Waco occurred then people like Mark Levin might very well still be apologists for them because we remember that these two incidents, were committed not by the "other" but by right wingers just like him.It is not just the action that would be considered but the actor.
12/28/2005 2:04 AM
Anonymous said...
Nice post TCR, sums up a lot quite well.
12/28/2005 10:38 AM
Potomac Sunrise
Merry Christmas to all my Flickr friends! I wish you could have been with me this morning, but here's the next best thing. Happy Holidays!
The tree
...and then It began to snow .. (see big version!)
In order to recharge the batteries, after a couple of Christmassy days, we set off to our favourite park in the town Towneley. It was crisp, cold and frosty but gorgeous!
In order to recharge the batteries, after a couple of Christmassy days, we set off to our favourite park in the town Towneley. It was crisp, cold and frosty but gorgeous!
Deer
Spotted on the way home from my Mom's house this Christmas Day. There was one more on the left that I didn't get in the shot.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
An end to male friendships?
An end to male friendships?
Blogger Thoughts: Important Commentary from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?
Blogger Thoughts: Important Commentary from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?
The New Madness Of King George
The New Madness Of King George
By Robert Parry12-19-5
On the Sunday before Christmas, a fidgety George W. Bush interrupted regular programming on U.S. networks to deliver an address to the nation that painted the Iraq War and the War on Terror in the same black-and-white colors he has always favored.
Despite the media's conventional wisdom about Bush's new "realism" on Iraq, the old canards were still there - Saddam Hussein choosing war by rejecting United Nations weapons inspectors; blurred distinctions between Iraqi insurgents and non-Iraqi terrorists; intimations that Bush's critics are "partisan" while he embodies the national interest.
Plus, there was the same old stark choice between success and failure. "There are only two options before our country - victory or defeat," Bush declared, brushing aside the political and military ambiguities of the Iraq War and the War on Terror.
But Bush's speech and his curious hand gestures as he sat behind a desk in the Oval Office suggested a twitchiness over his apparent realization that the nation increasingly doubts his leadership.
Indeed, it appears the American people finally have begun to understand the costs in blood, money and freedoms that have resulted from letting the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks become a justification for transforming the United States into a modern-day empire led by an autocrat who claims the untrammeled right to strike at his perceived enemies abroad and crack down on his opponents at home.
Wiretaps
A day earlier, an angrier-looking Bush used his weekly radio address to denounce as "irresponsible" senators who resorted to the filibuster to demand more civil-liberties protections in a revised version of the Patriot Act.
Bush also lashed out at press disclosures of his three-year-old decision to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personally approving warrantless electronic eavesdropping on international communications by people inside the United States.
"As a result (of the disclosure), our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," Bush said. "Revealing classified information is illegal."
Bush's outrage might seem strange to some observers since he has refused to punish his deputy chief of staff Karl Rove for leaking the classified identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused Bush of twisting intelligence to build his case for invading Iraq in 2003.
But Bush apparently has judged that he, as president, and his close advisers can decide which laws they wish to obey and when, while simultaneously condemning those outside their circle of power for violating the same laws.
This attitude follows Bush's view that the "commander in chief" clause of the U.S. Constitution grants him virtually unlimited powers as a "war president" as long as the War on Terror lasts, a concept of executive authority that recalls the days of absolute authority claimed by Medieval kings and queens.
Already, Bush has asserted that his "commander in chief" powers allow him to arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges; to authorize physical abuse of prisoners; to invade other countries without the necessity of congressional approval; and to ignore international law, including the U.N. Charter and other treaty obligations.
As the New York Times reported on Dec. 16 and Bush confirmed on Dec. 17, he also is claiming - as his constitutional right - the power to wiretap Americans without court review or the presentation of evidence to any impartial body.
When Bush is challenged on these authorities, he asserts that he is following the law, although it is never clear which law or whether anyone other than his appointed lawyers have advised him on the scope of his power.
(Conservative legal scholars may have to stretch their notion of the "original intent" of the Founders to explain how the writers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 decided to give a future president the authority to use spy satellites to intercept phone calls and other electronic communications.)
It's also not clear what evidence exists to support Bush's charge that disclosure of his wiretapping decision damages the national security and endangers U.S. citizens.
Under the FISA law dating back to the 1970s, electronic eavesdropping has been permitted inside the United States against foreign agents, including anyone collaborating with an international terrorist group. The law only requires a warrant from a secret court, which rarely rejects an administration request.
Presumably, al-Qaeda terrorists inside the United States were aware that their communications were vulnerable to intercepts, explaining why the Sept. 11 attackers were careful to avoid telephonic contacts abroad. But the terrorists would have no way to know whether electronic eavesdropping might be done with or without a warrant, under FISA or Bush's order.
Yet, Bush's complaint that disclosure of his personal wiretapping authority endangers national security presupposes the terrorists knew that their phone calls would somehow be immune from a FISA court warrant but susceptible to Bush's wiretap order.
Since that assumption makes no sense, one can only conclude that Bush threw in the accusation about endangering national security to impugn the patriotism of his critics and rev up his base, much as he did during the run-up to invading Iraq when skeptics were shouted down as traitors and liars. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "Politics of Preemption."]
Questionable Targets
Bush's assertion of his unilateral authority to wiretap anyone he wishes also raises questions about whether some of his eavesdropping is aimed at political opponents or journalists, rather than terrorists.
While Bush claims his wiretaps were vital to the national security, they came at a time when the FISA court was approving record numbers of warrants for secret surveillance. According to FISA's annual report for 2004, there were a record 1,758 applications for spying authorization that year and none was denied by the special court.
The administration's explanation for why additional secret wiretaps were needed is that Bush's order saves time when a quick wiretap is required, such as when a foreign terrorist is captured and his phone records are seized.
But the FISA court can clear warrants in a few hours - or Bush could exercise emergency powers under the law to conduct wiretaps for 72 hours before obtaining approval from the court. That emergency provision was inserted in the law to give presidents leeway when the threat was a surprise nuclear attack by the Soviet Union with the potential of wiping out nearly the entire U.S. population.
Even during the Cold War, the FISA provisions were acceptable to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. But now, with a much less severe threat from al-Qaeda terrorists, George W. Bush has decided that the law must be waived at his discretion, bypassing the court on hundreds and possibly thousands of surveillance orders.
That suggests other motives may exist for some of these wiretaps, such as the possibility that some intercepted conversations would be rejected by even the rubber-stamping FISA court, like requests to spy on activists, politicians or journalists.
The Bush administration, for instance, has accused the Arab news network al-Jazeera of collaborating with al-Qaeda and U.S. news executives are known to communicate with al-Jazeera over access to its exclusive video. Would these phone calls and e-mails be covered by Bush's extraordinary wiretap authority?
Bush's right-wing allies also have labeled some American journalists, such as Seymour Hersh, traitors for writing articles about the War on Terror that reveal secret operations that Bush has wanted to keep hidden. Plus, there may be U.S. politicians or activists communicating with Islamic leaders overseas.
While the full range of Bush's intercepts is not known, the administration's use of National Security Agency intercepts was an issue earlier this year, when it was disclosed that John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be United Nations ambassador, had requested names of Americans that had been excised from NSA transcripts for privacy reasons.
Senate Democrats demanded that documents be turned over on 10 cases in which Bolton used his position as under secretary of state for arms control to obtain the names. The White House refused to provide the information and Bush evaded the need for Senate confirmation of Bolton's ambassadorship by making him a "recess appointment."
Hand Gestures
As for Sunday's prime-time Iraq War speech, Bush broke with the reassuring tradition of a president sitting behind the Oval Office desk with hands folded. Instead, Bush took to waving his arms as he delivered the speech.
"Grim-faced, yet with a trace of anxiety in his eyes, Bush delivered the remarks seated rigidly at a desk, making a variety of hand gestures," observed Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales. [Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2005]
Some of Bush's strange body language may be explained by the fact that even he must realize that his assertions include a number of falsehoods, such as his routine deception that Saddam Hussein defied U.N. demands on destroying his weapons of mass destruction and on letting in U.N. weapons inspectors.
"It is true that [Hussein] systematically concealed those [WMD] programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors," Bush told the nation. "He was given an ultimatum - and he made his choice for war."
But it is not true that Hussein blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. In fact, he acquiesced to a U.N. ultimatum and let them back into Iraq in November 2002. Chief inspector Hans Blix said his team was finally given free rein to examine suspected WMD sites, but Bush forced the inspectors to leave so the invasion could proceed.
As it turned out, Hussein was telling the truth when he said there were no WMD caches left. After the invasion, Bush's own team of inspectors concluded that Iraq's WMD stockpiles had been destroyed by earlier U.N. inspections and by U.S. bombing during the Clinton administration.
Yet, beginning a few months after the U.S. invasion - as it became clear there was no WMD and as U.S. casualties mounted - Bush began rewriting history, claiming that Hussein had not let the U.N. inspectors in, thus forcing Bush to invade. This lie presumably made Bush appear more reasonable.
On July 14, 2003, Bush said about Hussein, "we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power."
In the following months, Bush repeated this claim in slightly varied forms.
On Jan. 27, 2004, Bush said, "We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution - 1441 - unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."
Eventually, this false history became part of Bush's regular litany about the war. Despite the fact that it was an obvious lie - the U.S. news media had witnessed the work of the U.N. inspectors inside Iraq - Bush was rarely challenged about his historical revisionism. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com "President Bush, With the Candlestick."]
Terrorists or Insurgents
Similarly, Bush continues to blur the distinctions between the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency that has often used roadside bombs to attack American troops and the relatively small number of non-Iraqi terrorists who have exploded bombs aimed at civilian targets.
Bush has employed the rhetorical device of using insurgent and terrorist synonymously, much as he and Vice President Dick Cheney used juxtaposition to convince millions of Americans that the Iraqi government was somehow responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
In his Dec. 18 speech, for instance, Bush said, "the terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers," making no distinction between the tactics of the insurgents and the terrorists.
The danger from this sleight of hand is that it blocks consideration of possible resolution of the Iraq War. Many military analysts believe the only realistic route toward a reasonably successful policy in Iraq is to address the political and economic concerns of Iraq's Sunni minority - who want a U.S. withdrawal, more political clout and a share of the nation's oil revenues - while isolating the relatively small number of foreign jihadists.
Though Bush has made some concessions to this reality in recent speeches, he chose to return to his broad-brush rhetoric in the national address. Again, it was a case of good versus evil, victory or surrender, his way or the highway.
"Defeatism may have its partisan uses," Bush said of his critics, "but it is not justified by the facts."
Bush also resorted to a favorite tactic of ascribing ridiculous notions to his critics. "If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone," Bush said.
The president then returned to his long-time claim that Islamic extremists are motivated by their hatred of America's freedom.
"The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life," Bush said. "And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way."
Again, Bush was reprising rhetoric that exaggerates or misstates the enemy's goals and capabilities as a way to box in the U.S. political debate and shut the door on reasonable alternative strategies.
Bush continues to discuss al-Qaeda as if it is a powerful international force on par with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, when many analysts see it as a fringe organization that was driven out of most Islamic countries, almost to the ends of the earth - or in this case to the mountains of Afghanistan.
Without doubt, al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists exploited a letdown in U.S. security in 2001 to conduct an extraordinary attack on New York and Washington, but a realistic assessment of its actual clout is important in calibrating a response.
If al-Qaeda is actually a marginal organization that can be isolated even more by the West adopting a respectful approach to the Muslim world, then Bush's approach of invading Arab countries - and curtailing American liberties - makes no sense, unless Bush's real motives are something else: say, controlling Middle East resources and transforming the United States into a modern one-party state with him or his allies in permanent control.
The analysis that follows from Bush's assertion of unlimited presidential powers and his deceptive explanations to the American people about Iraq suggests two alternative theories. Either Bush is increasingly unstable, incapable of discerning reality from his own propaganda, or he is concealing his real agenda with misleading arguments.
Put differently, either the United States is experiencing a kind of modern "madness of King George" - like what happened when King George III became unstable in the years after losing the Colonies - or the American people are living under a cunning Machiavelli with a calculated method to his apparent madness.
Either way, the prospects are troubling for American democracy - and it may not be clear which of the alternative scenarios is more worrisome.
_____
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
By Robert Parry12-19-5
On the Sunday before Christmas, a fidgety George W. Bush interrupted regular programming on U.S. networks to deliver an address to the nation that painted the Iraq War and the War on Terror in the same black-and-white colors he has always favored.
Despite the media's conventional wisdom about Bush's new "realism" on Iraq, the old canards were still there - Saddam Hussein choosing war by rejecting United Nations weapons inspectors; blurred distinctions between Iraqi insurgents and non-Iraqi terrorists; intimations that Bush's critics are "partisan" while he embodies the national interest.
Plus, there was the same old stark choice between success and failure. "There are only two options before our country - victory or defeat," Bush declared, brushing aside the political and military ambiguities of the Iraq War and the War on Terror.
But Bush's speech and his curious hand gestures as he sat behind a desk in the Oval Office suggested a twitchiness over his apparent realization that the nation increasingly doubts his leadership.
Indeed, it appears the American people finally have begun to understand the costs in blood, money and freedoms that have resulted from letting the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks become a justification for transforming the United States into a modern-day empire led by an autocrat who claims the untrammeled right to strike at his perceived enemies abroad and crack down on his opponents at home.
Wiretaps
A day earlier, an angrier-looking Bush used his weekly radio address to denounce as "irresponsible" senators who resorted to the filibuster to demand more civil-liberties protections in a revised version of the Patriot Act.
Bush also lashed out at press disclosures of his three-year-old decision to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personally approving warrantless electronic eavesdropping on international communications by people inside the United States.
"As a result (of the disclosure), our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," Bush said. "Revealing classified information is illegal."
Bush's outrage might seem strange to some observers since he has refused to punish his deputy chief of staff Karl Rove for leaking the classified identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused Bush of twisting intelligence to build his case for invading Iraq in 2003.
But Bush apparently has judged that he, as president, and his close advisers can decide which laws they wish to obey and when, while simultaneously condemning those outside their circle of power for violating the same laws.
This attitude follows Bush's view that the "commander in chief" clause of the U.S. Constitution grants him virtually unlimited powers as a "war president" as long as the War on Terror lasts, a concept of executive authority that recalls the days of absolute authority claimed by Medieval kings and queens.
Already, Bush has asserted that his "commander in chief" powers allow him to arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges; to authorize physical abuse of prisoners; to invade other countries without the necessity of congressional approval; and to ignore international law, including the U.N. Charter and other treaty obligations.
As the New York Times reported on Dec. 16 and Bush confirmed on Dec. 17, he also is claiming - as his constitutional right - the power to wiretap Americans without court review or the presentation of evidence to any impartial body.
When Bush is challenged on these authorities, he asserts that he is following the law, although it is never clear which law or whether anyone other than his appointed lawyers have advised him on the scope of his power.
(Conservative legal scholars may have to stretch their notion of the "original intent" of the Founders to explain how the writers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 decided to give a future president the authority to use spy satellites to intercept phone calls and other electronic communications.)
It's also not clear what evidence exists to support Bush's charge that disclosure of his wiretapping decision damages the national security and endangers U.S. citizens.
Under the FISA law dating back to the 1970s, electronic eavesdropping has been permitted inside the United States against foreign agents, including anyone collaborating with an international terrorist group. The law only requires a warrant from a secret court, which rarely rejects an administration request.
Presumably, al-Qaeda terrorists inside the United States were aware that their communications were vulnerable to intercepts, explaining why the Sept. 11 attackers were careful to avoid telephonic contacts abroad. But the terrorists would have no way to know whether electronic eavesdropping might be done with or without a warrant, under FISA or Bush's order.
Yet, Bush's complaint that disclosure of his personal wiretapping authority endangers national security presupposes the terrorists knew that their phone calls would somehow be immune from a FISA court warrant but susceptible to Bush's wiretap order.
Since that assumption makes no sense, one can only conclude that Bush threw in the accusation about endangering national security to impugn the patriotism of his critics and rev up his base, much as he did during the run-up to invading Iraq when skeptics were shouted down as traitors and liars. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "Politics of Preemption."]
Questionable Targets
Bush's assertion of his unilateral authority to wiretap anyone he wishes also raises questions about whether some of his eavesdropping is aimed at political opponents or journalists, rather than terrorists.
While Bush claims his wiretaps were vital to the national security, they came at a time when the FISA court was approving record numbers of warrants for secret surveillance. According to FISA's annual report for 2004, there were a record 1,758 applications for spying authorization that year and none was denied by the special court.
The administration's explanation for why additional secret wiretaps were needed is that Bush's order saves time when a quick wiretap is required, such as when a foreign terrorist is captured and his phone records are seized.
But the FISA court can clear warrants in a few hours - or Bush could exercise emergency powers under the law to conduct wiretaps for 72 hours before obtaining approval from the court. That emergency provision was inserted in the law to give presidents leeway when the threat was a surprise nuclear attack by the Soviet Union with the potential of wiping out nearly the entire U.S. population.
Even during the Cold War, the FISA provisions were acceptable to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. But now, with a much less severe threat from al-Qaeda terrorists, George W. Bush has decided that the law must be waived at his discretion, bypassing the court on hundreds and possibly thousands of surveillance orders.
That suggests other motives may exist for some of these wiretaps, such as the possibility that some intercepted conversations would be rejected by even the rubber-stamping FISA court, like requests to spy on activists, politicians or journalists.
The Bush administration, for instance, has accused the Arab news network al-Jazeera of collaborating with al-Qaeda and U.S. news executives are known to communicate with al-Jazeera over access to its exclusive video. Would these phone calls and e-mails be covered by Bush's extraordinary wiretap authority?
Bush's right-wing allies also have labeled some American journalists, such as Seymour Hersh, traitors for writing articles about the War on Terror that reveal secret operations that Bush has wanted to keep hidden. Plus, there may be U.S. politicians or activists communicating with Islamic leaders overseas.
While the full range of Bush's intercepts is not known, the administration's use of National Security Agency intercepts was an issue earlier this year, when it was disclosed that John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be United Nations ambassador, had requested names of Americans that had been excised from NSA transcripts for privacy reasons.
Senate Democrats demanded that documents be turned over on 10 cases in which Bolton used his position as under secretary of state for arms control to obtain the names. The White House refused to provide the information and Bush evaded the need for Senate confirmation of Bolton's ambassadorship by making him a "recess appointment."
Hand Gestures
As for Sunday's prime-time Iraq War speech, Bush broke with the reassuring tradition of a president sitting behind the Oval Office desk with hands folded. Instead, Bush took to waving his arms as he delivered the speech.
"Grim-faced, yet with a trace of anxiety in his eyes, Bush delivered the remarks seated rigidly at a desk, making a variety of hand gestures," observed Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales. [Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2005]
Some of Bush's strange body language may be explained by the fact that even he must realize that his assertions include a number of falsehoods, such as his routine deception that Saddam Hussein defied U.N. demands on destroying his weapons of mass destruction and on letting in U.N. weapons inspectors.
"It is true that [Hussein] systematically concealed those [WMD] programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors," Bush told the nation. "He was given an ultimatum - and he made his choice for war."
But it is not true that Hussein blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. In fact, he acquiesced to a U.N. ultimatum and let them back into Iraq in November 2002. Chief inspector Hans Blix said his team was finally given free rein to examine suspected WMD sites, but Bush forced the inspectors to leave so the invasion could proceed.
As it turned out, Hussein was telling the truth when he said there were no WMD caches left. After the invasion, Bush's own team of inspectors concluded that Iraq's WMD stockpiles had been destroyed by earlier U.N. inspections and by U.S. bombing during the Clinton administration.
Yet, beginning a few months after the U.S. invasion - as it became clear there was no WMD and as U.S. casualties mounted - Bush began rewriting history, claiming that Hussein had not let the U.N. inspectors in, thus forcing Bush to invade. This lie presumably made Bush appear more reasonable.
On July 14, 2003, Bush said about Hussein, "we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power."
In the following months, Bush repeated this claim in slightly varied forms.
On Jan. 27, 2004, Bush said, "We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution - 1441 - unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."
Eventually, this false history became part of Bush's regular litany about the war. Despite the fact that it was an obvious lie - the U.S. news media had witnessed the work of the U.N. inspectors inside Iraq - Bush was rarely challenged about his historical revisionism. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com "President Bush, With the Candlestick."]
Terrorists or Insurgents
Similarly, Bush continues to blur the distinctions between the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency that has often used roadside bombs to attack American troops and the relatively small number of non-Iraqi terrorists who have exploded bombs aimed at civilian targets.
Bush has employed the rhetorical device of using insurgent and terrorist synonymously, much as he and Vice President Dick Cheney used juxtaposition to convince millions of Americans that the Iraqi government was somehow responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
In his Dec. 18 speech, for instance, Bush said, "the terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers," making no distinction between the tactics of the insurgents and the terrorists.
The danger from this sleight of hand is that it blocks consideration of possible resolution of the Iraq War. Many military analysts believe the only realistic route toward a reasonably successful policy in Iraq is to address the political and economic concerns of Iraq's Sunni minority - who want a U.S. withdrawal, more political clout and a share of the nation's oil revenues - while isolating the relatively small number of foreign jihadists.
Though Bush has made some concessions to this reality in recent speeches, he chose to return to his broad-brush rhetoric in the national address. Again, it was a case of good versus evil, victory or surrender, his way or the highway.
"Defeatism may have its partisan uses," Bush said of his critics, "but it is not justified by the facts."
Bush also resorted to a favorite tactic of ascribing ridiculous notions to his critics. "If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone," Bush said.
The president then returned to his long-time claim that Islamic extremists are motivated by their hatred of America's freedom.
"The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life," Bush said. "And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way."
Again, Bush was reprising rhetoric that exaggerates or misstates the enemy's goals and capabilities as a way to box in the U.S. political debate and shut the door on reasonable alternative strategies.
Bush continues to discuss al-Qaeda as if it is a powerful international force on par with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, when many analysts see it as a fringe organization that was driven out of most Islamic countries, almost to the ends of the earth - or in this case to the mountains of Afghanistan.
Without doubt, al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists exploited a letdown in U.S. security in 2001 to conduct an extraordinary attack on New York and Washington, but a realistic assessment of its actual clout is important in calibrating a response.
If al-Qaeda is actually a marginal organization that can be isolated even more by the West adopting a respectful approach to the Muslim world, then Bush's approach of invading Arab countries - and curtailing American liberties - makes no sense, unless Bush's real motives are something else: say, controlling Middle East resources and transforming the United States into a modern one-party state with him or his allies in permanent control.
The analysis that follows from Bush's assertion of unlimited presidential powers and his deceptive explanations to the American people about Iraq suggests two alternative theories. Either Bush is increasingly unstable, incapable of discerning reality from his own propaganda, or he is concealing his real agenda with misleading arguments.
Put differently, either the United States is experiencing a kind of modern "madness of King George" - like what happened when King George III became unstable in the years after losing the Colonies - or the American people are living under a cunning Machiavelli with a calculated method to his apparent madness.
Either way, the prospects are troubling for American democracy - and it may not be clear which of the alternative scenarios is more worrisome.
_____
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
The Three Reasons For 911
The Three Reasons For 911
By Karl W B Schwarzkwbschwarz@comcast.net12-23-5
911 took place for three reasons that were spelled out in a War Plan designed under the Clinton Administration and implemented by Bush. That statement should not surprise you since there has been nothing original come from Bush in his entire life.
http://www.crudedesigns.org/
For those interested in the underlying reasons we have invaded Iraq, the document available at that link and the two books Neoconned and Neoconned Again will give you the information needed to understand the bigger picture. My book One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas provides even more background and proof that the true terrorists and the true enemies of Americans are the RNC and DNC and their wealthy elite masters.
It is really quite simple:
The U.S. goal of remaining the only military Superpower and even regional powers eliminated; and
The U.S. insistence that all oil sales will be in petro-dollars, not the Euro; and
The U.S. intent to dominate the world oil and gas supplies because that will ensure that oil sales will remain denominated in dollars, not Euro. Whomever controls the oil and gas can control entire economies by denying energy supplies.
The US policy of growing our economy by increasing the National Debt would not be possible if the Euro becomes the world's trading currency for oil. Hence, Iran and Venezuela are terrorists since they intend to trade in Euros. Even the UN Oil for Food program was run through France and denominated in Euros. If the Euro becomes the oil trade currency our economy would melt down in a year or less.
For those that think the French are our allies, the strategy to undermine the dollar with the Euro on oil sales is a French strategy that was sold to the Germans and Russian leadership.
You will soon learn of a document that is the end result of a study commissioned under the Clinton Administration calling for a 2000 2020 War Plan to achieve the three objectives stated above. The people that have been bashing me have that document, it proves what I have been saying all along and they will not release it because it implicates Clinton too. I know about this document because the person that has been lying about me on the Internet, Gina de Miranda, aka: Madame Karnak, found it in her research and then refused to release it. We have had that conversation by telephone and the other person that helped to bash me, Melinda Pillsbury Foster is the person who told me that Gina had found the 2000 2020 War Plan.
That War Plan so clearly implicates Clinton and Bush that its release to the world has been delayed by the same people that are bashing me. The exact same person Madame Karnak is the person who found that plan and has refused to release it. Some of you may have heard me on the radio make mention of that plan that was found by a researcher working with my campaign.
This is about getting political advantage in 2006 and 2008. I am one of the 9-11 Truth persons that has clearly presented that this GWOT is a DNC and RNC creation and the problem is on both sides of the aisle. All persons that are pursuing 9-11 Truth on that basis are under attack, it is just hard to see the bigger picture when we all have so many other things to do each day in our own lives.
They could not put that plan into action or sell it to America without something happening that would get Americans solidly behind a plan that has nothing to do with a Global War on Terrorism. It has to do with the dollar remaining the world's main trade currency.
On September 11, 2001 we all witnessed that plan being put into action almost a year late.
Merry Christmas and may 2006 be the year the truth is clear for all to see.
Karl
By Karl W B Schwarzkwbschwarz@comcast.net12-23-5
911 took place for three reasons that were spelled out in a War Plan designed under the Clinton Administration and implemented by Bush. That statement should not surprise you since there has been nothing original come from Bush in his entire life.
http://www.crudedesigns.org/
For those interested in the underlying reasons we have invaded Iraq, the document available at that link and the two books Neoconned and Neoconned Again will give you the information needed to understand the bigger picture. My book One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas provides even more background and proof that the true terrorists and the true enemies of Americans are the RNC and DNC and their wealthy elite masters.
It is really quite simple:
The U.S. goal of remaining the only military Superpower and even regional powers eliminated; and
The U.S. insistence that all oil sales will be in petro-dollars, not the Euro; and
The U.S. intent to dominate the world oil and gas supplies because that will ensure that oil sales will remain denominated in dollars, not Euro. Whomever controls the oil and gas can control entire economies by denying energy supplies.
The US policy of growing our economy by increasing the National Debt would not be possible if the Euro becomes the world's trading currency for oil. Hence, Iran and Venezuela are terrorists since they intend to trade in Euros. Even the UN Oil for Food program was run through France and denominated in Euros. If the Euro becomes the oil trade currency our economy would melt down in a year or less.
For those that think the French are our allies, the strategy to undermine the dollar with the Euro on oil sales is a French strategy that was sold to the Germans and Russian leadership.
You will soon learn of a document that is the end result of a study commissioned under the Clinton Administration calling for a 2000 2020 War Plan to achieve the three objectives stated above. The people that have been bashing me have that document, it proves what I have been saying all along and they will not release it because it implicates Clinton too. I know about this document because the person that has been lying about me on the Internet, Gina de Miranda, aka: Madame Karnak, found it in her research and then refused to release it. We have had that conversation by telephone and the other person that helped to bash me, Melinda Pillsbury Foster is the person who told me that Gina had found the 2000 2020 War Plan.
That War Plan so clearly implicates Clinton and Bush that its release to the world has been delayed by the same people that are bashing me. The exact same person Madame Karnak is the person who found that plan and has refused to release it. Some of you may have heard me on the radio make mention of that plan that was found by a researcher working with my campaign.
This is about getting political advantage in 2006 and 2008. I am one of the 9-11 Truth persons that has clearly presented that this GWOT is a DNC and RNC creation and the problem is on both sides of the aisle. All persons that are pursuing 9-11 Truth on that basis are under attack, it is just hard to see the bigger picture when we all have so many other things to do each day in our own lives.
They could not put that plan into action or sell it to America without something happening that would get Americans solidly behind a plan that has nothing to do with a Global War on Terrorism. It has to do with the dollar remaining the world's main trade currency.
On September 11, 2001 we all witnessed that plan being put into action almost a year late.
Merry Christmas and may 2006 be the year the truth is clear for all to see.
Karl
Turkish Daily News - How amazing
Turkish Daily News - How amazing
Gündüz Aktan
A summary of a speech delivered by Fatma M. Gocek at a conference held at the Zoryan Institute on Dec. 2 has appeared on the Internet site HYE-TERT. Let us take a look at the main elements of her presentation:
First, she says she would not use the word genocide though “it certainly is so by the definition accepted by the United Nations.” Then she proceeds to use that word many times, stressing that Turkey is definitely going to have to recognize the “genocide.”
She limits to the state the official thesis that rejects the genocide allegation, insinuating that this is not a thesis embraced by the rest of society.
She says that, as long as the anti-democratic, repressive and negating Turkish state does not recognize the genocide, Turkey will not become fully democratic and join the European Union. Thus, she portrays recognition of genocide as the sign that means Turkey is a democracy.
She maintains that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power “in spite of strong nationalist opposition within the state military and bureaucracy” and that it has joined forces with the “educated liberal segment that challenges the status quo.” She says that in order to be able to survive in Turkey, this religion-based party wants Turkey to join the EU and that, unless the “nationalist forces” are diminished, Turkey will not be able to develop its democracy, join the EU and confront its past.
She advocates that, in this process, one should oppose the court case in Massachusetts and oppose the legal pressure put on Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink and Ragip Zarakolu.
She says that many of the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide later joined Mustafa Kemal and took part in the Turkish War of Liberation. She claims that, initially, 25-30 percent of the first Turkish Grand National Assembly consisted of such persons and that two of them, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayar, later served as prime minister and president of the republic.
Then she gives the good news that the ultimate goal is to ensure the return of all Armenians driven out of Anatolia.
The Internet text also includes a caricature-like account of the brief intervention the counselor of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, Yonet Tezel, was permitted to make during the conference. On the other hand, Zoryan Institute head Greg Sarkissian makes reference to Pamuk's words about breaking a taboo and about the scholarly criticism voiced by Halil Berktay, Murat Belge and Taner Akcam. He says there are those who oppose the “state-sanctioned views,” “openly decrying the state's suppression of freedom of speech.”
In short, the summary boils down to the following: Everybody in Turkey recognizes the Armenian genocide with the exception of the anti-democratic, repressive Turkish state, which uses violence against its people backed by the nationalists that support the state. When the nationalists are weakened and the state becomes democratic, Turkey will recognize the genocide and the Armenians will return to Anatolia.
Yet, the Turkish state's official thesis is merely that the Armenian events were a tragedy but not a genocide (naturally, those who oppose the official thesis indirectly accepting the genocide allegations). My proposal to have the issue solved via adjudication or arbitration has nothing to do with the official thesis.
The truth is that in Turkey no one recognizes the “genocide” except for a few “liberal intellectuals.” Thousands of academics, historians, social scientists, journalists, politicians and almost all of the public reject the genocide allegation. Nobody should entertain any illusion that there isn't a very large and unshakeable consensus behind the official thesis.
It would be absurd to describe as “Turkish nationalists that lack a democratic mentality” the British government and many renowned figures such as author Guenter Levy, author Samuel Weems, Professor Justin McCarthy, Professor Bernard Lewis, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Dr. Stanford Shaw for not recognizing the “genocide.”
If the criterion for democracy is recognizing genocide, then why is it that Armenia continues to be a country that is far from being democratic, a country where the parliament speaker, the prime minister and a number of deputies have been massacred in parliament?
In the schools of 22 of the states in the United States, it is forbidden to teach children the views of those rejecting the genocide allegations, and all of the publishing companies exercise self-censure, refusing to publish any book upholding the counter-view. In some European countries there are laws that punish the expression of the counter-view. Do these restrictions constitute freedom of expression?
If the Armenians are so confident about their thesis, why do they oppose the Turkish prime minister's proposal for creation of a joint scholarly commission and the court case in Massachusetts?
Why do those kind-hearted (!), well-educated (!), “liberal intellectuals” of ours who believe that genocide took place turn a deaf ear to proposals for letting judicial channels find a resolution to the problem?
On this issue a well-funded but primitive psychological operation is being carried out. And this operation itself is the most important piece of evidence attesting to the fact that the 1915 events were not genocide.
They will definitely be defeated.
Gündüz Aktan
A summary of a speech delivered by Fatma M. Gocek at a conference held at the Zoryan Institute on Dec. 2 has appeared on the Internet site HYE-TERT. Let us take a look at the main elements of her presentation:
First, she says she would not use the word genocide though “it certainly is so by the definition accepted by the United Nations.” Then she proceeds to use that word many times, stressing that Turkey is definitely going to have to recognize the “genocide.”
She limits to the state the official thesis that rejects the genocide allegation, insinuating that this is not a thesis embraced by the rest of society.
She says that, as long as the anti-democratic, repressive and negating Turkish state does not recognize the genocide, Turkey will not become fully democratic and join the European Union. Thus, she portrays recognition of genocide as the sign that means Turkey is a democracy.
She maintains that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power “in spite of strong nationalist opposition within the state military and bureaucracy” and that it has joined forces with the “educated liberal segment that challenges the status quo.” She says that in order to be able to survive in Turkey, this religion-based party wants Turkey to join the EU and that, unless the “nationalist forces” are diminished, Turkey will not be able to develop its democracy, join the EU and confront its past.
She advocates that, in this process, one should oppose the court case in Massachusetts and oppose the legal pressure put on Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink and Ragip Zarakolu.
She says that many of the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide later joined Mustafa Kemal and took part in the Turkish War of Liberation. She claims that, initially, 25-30 percent of the first Turkish Grand National Assembly consisted of such persons and that two of them, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayar, later served as prime minister and president of the republic.
Then she gives the good news that the ultimate goal is to ensure the return of all Armenians driven out of Anatolia.
The Internet text also includes a caricature-like account of the brief intervention the counselor of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, Yonet Tezel, was permitted to make during the conference. On the other hand, Zoryan Institute head Greg Sarkissian makes reference to Pamuk's words about breaking a taboo and about the scholarly criticism voiced by Halil Berktay, Murat Belge and Taner Akcam. He says there are those who oppose the “state-sanctioned views,” “openly decrying the state's suppression of freedom of speech.”
In short, the summary boils down to the following: Everybody in Turkey recognizes the Armenian genocide with the exception of the anti-democratic, repressive Turkish state, which uses violence against its people backed by the nationalists that support the state. When the nationalists are weakened and the state becomes democratic, Turkey will recognize the genocide and the Armenians will return to Anatolia.
Yet, the Turkish state's official thesis is merely that the Armenian events were a tragedy but not a genocide (naturally, those who oppose the official thesis indirectly accepting the genocide allegations). My proposal to have the issue solved via adjudication or arbitration has nothing to do with the official thesis.
The truth is that in Turkey no one recognizes the “genocide” except for a few “liberal intellectuals.” Thousands of academics, historians, social scientists, journalists, politicians and almost all of the public reject the genocide allegation. Nobody should entertain any illusion that there isn't a very large and unshakeable consensus behind the official thesis.
It would be absurd to describe as “Turkish nationalists that lack a democratic mentality” the British government and many renowned figures such as author Guenter Levy, author Samuel Weems, Professor Justin McCarthy, Professor Bernard Lewis, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Dr. Stanford Shaw for not recognizing the “genocide.”
If the criterion for democracy is recognizing genocide, then why is it that Armenia continues to be a country that is far from being democratic, a country where the parliament speaker, the prime minister and a number of deputies have been massacred in parliament?
In the schools of 22 of the states in the United States, it is forbidden to teach children the views of those rejecting the genocide allegations, and all of the publishing companies exercise self-censure, refusing to publish any book upholding the counter-view. In some European countries there are laws that punish the expression of the counter-view. Do these restrictions constitute freedom of expression?
If the Armenians are so confident about their thesis, why do they oppose the Turkish prime minister's proposal for creation of a joint scholarly commission and the court case in Massachusetts?
Why do those kind-hearted (!), well-educated (!), “liberal intellectuals” of ours who believe that genocide took place turn a deaf ear to proposals for letting judicial channels find a resolution to the problem?
On this issue a well-funded but primitive psychological operation is being carried out. And this operation itself is the most important piece of evidence attesting to the fact that the 1915 events were not genocide.
They will definitely be defeated.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Turkish Daily News - Difficult days ahead
Turkish Daily News - Difficult days ahead
Difficult days ahead
Monday, December 26, 2005
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI Yusuf KANLI
The first time was spectacular. You will remember a few years ago, in February of 2001, to be precise, there was a prime minister in office who was old, fragile, ill and surrounded by political fortune-hunters who in public spared no effort to demonstrate their loyalty to their incumbent leader but who behind closed doors were engaged in battles of succession.
The country was just emerging from a mini-crisis in November, which, according to some adversaries, was an indicator of a larger crisis to come if the poor governance of the country persisted and the aged leader failed to accept calls to step down and leave his post as party and government leader to one of his confidants. Though the premier was at times confused as to whether he had only his socks on or his shoes as well and managed to greet the same guest two or three times during the course of a 30-minute reception, the three-way coalition government of the time was adamant that there was no need to refresh the national will -- that is, go to early elections -- stressing that there was harmony in the Cabinet and that the county was well governed.
Still, there were signs presaging that one day angry shop owners would throw their empty cash registers on the sidewalk in front of the Prime Ministry in protest -- a development that, when it in fact occurred, forced Ankara to establish a primitive version of today's “Green Zone” in Baghdad around the Prime Ministry, blocking all roads and cutting off any chance of the ageing premier seeing the desperate situation into which he had put the Turks with his poor governance. Some of the important infrastructure of the European Union reforms was established at that time, but many reforms, most notably those related to decreasing the participation of the military in the country's policy-making mechanisms, had yet to be legislated. For example, the National Security Council (MGK) was still headed by a general and the government was still required by law to give priority to and implement suggestions made by the military-dominated body.
In such an atmosphere, the council met one a cold February day at the Çankaya Presidential Palace for its routine, then-monthly meeting, and during the gathering the president and the prime minister decided all of a sudden to play-ping pong with a copy of the Constitution, vividly demonstrating their disagreement over some crucial matters pertaining to the separation of powers.
Emerging from that meeting, the elderly prime minister, in an angry and shaking voice, proclaimed that there was a “state crisis” in the country. What that meant nobody knew, but the markets went wild and the country plunged into the worst economic-financial crisis of its republican history, devouring at least half of the wealth of the Turks without discriminating between rich or poor. The people's desperation was so profound that despite its flat objection to an early election, the three-way government managed to stay in office -- with the premier for the most part in bed either in hospital or at his residence -- until November 2002, when it faced a humiliating electoral defeat and was rejected en masse from the Turkish legislature.
TÜSİAD standoff:
Four years later the country experienced yet another crisis over a copy of the Constitution. The premier, waving the document and reading some of its articles, “ordered” prosecutors to investigate some top businessmen, the president of the Higher Education Council (YÖK) and the main opposition leader on grounds that they had expressed opinions in such a way as to influence an ongoing trial, that of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Rector Yücel Aşkın.
Markets failed to go wild nor was Turkey plunged into a serious financial crisis, although the country's European allies panicked, having perceived the developments as indications that the Turkish government was backing away from it road to the EU. After intense negotiations between the government and those top businessmen from late Friday to late Saturday night, both sides conceded the reality that further aggravating the situation with statements and counterstatements would do no good to anyone, and they agreed to refrain from adding further fuel to the fire in order to let it die down.
The second major controversy over the Constitution thus appears to have been resolved; however, the latest development should be taken as an indication of the difficult days in store for the new year, during which the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government will have to make some very difficult decisions, with Cyprus and the ports and airports issue as well as the anticipated buildup of pressure from Europe for a reconsideration of controversial articles in the new penal code topping the list.
After all, in a Turkey on its way to EU accession, putting intellectuals, academics and journalists behind bars -- particularly those from the country's minorities -- can only amount shooting ourselves in the foot, particularly in view of the growing Turkey skepticism within the European club.
We have to realize that when we put Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink, Zülküf Kışanak and others on trial, we are indeed putting Turkey on trial.
© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Difficult days ahead
Monday, December 26, 2005
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI Yusuf KANLI
The first time was spectacular. You will remember a few years ago, in February of 2001, to be precise, there was a prime minister in office who was old, fragile, ill and surrounded by political fortune-hunters who in public spared no effort to demonstrate their loyalty to their incumbent leader but who behind closed doors were engaged in battles of succession.
The country was just emerging from a mini-crisis in November, which, according to some adversaries, was an indicator of a larger crisis to come if the poor governance of the country persisted and the aged leader failed to accept calls to step down and leave his post as party and government leader to one of his confidants. Though the premier was at times confused as to whether he had only his socks on or his shoes as well and managed to greet the same guest two or three times during the course of a 30-minute reception, the three-way coalition government of the time was adamant that there was no need to refresh the national will -- that is, go to early elections -- stressing that there was harmony in the Cabinet and that the county was well governed.
Still, there were signs presaging that one day angry shop owners would throw their empty cash registers on the sidewalk in front of the Prime Ministry in protest -- a development that, when it in fact occurred, forced Ankara to establish a primitive version of today's “Green Zone” in Baghdad around the Prime Ministry, blocking all roads and cutting off any chance of the ageing premier seeing the desperate situation into which he had put the Turks with his poor governance. Some of the important infrastructure of the European Union reforms was established at that time, but many reforms, most notably those related to decreasing the participation of the military in the country's policy-making mechanisms, had yet to be legislated. For example, the National Security Council (MGK) was still headed by a general and the government was still required by law to give priority to and implement suggestions made by the military-dominated body.
In such an atmosphere, the council met one a cold February day at the Çankaya Presidential Palace for its routine, then-monthly meeting, and during the gathering the president and the prime minister decided all of a sudden to play-ping pong with a copy of the Constitution, vividly demonstrating their disagreement over some crucial matters pertaining to the separation of powers.
Emerging from that meeting, the elderly prime minister, in an angry and shaking voice, proclaimed that there was a “state crisis” in the country. What that meant nobody knew, but the markets went wild and the country plunged into the worst economic-financial crisis of its republican history, devouring at least half of the wealth of the Turks without discriminating between rich or poor. The people's desperation was so profound that despite its flat objection to an early election, the three-way government managed to stay in office -- with the premier for the most part in bed either in hospital or at his residence -- until November 2002, when it faced a humiliating electoral defeat and was rejected en masse from the Turkish legislature.
TÜSİAD standoff:
Four years later the country experienced yet another crisis over a copy of the Constitution. The premier, waving the document and reading some of its articles, “ordered” prosecutors to investigate some top businessmen, the president of the Higher Education Council (YÖK) and the main opposition leader on grounds that they had expressed opinions in such a way as to influence an ongoing trial, that of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Rector Yücel Aşkın.
Markets failed to go wild nor was Turkey plunged into a serious financial crisis, although the country's European allies panicked, having perceived the developments as indications that the Turkish government was backing away from it road to the EU. After intense negotiations between the government and those top businessmen from late Friday to late Saturday night, both sides conceded the reality that further aggravating the situation with statements and counterstatements would do no good to anyone, and they agreed to refrain from adding further fuel to the fire in order to let it die down.
The second major controversy over the Constitution thus appears to have been resolved; however, the latest development should be taken as an indication of the difficult days in store for the new year, during which the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government will have to make some very difficult decisions, with Cyprus and the ports and airports issue as well as the anticipated buildup of pressure from Europe for a reconsideration of controversial articles in the new penal code topping the list.
After all, in a Turkey on its way to EU accession, putting intellectuals, academics and journalists behind bars -- particularly those from the country's minorities -- can only amount shooting ourselves in the foot, particularly in view of the growing Turkey skepticism within the European club.
We have to realize that when we put Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink, Zülküf Kışanak and others on trial, we are indeed putting Turkey on trial.
© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Turkish Daily News - �US visits to Turkey have nothing to do with third countries�
Turkish Daily News - �US visits to Turkey have nothing to do with third countries�
Blogger Thoughts: Or perhaps visits have EVERYTHING to do with 3rd Countries...?
‘US visits to Turkey have nothing to do with third countries’
Monday, December 26, 2005
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
A recent official visit to Turkey by CIA Director Porter Goss took place as a manifestation of the mutual will and effort by Ankara and Washington to strengthen bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül said in an effort to head off speculation over the agenda underlying recent visits by U.S. officials.
Gül's remarks came in apparent response to foreign media reports that Goss, during his visit earlier this month, sought Turkish officials' support to attack Iran in 2006.
“Visits that took place in recent days have nothing to do with Iran and Syria. These visits are [contributions] towards strengthening bilateral relations [between Turkey and the United States],” Gül was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency over the weekend while speaking to reporters at a meeting in Bursa, in reference to a report by a German news agency.
“Those [visits] do not have any relation whatsoever to other countries. Reports written here and abroad are entirely fictitious,” Gül said, referring not only to the visit by Goss but also to an earlier working visit by FBI Director Robert Mueller in the same month. Talks with both Goss and Mueller touched on the issue of fighting members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) sheltering at a safe haven in northern Iraq, although no details were made public.
“Turkey and the United States are jointly fighting the PKK terror,” Gül was quoted as saying by CNN-Türk, reiterating, in response to claims, the focus of talks for Turkish officials. The PKK is listed as terror organization by the United States and the European Union as well as by Turkey.
The second largest German news agency, ddp Nachrichtenagentur, reported on Friday that “U.S. plans to attack Iran next year were on the agenda of both Goss and Mueller's talks in Ankara.”
Citing sources from Western intelligence services, the agency reported that Goss presented three files to Turkish officials, one of which concerned Iran's cooperation with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
According to the report, the United States requested Turkey's support for attacking Iran and offered to allow Turkey to launch a military operation against PKK camps based in Iran.
The agency also claimed that the United States had asked Land Forces Commander Gen Yaşar Büyükanıt -- who paid an official visit to Washington earlier this month -- to keep the Turkish Armed Forces primed for possible attacks on Iran.
© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Blogger Thoughts: Or perhaps visits have EVERYTHING to do with 3rd Countries...?
‘US visits to Turkey have nothing to do with third countries’
Monday, December 26, 2005
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
A recent official visit to Turkey by CIA Director Porter Goss took place as a manifestation of the mutual will and effort by Ankara and Washington to strengthen bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül said in an effort to head off speculation over the agenda underlying recent visits by U.S. officials.
Gül's remarks came in apparent response to foreign media reports that Goss, during his visit earlier this month, sought Turkish officials' support to attack Iran in 2006.
“Visits that took place in recent days have nothing to do with Iran and Syria. These visits are [contributions] towards strengthening bilateral relations [between Turkey and the United States],” Gül was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency over the weekend while speaking to reporters at a meeting in Bursa, in reference to a report by a German news agency.
“Those [visits] do not have any relation whatsoever to other countries. Reports written here and abroad are entirely fictitious,” Gül said, referring not only to the visit by Goss but also to an earlier working visit by FBI Director Robert Mueller in the same month. Talks with both Goss and Mueller touched on the issue of fighting members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) sheltering at a safe haven in northern Iraq, although no details were made public.
“Turkey and the United States are jointly fighting the PKK terror,” Gül was quoted as saying by CNN-Türk, reiterating, in response to claims, the focus of talks for Turkish officials. The PKK is listed as terror organization by the United States and the European Union as well as by Turkey.
The second largest German news agency, ddp Nachrichtenagentur, reported on Friday that “U.S. plans to attack Iran next year were on the agenda of both Goss and Mueller's talks in Ankara.”
Citing sources from Western intelligence services, the agency reported that Goss presented three files to Turkish officials, one of which concerned Iran's cooperation with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
According to the report, the United States requested Turkey's support for attacking Iran and offered to allow Turkey to launch a military operation against PKK camps based in Iran.
The agency also claimed that the United States had asked Land Forces Commander Gen Yaşar Büyükanıt -- who paid an official visit to Washington earlier this month -- to keep the Turkish Armed Forces primed for possible attacks on Iran.
© 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 18, 2005 - December 24, 2005 Archives
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: December 18, 2005 - December 24, 2005 Archives
How do we explain what appears to be a night and day difference between the year prior to November 2004 and the year since in terms of terror alerts and scares?
How do we explain what appears to be a night and day difference between the year prior to November 2004 and the year since in terms of terror alerts and scares?
911TrueStory.com
911TrueStory.com
This information focuses on the theory that the World Trade Center buildings ....
09/11/2001
This information focuses on the theory that the World Trade Center buildings ....
09/11/2001
The Agency That Could Be Big Brother - New York Times
December 25, 2005
Private Lives
The Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.
Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.
A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A. has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the N.S.A. to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.
According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.
Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and other spy organizations.
But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.
The N.S.A.'s original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the N.S.A. would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.
Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the N.S.A. is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.
During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.
According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A.'s director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the N.S.A. intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected Al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.
What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.
This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands," General Hayden said.
Still, the N.S.A. doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.
The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.
Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the F.B.I., whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.
Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the N.S.A. would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.
At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.
Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.
In essence, N.S.A. seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."
This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.
In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.
Total Information Awareness, known as T.I.A., was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.
But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."
The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.
After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's T.I.A. project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
James Bamford is the author of "Puzzle Palace" and"Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency."
Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Private Lives
The Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.
Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.
A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A. has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the N.S.A. to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.
According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.
Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and other spy organizations.
But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.
The N.S.A.'s original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the N.S.A. would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.
Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the N.S.A. is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.
During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.
According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A.'s director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the N.S.A. intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected Al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.
What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.
This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands," General Hayden said.
Still, the N.S.A. doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.
The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.
Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the F.B.I., whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.
Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the N.S.A. would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.
At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.
Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.
In essence, N.S.A. seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."
This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.
In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.
Total Information Awareness, known as T.I.A., was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.
But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."
The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.
After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's T.I.A. project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
James Bamford is the author of "Puzzle Palace" and"Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency."
Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)