Tag Archives: terrorism

Government Spies See Opportunity in Terrorist Attack, by Jason Farrell

From Jason Farrell, at antiwar.com:

As if they weren’t Machiavellian enough, spy agencies are evidently waiting for the next terrorist attack to change public opinion on the need for encryption backdoors, reports The Washington Post.

The intelligence community’s top lawyer, Robert S. Litt, lamented in a leaked email that “the legislative environment is very hostile today … [but] it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.” According to the Post, Litt suggested there may be value in “keeping our options open for such a situation.”

A second senior intelligence official added: “People are still not persuaded this is a problem. People think we have not made the case. We do not have the perfect example where you have the dead child or a terrorist act to point to, and that’s what people seem to claim you have to have.”

The intelligence community has been frustrated by resistance to its attempts to weaken encryption through legislation. Congress does not have any legislation on deck that would require companies to hack their own customers if the government can produce a warrant. A “dead child” would undoubtedly help their cause with the public. But their “we need a terrorist attack to prove that people should be worried about terrorist attacks” theory is troubling, to put it mildly.

To continue reading: Government Spies See Opportunity in Terrorist Attack

How I Remember September 11, 2001, by Michael Krieger

There were a number of good articles today on 9/11, the Patriot Act, Middle East wars, and the expansions of the warfare-intelligence complex and the surveillance state. This one, being short, sweet, and personal, seemed to pack the most punch. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

I wrote the following two years ago. It is as relevant today as it was then. Enjoy.

I remember 9/11 like it was yesterday. I was one year into my Wall Street career. I got up that morning just like every other morning and headed toward Union Square station to get on the subway down to 3 World Financial Center, the headquarters of Lehman Brothers. I had just purchased breakfast in the cafeteria when I saw one of the human resources folks from my floor yelling to evacuate. I was confused but I got my ass downstairs fast. When I got down there I joined the hundreds of others staring in awe skyward at the gaping hole in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. People speculated that a helicopter had hit the building, but I said no way. It looked like a bomb went off to me.

Shortly afterward, the ground started shaking and I heard an enormous explosion and saw fire and debris shooting out from behind the North Tower. The herd starting running and I was trampled on. We all retreated to safer ground, at which point I ran into some co-workers. I mentioned that I was a bit worried these things could fall, but I was ensured by a higher-up at the firm that this was impossible. It was at that point that some co-workers and I decided to take the long walk home to my apartment on east 12th street. As we walked, we saw people jumping from the buildings, and ultimately we saw the first one collapse in front of our eyes as we traversed through Soho.

In the days following the collapse, all I wanted was for the towers to be rebuilt just like before. I wanted the skyline back to what I had know since the day I came into this earth at a New York City hospital to be restored exactly as I had always known it. Career-wise, I felt I should leave Wall Street. I thought about going back to graduate school for political science, or maybe even join the newly created Department of Homeland Security (yes, the irony is not lost on me). I read a lengthy tome on Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I was an emotional and psychological mess, and it was when I was in this state of heightened distress that my own government and the military-industrial complex took advantage of me.

It wasn’t just me of course. It was an entire nation that was callously manipulated in the aftermath of that tragedy. The courage and generosity exhibited by so many New Yorkers and others throughout the country and indeed the world was rapidly transformed into terrifying fear. Fear that was intentionally injected repeatedly into our daily lives. Fear that translated into pointless wars and countless deaths. Fear that was used to justify the destruction of our precious civil rights. Fear that was used to initiate a gigantic power grab and the source of tremendous profits for the corporate-statists and crony-capitalsits. Unfortunately, that is the greatest legacy of 9/11.

While all of the above is true, I now see a very bright silver lining. Although it took me an embarrassingly long time, I did wake up from the deep haze of propaganda and am now able to see things for what they really are. Of course, I am only one of millions globally who now recognize how badly we have been duped and are working to restore all of the precious things we have lost.

So let’s take 9/11 to remember all the people that were lost on that day, as well as all of those to whom we have done injustice in the name of the Orwellian never-ending “War on Terror.” Let’s strengthen our resolve to right all of these wrongs and make us proud of these United States once again. That is how I remember September 11, 2001.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

West Point Profesor Calls for Military Strikes on Journalists Critical of War on Terror, by Cassius Methyl

Here’s a professor who would take away the freedom to criticize those who supposedly “defend our freedom.” From Cassius Methyl at the antimedia.com:

West Point, NY — An assistant professor from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point recently declared that professionals critical of the “War on Terror” constitute a “treasonous” opposition that should be subject to military force.

He believes the U.S. should have the right to attack people who are critical of U.S. military operations — specifically, professionals, legal scholars, journalists, and other people effectively spreading ideas that oppose war.

Professor William C. Bradford went as far as to publish a long academic paper in the National Security Law Journal that aggressively promotes suppressing dissent about military force, civilian casualties, and expanding military operations in the Middle East.

Using the excuse that victims would be “lawful targets,” Bradford argues that “law school facilities, scholars’ home offices and media outlets where they give interviews” should be targeted with military force to suppress dissent. He asserted that the war on terror should be expanded, “even if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties, and civilian collateral damage.”

He further suggested that the U.S. should wage “total war” on “Islamism,” using “conventional and nuclear force and [psychological operations]” to “leave them prepared to coexist with the West or be utterly eradicated.”

He said that “Threatening Islamic holy sites might create deterrence, discredit Islamism, and falsify the assumption that decadence renders Western restraint inevitable.”

Despite his self-description as an “associate professor of law, national security and strategy,” a representative of the National Defense University has tried to distance the school from Bradford by saying he wasn’t part of the staff, but rather a contracted professor.

Sporting a long history of exaggeration and pro-military extremism, “He resigned from Indiana University’s law school in 2005 after his military record showed he had exaggerated his service,” according to The Guardian.

Though the man seems to be held in high esteem by the military, he spoke with such disregard for human rights that the National Security Law Journal had to apologize.

The NSLJ released a statement on the front page of its website, saying it

“…made a mistake in publishing [the] highly controversial article…”

“The substance of Mr. Bradford’s article cannot fairly be considered apart from the egregious breach of professional decorum that it exhibits,” it admitted. “We cannot ‘unpublish’ it, of course, but we can and do acknowledge that the article was not presentable for publication when we published it, and that we therefore repudiate it with sincere apologies to our readers.”

Ironically, Bradford has a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree from Harvard University with a focus in Human Rights Law.

This is a man who is apparently incorporating his violent philosophy into his teaching at West Point. He started on August 1st 2015 — after he published his article.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in forming a complete understanding of the ideological fabric held by many of the war hawks in U.S. Military.

http://theantimedia.org/west-point-professor-calls-for-military-strikes-on-journalists-critical-of-war-on-terror/

Families Of 9/11 Victims On Verge Of Proving Government Cover-Up In Court, by SM Gibson

From SM Gibson, at TheAntiMedia.org, via zerohedge:

For many years, rumors have circulated regarding the U.S. government’s involvement in an active cover-up of a sinister connection between Saudi Arabia and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In fact, 28 redacted pages from a congressional intelligence report are said to contain damning information that implicates the Saudis in the 2001 mass murder of American citizens. Despite a bipartisan effort to release the information, the now notorious 28 pages are still being withheld from the public under the predictable guise of “national security.”

Now, thanks to a federal lawsuit in a Manhattan court, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.

Two authors of the concealed pages may soon be called to testify in a court case currently pending against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Former FBI investigator Michael Jacobson and former Justice Department attorney Dana Lesemann, both of whom investigated the terror strikes for the FBI, were given the assignment to track down possible leads connecting Saudi officials to the hijackers and then document their findings. The evidence they compiled was recorded in the infamous 28 pages.

The duo also went on to work with the independent 9/11 Commission, where they unveiled even more corroboration. They uncovered an association between the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, the Saudi Embassy in Washington D.C., and the the tragic events in 2001.

At a court hearing on July 30, lawyers for the victims’ families stated that the most major of allegations against the Saudis were purposefully left out of the final draft of the 9/11 Commission report.

“They were removed at the 11th hour by the senior staff,” said attorney Sean Carter, who called the decision a “political matter.”

“[T]hey had documented a direct link between the Saudi government and the Sept. 11 plot based on the explosive material they had uncovered concerning the activities of Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi,” explained Carter.

Thumairy worked as a religious cleric and Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles at the time, while Bayoumi was employed by the Saudi Arabian Civil Aviation Authority in San Diego.

The judge presiding over the case now has a 60-90 day window to either dismiss the case or proceed on behalf of the victims’ families.

Jerry Goldman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, feels good about the future of the proceedings.

“(The Judge) wasn’t buying their spin,” Goldman said. “The burden is on the kingdom to prove we are wrong, and they didn’t do that.”

With so many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, there is no telling what may be disclosed if the case is allowed to move forward.

The terrifying reality is that if the Saudis are found guilty of involvement in the events of 9/11, such a conclusion would only raise more questions than it would answer. Who inside the United States government would be covering for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for so many years— and more importantly, why?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-11/families-911-victims-verge-proving-government-cover-court

He Said That? 8/8/15

America’s official involvement in Afghanistan ended December 28, 2014. A prisoner of war inmate at Guantanamo captured in Afghanistan in 2002 thought, logically enough, that since the US was no longer at war in Afghanistan, he should be released. Yet according to Judge Royce C. Lambeth, the war isn’t over and he denied the prisoner’s request. He said:

The government may not always say what it means or means what it says.

Now anybody who has ever dealt with the government knows that Judge’s Lambeth statement is often correct, perhaps more often than not, but the outcome is manifestly unjust. If the same logic had applied at the end of WWII, we might still be housing German or Japanese prisoners of war. The case highlights the absurdity of the US war on terror. It’s a war on a tactic, against whomever the US government says is a terrorist, fought anywhere the government thinks there are terrorists, it often creates more of the terrorists it is meant to eradicate, and consequently, it will never be won and will never end. See “Afghanistan: The Forever War.”

The ‘Liberal’ Police State: It’s Here, It’s Now, by Justin Raimondo

From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.org:

Gen. Wesley Clark exposes the rotten soul of modern American liberalism

Wesley Clark, the retired general who almost started World War III with Russia, has a bright idea: why not set up internment camps for “radicalized” Americans in order to stanch the threat of domestic terrorism?

Yes, he actually said this, and, what’s more, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts didn’t even raise a well-manicured eyebrow. The interview took place in the context of MSNBC’s reporting on the Chattanooga shooting, and Roberts asked him what could be done to prevent such incidents. Here is Clark’s answer:

“We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

“But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

“So, if these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.”

Gen. Clark isn’t a fascist, or a Fox News fire-breather: he’s a conventional liberal. He was a critic of the Iraq war, a favorite of the Daily Kos/Netroots Nation-types, and he once ran for President. Thankfully his campaign never did get off the ground.

The award-winning liberal blogger Heather “Digby” Parton is shocked by the General’s remarks: “I’ve always liked Clark,” she writes, scratching her head at how in blazes he could’ve said what he said. And apparently others of that crowd found it hard to believe as well: “People are arguing with me on Twitter that he couldn’t have said this,” Digby writes, “but he did. If you still don’t believe me go watch the tape yourself.”

Which just goes to show how clueless today’s liberals are about the authoritarian roots of modern liberalism. They don’t know the slightest thing about the history of the New Deal and the war years: they don’t know that the “left” constituted the core of the War Party of that era, and they would rather not remember that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt – the chief icon of paleo-liberalism – who set up the first and only internment camps in America into which he herded the entire Japanese-American population.

Flytrap to Breeding Ground, by Dan Sanchez

As with many truths, it is toxic in today’s political discourse to suggest that the US has brought many of its problems with terrorism and terrorists on itself. It’s like saying the US can’t afford many of its entitlements and somebody is going to get screwed. For those who seek an abundance of analytic and factual confirmation of the terrorism assertion, here it is, from Dan Sanchez at antiwar.com:

After the abject failure of the Iraq War became undeniable, court intellectuals strained to concoct alternative rationales for the War that would recast it as a success, or at least a work-in-progress.

Of these, the favorite of blogger-pundit Andrew Sullivan (who has since vociferously recanted his support for the Iraq War) was “Operation Flytrap,” which he picked up from a Bush Administration insider in 2003. Through the Iraq War, the US would win the War on Terror by using its troops as bait to draw Islamic extremists into Iraq, where they would be trapped like flies on flypaper: gathered, contained, and neatly disposed of.

Even as late as 2007, the neocons were still clinging to this self-serving analogy and narrative. In that year, Iraq War architect David Wurmser told The Telegraph:

While Iraq became more violent, it also became in some ways the international bug-zapper of terrorists. It was the light that attracted all the terrorists of the world. And that became the battleground, and this is a decisive battle. I think the battle is turning in our favour now, and this is a defeat that it will take the al-Qaeda world a long time to recover from.”

Setting aside its moral obscenity, this post hoc purpose has been a complete failure. This was gruesomely confirmed a little over a week ago, when, in a single day (Friday, June 26) major terrorist attacks occurred on three continents. Moreover, all three attacks occurred in countries not yet afflicted with war: Kuwait (27 dead in the bombing of a Shiite mosque), Tunisia (39 dead in a gun attack on a tourist resort), and France (one workplace beheading).

Also on that day, ISIS attacked the Kurdish city of Kobani, leaving almost 200 civilians dead. This served as a grisly reminder that the movement long ago surpassed mere terrorism and insurgency, graduating to military operations and territorial conquest.

Yet another 200 were killed on Wednesday in a massive assault by an ISIS affiliate in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. ISIS affiliates have even been giving less extremist Islamist groups a run for their money: contending with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hamas in Palestine. Further ISIS affiliate attacks have occurred recently in Libya and Saudi Arabia.

And these are just the exploits of an offshoot of Al Qaeda. The latter has itself also been launching attacks and conquering territory in Syria and Yemen.

What happened to Sullivan’s flypaper and Wurmser’s bug-zapper? How is it that after “Operation Flytrap,” the world is suffering from a far worse terrorist infestation than before?

Let’s review.

To continue reading: Flytrap to Breeding Ground

‘Hi, I’m Uncle Sam and I’m a War-oholic’, by William Astore and Tom Engelhardt

From Tom Engelhard and William Astore at tomdispatch.com, via antiwar.org:

It was the summer of 2002. The Bush administration’s top officials knew that they were going into Iraq in a big way. They were then in planning mode, but waiting until fall to launch their full-throttle campaign to persuade Congress and the American people to back them. As White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who oversaw the selling of the invasion, put it at the time, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

For them, it was a complete no-brainer. The U.S. military against Saddam Hussein’s rickety army? It would be, as a neocon supporter put it, a “cakewalk.” In fact, they were already thinking about where to turn next. As the insider quip of the pre-invasion months had it, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” One key figure, however, had his doubts. According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, Secretary of State Colin Powell offered this warning to the president: “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.” Woodward noted as well that “privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.”

In fact, Pottery Barn had no such rule, but what might be thought of as the Powell rule turned out to be on the mark in ways even he couldn’t have imagined. Once things began to go desperately wrong, there was, of course, no way to roll back the invasion and “ownership” of Iraq would prove to be inheritable. The next president, who came to power in part by opposing the war and swore that, once in the Oval Office, he’d end it and get the U.S. military out for good, is now the less-than-proud owner of Iraq War 3.0. And if ever there was a nation that was broken, it’s Iraq.

In the end, the Powell rule turned out to apply to every country the U.S. military touched in those years, including Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya. In each instance, hopes in Washington ran soaringly high. In each instance, the country was broken. In each instance, the U.S. ended up “owning” it in some increasingly horrific way. Worst of all, in no instance could Washington bring itself to stop fighting in one fashion or another, whether with Special Forces, drones, or in the case of Iraq all of the above and thousands of new trainers dispatched to stand up a broken army created by the Bush administration and into which Washington had sunk $25 billion. Failure across the board would be the story of Washington’s twenty-first century in the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, and yet somehow the only lesson that seemed to be learned was that, militarily, more – never less – had to be done.

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and TomDispatch regular William Astore suggests that, were the U.S. an individual, we would immediately recognize what such behavior was – addiction – and act accordingly. ~ Tom

America’s Got War
Poverty, Drugs, Afghanistan, Iraq, Terror, or How to Make War on Everything
By William J. Astore

War on drugs. War on poverty. War in Afghanistan. War in Iraq. War on terror. The biggest mistake in American policy, foreign and domestic, is looking at everything as war. When a war mentality takes over, it chooses the weapons and tactics for you. It limits the terms of debate before you even begin. It answers questions before they’re even asked.

When you define something as war, it dictates the use of the military (or militarized police forces, prisons, and other forms of coercion) as the primary instruments of policy. Violence becomes the means of decision, total victory the goal. Anyone who suggests otherwise is labeled a dreamer, an appeaser, or even a traitor.

War, in short, is the great simplifier – and it may even work when you’re fighting existential military threats (as in World War II). But it doesn’t work when you define every problem as an existential one and then make war on complex societal problems (crime, poverty, drugs) or ideas and religious beliefs (radical Islam).

To continue reading: ‘Hi, I’m Uncle Sam and I’m a War-oholic’

The US Government’s Not-So-Secret Support for Al Qaeda and ISIS, by Dan Sanchez

All of the US’s Sunni allies in the Middle East, and Israel, want to get rid of Bashar al-Assad. The only problem is that the only force that has a chance of deposing Assad is ISIS, which is an offshoot and ally of al-Queda, which are the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. Dan Sanchez highlights the absurdity and hypocrisy of the US position in Syria, at antiwar.org:

“9/11: Never forget,” the tee-shirts insisted. “Have you forgotten how it felt that day?” the country crooner warbled. “September 11th… global terrorists!” the candidate for President of 9/11 endlessly repeated.

Such reminders are provided to this day whenever reductions of the swollen national security state are proposed and need to be fended off with a fresh round of fear-mongering. And proponents of such reductions are smeared as friends of the terrorists.

Because President Obama is deemed not aggressive enough in pursuing the war on the Islamist movement responsible for 9/11, even he is accused by his loonier critics of being a “secret Muslim” and a “ terr-symp” (terrorist sympathizer).

Given all this, you would think right-wing nationalists would be alert to and aghast at abundant reports that their own government has knowingly supported Islamic extremists in Syria (and elsewhere), including al-Qaeda, the very group responsible for 9/11; especially since that support led to the rise of ISIS (formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI) and that such a treasonous policy has long occurred under “crypto-Muslim” Barack Hussein Obama. But, oddly enough, they’ve given Obama a free pass on this.

Why hasn’t Fox News been blasting alerts like “Obama Backs Muslim Terrorists, Helping to Create the Islamic State” for years? Wouldn’t their xenophobic viewers gobble up such red meat with relish? Couldn’t the Republicans make stacks of political hay with such a talking point?

But, no, apparently bigotry and scaremongering are only to be harnessed to support war, and never to oppose it. The right’s criticism of Obama’s Syria policy has been that he hasn’t supported the al-Qaeda/ISIS-led Syrian opposition enough. Apparently, the lesson of 9/11 is that we must embrace perpetual war, even if it means fighting with the perpetrators of 9/11 in that war.

Washington hawks have deflected such criticism by denying that al-Qaeda and ISIS are that dominant in Syria, or that foreign support of the opposition helped lead to the 2014 rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Such deflections have been made increasingly untenable by mounting evidence, and especially by the recent disclosure of an incredibly damning Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report from August 2012.

http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/06/08/the-us-governments-not-so-secret-support-for-al-qaeda-and-isis/

To continue reading: The US Government’s Not-So-Secret Support for Al Qaeda and ISIS

See also “Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad,” SLL, 5/24/15

Graph Of The Day: What Everyday Risks Are Greater Threats Than Terrorism——All Of Them!, by Bill Bonner

From Bill Bonner, from acting-man.com, via davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

……The terrorist threat was gaudy and spectacular, but never serious. Statistically, we Americans are more likely to be killed by our own children than by terrorists. We are more likely to starve to death. Or die after tripping over furniture.

A list of probabilities (info-graphic by Meg McLain).

As we have often pointed out, American furniture, electrical wiring and fair weather are far more effective in killing people than terrorists. And yet, neither are being discussed at the current G7 summit.

And for every American killed by a terrorist, there are about 100 who are gunned down, run over, or tasered to death by their own police. Still, eavesdropping was sold to the public as a way to head off terrorist attacks. How many attacks did it thwart?

Zero.

The Washington Times reports:

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.”

So we salute Rand Paul. Good on you. In the long march to a police state, the feds were forced to take a small step back. This example made us think about other people doing good work. (Who says we are always negative!)

There are millions and millions of people who do good work every day. Few of them get their names in the paper. They clean their homes. They drive trucks and analyze stocks. They weld steel and teach children. The saints are all around us … unnoticed.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/graph-of-the-day-what-everyday-risks-are-greater-threats-than-terrorism-all-of-them/