Login Form

Domestic Terror PDF  | Print |  E-mail




US Courts Legalize CIA Abduction, Overseas Detention, Torture Of Innocent American Citizens

Alexander Higgins
September 9, 2010

The United States Court Of Appeals 9th circuit has legalized the CIA abduction, overseas detention, and torture of innocent American citizens.

It has also ruled that innocent civilians tortured and detained, even after release, have no rights for recourse against the CIA or corporations involved because litigation would jeopardize state secrets and top secret classified information critical to National Security.

   Basically if you’re accused the Executive branch can be the judge, jury and executioner with the caveat that you are automatically guilty and have no right to defend yourself against the allegations.

The Associated Press reports that the Obama Administration has won a shocking victory in federal appeals courts when the US federal appeals court ruled that innocent victims abducted and tortured by the CIA do not have a right to sue companies involved in facilitating the torture programs.

The lawsuit involves litigation against Boeing for its involvement the US CIA torture program of innocent US citizens.

The lawsuit charges that US Citizens alleged to be terrorists were subject to illegal “forced disappearances” after which Boeing ran CIA black-op “torture flights” of the alleged terrorism suspects during which the tortured citizens were flown to secret overseas prisons where torture is legal.

The 5 men involved in the litigation were originally abducted by the CIA and shipped to the oversea the secret overseas torture prisons based on suspicions that they were involved with the 9/11 attack.

So far 3 of the 5 men have been released because they were innocent and had no involvement with the attacks.

According the Associated Press, the three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit court of appeals quickly dismissed the lawsuit after the US Government claimed the litigation would reveal state secrets along with top secret US Government intelligence by a vote of 2 to 1.

The ruling effectively legalizes the abduction, overseas detention and torture of innocent US civilian citizens by the CIA.

The decision also removes the remedies innocent people who are tortured or detained can take against the CIA or corporations contracted by the CIA to run its black-ops.

Can you say Fascism?

Not surprisingly this is the same Federal Appeals Court that ruled that private property is no longer private when it made it legal for Government officials to sneak on to private property and install GPS devices to track US citizens anytime they want without a warrant.

Judge Michael Hawkins, a federal judge on the panel who disagreed with the ruling, told the Associated Press that the lawsuit was dismissed prematurely and argued that the litigants should still be allowed to prevent evidence that is not secret and not critical to the so-called “National Security” interests of the United States.

“They are not even allowed to attempt to prove their case by the use of nonsecret evidence in their own hands or in the hands of third parties”, wrote Judge Michael Hawkins about the decision.

ACLU attorney Ben Wizner who represents the 5 men stated that he plans on appealing the decision and taking it the United States Supreme court.

However, considering the recent streak of rulings which have diminished the constitutional rights protecting American citizens while increasing the tyrannical powers of the Executive branch of the federal government it is likely that current ruling will stand.

The recent rulings continue uphold the wide array of human rights violations originally implemented by President George W. Bush in the name of the so called “War on Terror”.

Despite the many campaign promises by President Barack Obama to end those promises he has only expanded the oppression the Obama administration has only expanded Bush’s violations to the point of a totalitarianism dictatorship.

The ACLU points out that Obama administration has fought for and won the legalization of Bush’s human rights violations in the US courts and instead of ending the practices President Obama has made the abusive practices of civil rights violations the new normal.

July 22, 2010

National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration

An 18-Month Review

In the eighteen months since the issuance of those executive orders, the administration’s record on issues related to civil liberties and national security has been, at best, mixed. Indeed, on a range of issues including accountability for torture, detention of terrorism suspects, and use of lethal force against civilians, there is a very real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration. There is a real danger, in other words, that the Obama administration will preside over the creation of a “new normal.”

Download the ACLU PDF Report – Establishing a New Normal – Detailing Obama’s Civil Right and Human Right Violations (PDF – 2.46 MB)

This PDF file can be opened with the free Adobe Reader

For example the US Supreme court has legalized the assassination of Americans alleged to threats to National Security anywhere in the world.

The Supreme Court has also made it legal for the US Government to hold anyone indefinitely with no need to file charges which violates Habeas Corpus.

In fact the courts have also made it legal to for the Government to violate just about all constitutionally protected rights  of Americans citizens alleged to be terrorists or alleged to be threats to National Security without the need for the Government to prove or even provide evidence to support the allegations.

Those constitutional rights that the Government no longer needs to provide include trial by jury, protection against illegal search and seizure, and the right to face your accusers.

The current legal system even denies American citizens placed on the CIA assassination list the right to hire a lawyer to challenge being placed on the list for assassination.

Basically if you’re accused the Executive branch can be the judge, jury and executioner with the caveat that you are automatically guilty and have no right to defend yourself against the allegations.

“If this decision stands,” ACLU attorney Ben Wizner said, “the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while extending complete immunity to its torturers.”

Indeed this is an important ruling facing the courts because if the US Government is allowed to torture innocent citizens and Big Corporations can participate in the practice and reap large profits without fear of any retribution it will only be a matter of time before the practice becomes so widespread and flagrant that the average American citizen will be targets just for disagreeing with the Government.

For example the Government think tank, DEMOS, has recently released documents labeling conspiracy theorists as potential terrorists calling conspiracy theories “dangerous thoughts” that “lead to violence”.

Obama’s Department of Justice has taken the opinion one step farther and released a publication that states Constitutionalists, Anti New World Order Activists, and Survivalists such as the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul are all “potential terrorists”.

In fact Demos has responded to public outrage over the report and has specifically called The Intel Hub a conspiracy echo chamber, which is a site that “echoes” my writings on The Alexander Higgins Blog in its chamber.

That would imply that I am a “potential terrorist” pushing “dangerous thoughts” that could “lead to violence”.

Clearly the policy of torture, abduction, assassination and violation of human rights targets not actual terrorists but every single political dissident who disagrees with any aspect of the US Government and the policies of tyrannical totalitarian oppression the US Government imposes.

Return to Top of Page



Hamilton and Kean Call for Domestic Terrorism Agency

Kurt Nimmo
September 10, 2010

The federal government needs an agency specifically charged with identifying radicalization or working to prevent terrorist recruitment of U.S. citizens and residents, according to a report issued by Tom Kean, Lee Hamilton, and the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Preparedness Group. Kean and Hamilton led the effort to blame cave-dwelling Muslims for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

  Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean
   Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton led the effort to blame cave-dwelling Muslims for the attacks on September 11, 2001.

The Kean and Hamilton report on domestic terror and “radicalization” dovetails with an effort by the Obama administration. Obama’s national security strategy includes a “new interagency effort that brings together key stakeholders” and continued “outreach to communities across the country,” according to Ben Rhodes, the White House’s deputy national security adviser.

“Our long-held belief that homegrown terrorism couldn’t happen here has thus created a situation where we are today stumbling blindly through the legal, operational and organizational minefield of countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment occurring in the United States,” claims the report, which cites Anwar al-Awlaki as an example of the “Americanization” of terrorism. Other examples cited include the “failed” Times Square non-bombing, the Christmas day fizzled underwear non-bombing, and the highly suspicious Fort Hood shootings.

As Webster Tarpley notes, the “fiery double agent” and “imam-provocateur” al-Awlaki played a key role in entrapping patsies in the Fort Dix and Toronto non-terror cases. His email exchange with the Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was not considered important enough to warrant action by the government.

The report also mentions David Headley, a man of “conflicted loyalties” (in other words, he worked for an intelligence agency) who was linked to the the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks on Mumbai in late 2008 that killed more than 160. Lashkar-e-Taiba is a creation of Pakistan’s ISI, the intelligence agency that collaborated with the CIA to create the Taliban and the Afghan Mujahideen, later to become al-Qaeda.

The FBI has worked to “reach out” to Somali communities “in an effort to counter the radicalization of the youth,” the Associated Press reports. In 2009, however, a coalition of Arab and Muslim groups said the FBI was infiltrating mosques and using agents provocateurs. “It is exactly what the FBI did in the ‘60s and ‘70s under its discredited and outlawed COINTELPRO policy. It seeks to disrupt, discredit and criminalize the Muslim community,” said Jim Lafferty, the executive director of the National Lawyers Guild in Los Angeles.

The FBI is notorious for recruiting and setting up patsies who are then used by the government and corporate media as examples of over-blown domestic terrorism.

The prospect of scary Muslim suicide bombers — never mind the absurdity of the Christmas day and Times Square non-bombings — is being used to go after the real threat to the government: patriotic Americans. As the Department of Homeland Security report on “right-wing extremism” leaked to the media last year reveals, the government considers constitutionalists and returning veterans the primary terrorist threat, not Muslims. The corporate media has led the effort to demonize the Tea Party movement as violent white supremacists while portraying coverage of supposed Muslim terror as Islamophobia.

Any “new interagency effort” to combat domestic terrorism — in large part contrived by the government and instigated by FBI agents provocateurs — will primarily concentrate not on clueless Muslims and wanna-be al-Qaeda shoe bombers, but the American people.

According to the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, it is not the Koran that leads to “radicalization,” but the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the will of an increasing number of politically active Americans demanding the nation return to its roots as a constitutional republic.

Phony Muslim terror — invariably snipped in the bud and then blown out of proportion for propaganda purposes — will be used as an excuse to create yet another bureaucratic agency assigned to attack the American people and put the finishing touches on a police state control grid.

Kurt Nimmo edits Infowars.com. He is the author of Another Day in the Empire: Life In Neoconservative America.

Return to Top of Page




O’Reilly: Muslims that doubt official 9/11 story could be terrorists

David Edwards
Raw Story
September 15, 2010

Bill O'ReillyTo Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, if a white person like former governor Jesse Ventura or former senator Mike Gravel questions the government’s recounting of the 9/11 attacks, he (or she) is a “pinhead.” But if a Muslim person questions the official story, well, that makes them a potentially dangerous “radical”.

Meaning: “That guy shouldn’t be allowed within 10 miles of Ground Zero,” the conservative broadcaster insisted during a recent episode of The O’Reilly Factor.

Perhaps O’Reilly should try explaining that to the 45 percent of Americans, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll sponsored by 9/11 activists, who say a new investigation into the events is called for; or the 42 percent of Americans who said they believe the government is covering something up; or, the 49 percent of New York City residents who agreed in 2004 that U.S. officials “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.”

By his own words, the Fox News personality appears to be suggesting that Americans, particularly Muslims, who doubt the official 9/11 story be banned from Ground Zero.

Fairly UnbalancedO’Reilly’s bizarre comment was made in the process of taking another swing at the New York City imam who plans to build an Islamic cultural center two blocks from the former World Trade Center site. The host’s latest approach to smearing Feisal Abdul Rauf, who worked with the FBI on counter-terrorism issues after 9/11, is guilt-by-association. In this case, the man O’Reilly has saddled with the flaming tire of “radical Islam” is Faiz Khan, M.D.

Read full article

See Also Bill O’Reilly uses Ground Zero ‘mosque’ controversy as front for attack on 9/11 Truth

Andrew Steele | Mainstream media attacks on the 9/11 Truth movement help the cause by bringing the subject to the public’s attention.

Return to Top of Page


 Two Men Held On Terrorism Precrime Charges as Anti-Muslim Hysteria Reaches Fevered Pitch

Kurt Nimmo
August 30, 2010

The arrest of two men in Amsterdam on “preparation of a terror attack” charges could not have come at a more opportune time.

It appears the arrest of two men in Amsterdam on “preparation of a terror attack” charges is designed to coincide with the staged Ground Zero Mosque charade. Over the last couple weeks, the corporate media and neocon proponents of the forever war waged against Islam have stoked the flames of hatred.


On Saturday morning, a suspicious fire destroyed construction equipment at the site of a future mosque in Tennessee. Prior to this act of vandalism, a Muslim taxi cab driver in New York was assaulted. Ahmed H. Sharif, who was stabbed by a student, said he has no doubt the attack was fueled by anti-Muslim bias.

The Republican neocon media has exploited the mosque issue for weeks. The issue was created specifically to get the cynical demonization process of Islam back on track as new wars are being hatched behind the scenes.

Fox News teleprompter reader Sean Hannity has consistently issued shrill warnings about Sharia law “creeping into the United States” — indeed one of his more absurdist pronouncements — and Rush Limbaugh, never shy when it comes to making controversial statements designed to draw attention to certain issues, has called the president “Imam Obama.” Newt Gingrich — rumored to be mulling a presidential run in 2012 — has used “Muslim” and “Nazi” in the same sentence when talking about the mosque. Even the establishment Tea Party has taken up the pro-war and anti-Muslim mantra.

The leader of the CIA’s answer to the Tea Party movement, Mark Williams, declared in May that the mosque would represent a “monument… for the worship of the terrorists’ monkey-god.” Williams later apologized for the comment — not to Muslims, but to Hindus who worship the monkey god Hanuman.

Earlier this month, Tea Party Republican and New York Senate candidate Gary Bernsten said he believes the mosque “looks like a foreign effort to put something there” and will be “a magnet for militants. Militants will be driven to that mosque.” Tea Party Republican-neocon, Rep. Michele Bachmann, has endorsed Bernsten, who will go up against Democrat Chuck Schumer if he wins the New York primary race against Republican Jay Townsend.


The hijacked Tea Party, with the groomed diva Sarah Palin as its unofficial titular head — who in February suggested Obama bomb Iran as part of his re-election strategy and is supported by the influential neocon Daniel Pipes — is now indistinguishable from the neocon Republican party. It took less than two years to accomplish this feat.

Amidst all this anti-Muslim hysteria amplified by the corporate media, we now have two men accused of engaging in a supposed dry run bombing of a flight from Chicago to Amsterdam. U.S. officials said the two appeared to be traveling with what were termed “mock bombs” in their luggage. “This was almost certainly a dry run, a test,” said one senior law enforcement official told ABC News.

Bulky clothes, a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives, and $7,000 in cash attributed to the men tipped off airport screeners. Despite suspicion, the men were allowed to board the flight and were arrested by Dutch officials when they arrived in Amsterdam.

The supposed plot is suspiciously reminiscent of an earlier stunt. On Christmas day last year, a Muslim Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was arrested after igniting his underwear on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan. It was later revealed that Abdulmutallab was deliberately and intentionally allowed to keep his entry visa as the result of a national security override issued by U.S. intelligence. “The rickety US government official version of the December 25 Detroit underwear bomber incident, which has been jerry-built over the past month and a half, has now totally collapsed,” Webster G. Tarpley wrote on February 11.

Regardless of the clumsy effort later revealed as an intelligence operation, the government used the fizzled underwear non-bombing as an excuse to increase the number of dangerous naked body scanners in airports around the country and also as a pretext to institute a new, more aggressive frisking policy by the TSA.

The Department of Homeland Security admits the items discovered on United Airlines flight 908 to Amsterdam “were not deemed to be dangerous in and of themselves,” but this will not prevent the corporate media from connecting the dots and insinuating a terrorist plot at the same time Muslims are under verbal and physical assault in the United States. Sean Hannity and the neocon cheering section will naturally have a field day with the alleged precime incident.

Once again, clueless would-be terrorists — who are either so dim-witted as to be unaware their supposed dry run would be detected or are in fact hapless patsies — are busted (or more likely set-up) in order to advance the neocon agenda of forever war waged against Muslims. In this latest case, however, the objective is not the installation of dangerous radioactive naked body scanners, but setting the stage for direct military intervention in the Middle East from Lebanon and Syria to Iran and Pakistan.

Return to Top of Page



Department of Justice Lists Constitutionalists in Extremism Guide

Public Intelligence
August 30, 2010

Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism – Terms and ConceptsA recent Department of Justice guide for investigators of criminal and extremist groups lists “constitutionalists” and “survivalists” alongside organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Aryan Brotherhood.  The 120-page, “Law Enforcement Sensitive” guide to “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism – Terms and Concepts” describes itself as “a glossary designed primarily as a tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations.”

Constitutionalist, defined by Random House’s 2010 Dictionary as an “adherent or advocate of constitutionalism or of an existing constitution”, is described in the report as a “generic term for members of the ‘patriot’ movement”.  Survivalists are described in the document as fearing a “coming collapse of civilization” and are trying to prepare themselves for this collapse.  Such individuals are said to have “typically stockpiled food, water, and weapons, especially the latter, and instructed themselves on topics ranging from first aid to childbirth to edible plants”.

The guide defines the term “New World Order” as being “used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism”.  The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and Council on Foreign Relations are described as organizations “targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world”.  The guide also defines “One World Government” as the “concept that there will ultimately be a single governing body that will control the world”, adding that “some right-wing extremists fear this occurring, believing that white people will be in the minority, with Jewish people ultimately controlling the world”.

While the document’s introduction does state that “the fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity”, it goes on to say that the guide consists of “terms that may be germane to members of an extremist movement” or are “singularly employed by specific extremist groups”.  The obvious result of the inclusion of terms such as “Bilderberg Group” and “Trilateral Commission” in a report titled “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism” is that law enforcement officials unaware of these groups will tend to associate legitimate discussion as “extremist” speech.  This diminishes the credibility of any person attempting to rationally discuss such groups and fosters a perception that any discussion of such groups could be associated with a supposedly “extremist” ideology.

Examples of “Extremist” Terminology

To see the full list read the U.S. Department of Justice Terrorism and Criminal Extremism Terms 2005-2009.

Black Helicopters: Unmarked dark helicopters allegedly observed by many members of the “patriot” movement, who claim that the helicopters are part of some vast conspiracy, perhaps involving the United Nations or the “New World Order.” Various explanations have been offered for some of the sightings, but the term has since entered the popular vocabulary and is often used as a generic, sometimes satirical reference to conspiracy-related beliefs.

Bilderbergers (Bilderberg Group): Along with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the three groups targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world.

Collection (of Information): The identification, location, and recording/storage of unanalyzed information, typically from an original source and using both human and technological means, for input into the intelligence cycle to determine its usefulness in meeting a defined tactical or strategic intelligence goal.

Concentration Camps: Detention camps supposedly being built or already built by the United States government, according to conspiracy theorists.

Constitutionalists: A generic term for members of the “patriot” movement. It is now often used to refer to members of the sovereign citizen or common law court movement. Sometimes the word “constitutionist” is also used.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR ): Along with the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, one of the three key groups that conspiracy theorists claim operate behind the scenes to control the world and to establish the “New World Order.”

Executive Orders: The formal means by which the President of the United States determines the conduct of business in the Executive Branch. Typically, such executive orders take two forms: (1) orders governing administrative or policy matters in Executive Branch agencies or (2) orders for which the authority is derived from congressional authorizations. The “patriot” movement, however, contends that executive orders are “presidential laws” that bypass Congress and subvert the Constitution.

Flag of Peace: The American flag preferred by the “patriot” movement; a red, white, and blue flag without any gold trim, braid, balls, tassels, eagles, fringe, or spear on the flag or pole. Patriots believe that any other American flag is a military flag that denotes military jurisdiction. Only under the “flag of peace” do U.S. citizens receive their constitutional rights and due process.

Globalization: This term generally refers to the denationalization of economies, markets, products, and populations brought about by ever faster travel, improved communications, and advances in technology.

Illuminati: An intellectual society and social club formed by a university professor, Adam Weishaupt (1748–1811), in southern Germany in the 1770s in the spirit of the Enlightenment. It was suppressed by Bavarian authorities in the 1780s. Weishaupt spent the rest of his life writing about the Illuminati. People who believe Illuminati conspiracy theories believe the society never died away but lived on, run by people intent on controlling the world through devious means.

Information Warfare: Synonymous with cyberwarfare, information warfare is the offensive and defensive use of information and information systems to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy an adversary’s information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks while protecting one’s own. Such actions are designed to achieve advantages over military or business adversaries.

Jack-Booted Thug (JBT ): A law enforcement officer (especially federal) draped in combat fatigues or other military or paramilitary uniform, wearing a ski mask or similar headgear guaranteeing anonymity, wielding powerful military weapons, and utilizing other military vehicles and gear.

New World Order: A term used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism.

One-World Government: The concept that there will ultimately be a single governing body that will control the world. Some right-wing extremists fear this occurring, believing that white people will be in the minority, with Jewish people ultimately controlling the world.

Open Source Information or Intelligence: Individual data, records, reports, and assessments that may shed light on an investigatory target or event and do not require any legal process or any type of clandestine collection techniques for a law enforcement agency to obtain. Such information is obtained through means that meet copyright and commercial requirements of vendors, as well as being free of legal restrictions to access by anyone who seeks that information.

Patriot Movement: The “patriot” movement is a general term used by its members to describe the collective movements and individuals on the extreme right wing. In one form or another, this practice dates back many decades; in the 1930s, many on the far right referred to themselves as “superpatriots.” In the 1960s and 1970s, it was common to refer to the “Christian Patriot” movement, but this term is less common now than then. Among the types of individuals that can be found within the “patriot” movement are white supremacists, sovereign citizens, tax protesters, militia members, and sometimes antiabortion or anti-environmental groups.

Patriots for Profit: A term used to describe those individuals in the “patriot” movement who perpetrate scams and frauds against other people, usually fellow members of the movement. It also refers to people who attempt to make money by selling various products and “kits” to members of the movement. By far the most numerous of the “patriots for profit” are the people who cater to would-be tax protesters.

Pirate Radio: The operation of radio transmitters without a license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Although some of the most notable pirate stations, such as Free Radio Berkeley, have been primarily left-wing in orientation, a large number of pirate stations adhere to right-wing or antigovernment philosophies.

Sovereign Citizen: A term used to describe adherents to a philosophy derived from the group Posse Comitatus that posits that there are two types of citizens: “Fourteenth Amendment Citizens,” who are subject to the laws and taxes of the federal and state governments, and sovereign citizens, who are subject only to “the common law.” Sovereign citizens claim that they have absolute mastery over all their property (including freedom from taxes, regulations, ordinances, or zoning restrictions), that they essentially do not have to pay taxes (aside from tariffs and a few other insignificant taxes), that they are not citizens of the United States but are “nonresident aliens” with respect to that “illegal corporation,” that the only court which has jurisdiction to try them for any matter is a common law court, and that they can never be arrested or tried for a crime or matter in which there is no complaining victim, as well as various other notions. Typical signs that someone is a sovereign citizen include the use of punctuation between their middle and last names (i.e., John Wayne; Doe); a refusal to have a social security card or any paper, license, or document related to automobile ownership or driving; a refusal to use zip codes; and the displaying on various items—from envelopes to paper money, to time cards, or to forms—of the phrase “UCC 1-207,” or variants thereof. Sovereign citizens are often also known as state citizens, freemen, preamble citizens, common law citizens, or other appellations.

Survivalists: The survivalist movement feared a coming collapse of civilization, generally as the result of nuclear war, and tried to prepare themselves to survive it. Survivalists typically stockpiled food, water, and weapons, especially the latter, and instructed themselves on topics ranging from first aid to childbirth to edible plants.

Tax-Protest Movement: A movement consisting of people who do not simply want to avoid paying taxes but generally claim they should not have to pay them. The right-wing movement started in the 1950s and 1960s and has concentrated on interpreting the Constitution, U.S. law, and the tax code, in particular, in such a way as to be able to claim that most people do not have to pay income taxes. The motivating force behind the right-wing tax-protest movement was to find loopholes, actual or manufactured, that would allow people to claim that they had no tax obligation.

Trilateral Commission: A group, along with the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations, that is viewed by the “patriot” movement as being one of the major organizations seeking to implement the “New World Order.” Formed in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission consists of slightly over 300 members from Europe, Japan, and North America (the three main democratic-industrial regions of the world, thus the term “trilateral”). Members include prominent figures in the media, politics, business, and academia. Conspiracy theorists claim it is a group of elitists determined to promote a one-world government.

Return to Top of Page




Pennsylvania Homeland Security Puts Anti-tax Protesters On List of Terror Threats

Kurt Nimmo
September 15, 2010

tax protester
 Anti-tax protesters were considered a terrorist threat to Pennsylvania’s infrastrucutre. Photo: Fibonacci Blue.  

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports Pennsylvania’s Democrat governor Ed Renell is “deeply embarrassed” by the disclosure that state Homeland Security officials have designated anti-tax protesters and other folks exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government as a threat to the state’s infrastructure.

“I am appalled by the information that was disseminated,” Rendell said. “Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Protesting is not a threat against infrastructure. Protesting is a God-given American right.”

Pennsylvania paid a Philadelphia-based nonprofit $125,000 to compile the list as part of the state Homeland Security’s federally mandated mission to protect public infrastructure. Homeland Security officials distributed the list in a security bulletin to government and law enforcement officials, universities and gas drilling companies, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The company, which also has offices in Washington and Jerusalem, provides “actionable intelligence briefings” and “threat and hazard monitoring,” among other services, according to its website.

“I thought we were in America, and to me that’s almost like communism,” Barbara Pribila of the Lincoln Place Action Group, a Pittsburgh neighborhood group opposed to shale gas drilling, told the newspaper. “I thought this was a free country and I was allowed to have my own opinion. Now what, you’re going to watch me and every move I make? That’s not right.”

Return to Top of Page




Targeting American Citizens: CIA Takes Global Murder Policy to Next Level

Kurt Nimmo
September 5, 2010

The father of the new Osama bin Laden, Nasser al-Awlaki, has initiated a lawsuit to prevent “extrajudicial killings” of his son and other officially designated enemies. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights were retained by the elder al-Awlaki.

Indonesian Coup

In 1965, the CIA provided lists to the Indonesian military of people to be tortured and murdered. Between 500,000 and a million people perished after the abortive coup d’état.


In April, Obama targeted U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, who is described as the clerical leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The cleric stands accused of contacting the suspect in the November shooting rampage in Fort Hood, Texas, and the alleged underwear bomber. Anwar al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

In January, Clinton’s State Department officially designated al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as an enemy of the state. Obama later marked the cleric for death. “The designation was a recognition that al-Awlaki has risen in the ranks of anti-Western Islamic extremism and become a mortal enemy, a danger to America’s national security on a par with 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden,” USA Today explained.

As Webster Tarpley has noted, al-Awlaki represents “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover.” More than a mere ideologue, al-Awlaki plays a vital role in the manufactured war against Muslim patsies and mental deficients the U.S. government has insisted for nearly a decade hate us for our freedom. “In particular, Awlaki and his work were used to motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into ‘terrorist plots’ by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years, thus keeping the boogey man of Islamic terrorism in the public eye,” writes Tarpley.

Awlaki and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have provided the U.S. government with a custom-made excuse to expand the bogus war against terror into Yemen and ultimately Africa.

“No U.S. citizen has ever been on the CIA’s target list, which mainly names Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, according to current and former U.S. officials. But that is expected to change as CIA analysts compile a case against a Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico but now resides in Yemen,” the Los Angeles Times reported in February.

It should come as no surprise the CIA has expanded its murder campaign to include Americans. The CIA has facilitated the mass murder of untold numbers of people since its inception as an integral part of the National Security State.

In the mid-60s, the agency “played a significant role in one of the worst massacres of the century by supplying the names of thousands of Communist Party leaders to the Indonesian army, which hunted down the leftists and killed them, former U.S. diplomats say,” Kathy Kadane wrote for the States News Service in 1990.

The CIA role “really was a big help to the [Indonesian] army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment,” said Robert Martens, a former member of the U.S. Embassy’s political section in Jakarta, in 1990. Estimates of the total number of Indonesians murdered over a period of several years following an aborted coup range from 500,000 to one million.

Following the CIA-engineered ouster of democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1954, tens of thousands of “politically suspect” Guatemalans were murdered with the eager assistance of the agency. “Not only did U.S. officials apparently give a death list to the Guatemalan military but even forced out of power Guatemalan officers who balked at the murder assignments,” writes Robert Parry.

In 1973, with the active participation of Henry Kissinger, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile. Thousands of Chileans were tortured and killed, many fingered as “radicals” by lists provided by the CIA, notes Mark Zepezauer. Author Róbinson Rojas documented in The Murder of Allende how the CIA was actively involved in compiling lists of political leaders, journalists, union and community organizers to be arrested, tortured and murdered.

Former high-ranking CIA official John Stockton estimated in the 1980s that over 6 million people around the world were killed in CIA covert operations, a crime that approaches the atrocities perpetuated by Nazi Germany.

“The United States cannot simply execute people, including its own citizens, anywhere in the world based on its own say-so,” said CCR Executive Director Vince Warren.

It has and it will and with the right mix or false flag terrorism and 24-7 corporate media propaganda the American people will enthusiastically support it.

“Public understanding of what it means to murder people because they inspire others, is thoroughly buffered by context: since 1990 in Iraq millions of Iraqi Muslim civilians have been killed, mothers, fathers, children, who showed no ill will against America,” writes J. B. Gerald. “The covert claim to absolute power over citizens of other countries, is now familiar enough for the CIA to allow surfacing of its hit list, not a new policy but the overt continuation of an old policy. It is publicly claiming the right of the American government to murder anyone.”

Including its own citizens.

Return to Top of Page



The Greatest Covert Operation Ever: The Politics of Terror as the Business of Terror

Douglas Valentine
Global Research
August 30, 2010

The politics of terror are the greatest covert operation ever.

In explaining why, I’ll begin by defining some terms, because, when discussing the covert op called “the politics of terror,” words and their management are all important.

How are politics and terror actually defined: how are these meanings manipulated; for what purposes, and by whom?

Terrorism is defined as “violence against civilians intended to obtain a political purpose.” This is an ambiguous phrase, which begs the questions: what are politics and violence?

Politics is defined as “the process by which groups of people make collective decisions.” And violence is the use of force to compel a person or group to do or think something against their will.  That includes the violence of words – of threatening to hurt – and of social structures, as well as the violence of deeds.

So, by definition, terrorism is political violence – hurting people, or threatening to hurt them, in order to make them govern themselves against their will.

In America , terrorism is always condemned by the government, and, accordingly, America is never a perpetrator of terrorism, but always the victims of it.  The US war on terror is the ultimate expression of this principle: it is a military response to terrorism; violence in self-defense, not (ostensibly) violence for a political purpose.

That’s the official story – the assumption.  But I’m going to show that America does engage in terrorism – violence against civilians for political purposes. This “state” terrorism, however, is covert, in so far as it is equated with national security, and thanks to that built-in ambiguity, it has both stated and unstated purpose.

The State and Unstated Policy in America
Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.  But who really makes the overarching political decisions in America ?   Who governs us?

The two political parties represent the people and they compete for control of the government.  Republicans generally favor business and Democrats favor labor.  The political division is, generally, class based.

Now, the government can be controlled by either political party; but the state endures –  “the state” being the nation’s indispensable industries and infrastructure (banking, auto industry, insurance, Microsoft), and the institutions which defend the nation’s enduring interests: the military, law enforcement, the intelligence & security services.

In Europe they often, cynically, refer to the state as “industry” or Big Business.  In America we tend to call “the state” the Establishment – an ambiguous word that needs to be defined.

The dictionary defines Establishment as, “An exclusive group of powerful people who rule a government or society by means of private agreements and decisions.”  I would venture to say that the interests of the state and the Establishment are the same, and that the definition of Establishment with a capital E is the pivotal phrase in discussing “state” terrorism.

Consider this: there is the politics of the two parties vying for control of the government, and there is the Establishment, the state, making the covert (ostensibly non-political) decisions that effectively govern America .

Many of those covert decisions concern national security: they are unstated policy.

Moreover, these covert policy decisions about national security are made by people who control the military, law enforcement, and intelligence & security services.  These guardians of “the state” are collectively called the National Security Establishment.

Like the Establishment that secretly rules the “state,” the National Security Establishment is an exclusive group that is not accountable to the political whims of the people.

These professional guardians of the state – the Establishment – are assumed to be above partisan politics.  Their loyalty is assumed to be to the law or national security.  And that assumption is the Big Lie upon which state terrorism is based.

Yes, it is true that the National Security Establishment is not accountable to the people: and, in fact, it has built a series of ever-larger, concentric moats around itself called the National Security State , precisely to keep the people out of its business.

The National Security Establishment rules the National Security State , with an iron fist, but it is pure propaganda that the National Security Establishment and State are not political.

In order to get inside the National Security Establishment, and rise to a position of authority within it, one must be born there (like Bush – make a billion like Gates), or submit to years of right-wing political indoctrination calibrated to a series of increasingly restrictive security clearances.

Political indoctrination – adopting the correct right-wing ideology – and security clearances represent the drawbridge across the moats.

The National Security State is the covert social structure of the Establishment, and it has as its job not just defending the Establishment from foreign enemies, but also expanding the Establishment’s economic and military influence abroad, while preserving its class prerogatives at home.

By “class prerogatives,” I mean the National Security State is designed to keep the lower class from exerting any political control over the state; especially, redistributing the Establishment’s private wealth.

To these unstated ends – imperialism abroad and repression at home – the National Security State engages in terrorism – political violence – on behalf of the Establishment.

Indeed, the National Security State is political violence, terrorism, in its purest form.

The Establishment and its National Security State as Terrorism

The lower classes in America have little voice in making government or state policy.  Some are hopeless, others content: but in either case, voter turnout is a mere 54%.

Whether hopeless or content, they know they cannot fight conventional thinking.  For example, when the Establishment exerts its influence, it is not considered politics; it is simply the status quo.  The rich create jobs and must be accommodated with trillion dollar bailouts, paid for by workers taking furloughs.

That’s just the way it is.  Politicians in the service of the Establishment, for over-arching reasons of national security, have to keep the capitalist financial system afloat.

It is the same thing with the National Security Establishment: America invaded Iraq , and there was nothing the people do about it.  The decision was made for them.  Peace activists, least of all, had no voice in the decision, because they are assumed to have no stake in national security.  You will not find peace activists in the National Security Establishment; and that political repression is covert state terrorism.

Likewise, if labor seeks to exercise influence, its efforts are described as exploiting the state for more than it deserves, because it does not have an enduring stake in the state.

It is a fact: only Establishment wealth – ownership – is equated with national security.

Consider the immortal words of Leona Helmsley: “Only the little people pay taxes.”

That injustice in the tax code is political repression and, in so far as it makes the people fearful, it is state terrorism.  The Establishment fears losing its loopholes, while workers and the poor fear losing their homes: two types of terror, one for each class, one stated, one unstated.

The Establishment engages imperialism and political repression through propaganda (word management violence) and social structures.  This state terrorism is unstated, covert.

Only when the people rebel and challenge the Establishment is the word terrorism applied.

Likewise, the military, police or intelligence causes of rebellion, or responses to it, are never called terrorism: they are national security.

And that’s how the management of words helps to repress the lower classes.

Language and the Psychology of State Terror

America’s industrial sized war machine was never said to terrorize Iraq ; the invasion was not political – because the war machine is owned by the Establishment.  The Establishment profiting from war is not politics; it is ideological neutral “profits.”

In fact, America exerts its unwanted political influence overseas, through the state terror of aircraft carrier fleets, bombers, nuclear subs, shock and awe invasions, pacification programs, the overthrow of governments, and support of repressive puppet regimes.

This state terrorism, which you never hear about, is the biggest covert psychological warfare operation of all time.  This psywar operation depends on narrowly defining terrorism as a suicide bomber, a hijacked plane, the decapitated body of a collaborator: the “selective terrorism” of rebels and nationalists who, outgunned, and outlawed in their own country, have no other options, other than submission.

The purpose of selective terror is psychological: to isolate collaborators, while demonstrating to the people the ability of the rebels to strike at their oppressors. Shock and Awe, and brutal pacification cam­paigns – state terrorism – prevent people from making a living – selective terrorism does not. That’s a big, meaningful “class” difference.

The National Security Establishment understands that selective terror achieves political and psychological goals that state terror does not – that it rallies people to revolutionary ideals.  So the National Security Establishment engages in selective terror too, by targeting the rebel, his family and friends in their homes.

This is the selective terror con­ducted by counter-terrorists.  But don’t be confused: it is terrorism.   All terror is psychological and political; state terror by immobilizing people and making them responsive, submissive, apathetic, and/or ostensibly “content.”

The National Security Establishment fully understands that once people have been terrorized, they have been politically defeated, without necessarily receiving bullets.

As former Director of Central Intelligence William Colby once said: “The implication or latent threat of terror was sufficient to insure that the people would comply.”

This principle of the psychological use of “the implication or latent threat of terror” is what brings us back to America and the business of terror.

The Business of Terror

State terror – colonization abroad and political repression at home – is a key means of extracting profits and maintaining ownership of property.   Ask the American Indian.

In its colonies, the US engages in state terrorism by removing all legal protections for rebels; detention, torture, and summary execution are the price for rebellion against US policy.

State terrorism overseas, imperialism, is never acknowledged by the media, because the media is a big business; indeed, two of the major networks are owned by defense contractors.

And state terrorism applied domestically to ensure “internal” security is never acknowledged – America says it has no political prisoners.  But the National Security State is well thought out, by professionals in language management, and political and psychological warfare, aimed at you.

“Personal violence is for the amateur in dominance,” says two-time Nobel Prize winner Johan Galtung, but “structural violence is the tool of the professional. The amateur who wants to dominate uses guns; the professional uses social structure. The legal criminality of the social system and its institutions, of government…is tacit violence. Structural violence is a structure of exploitation and social injustice.”

As Colby said: “The implication or latent threat is enough to insure people will comply.”

The war on terror and its domestic version “homeland security” are the law of the land – America ‘s new legally criminal social structure based on administrative detention, enshrined in The Patriot Act and a number of executive orders, some secret.

This lack of due process comes on top of a justice system already skewed to protect the propertied elite and pack the prisons with the poor, through “structural violence,” mainly the drug wars.

The Establishment’s new anti-terror and anti-drug laws make the National Security State the most fearsome covert political and psywar machine the world has ever seen.  And the National Security State is growing: the “Top Secret America” series in the Washington Post put it at 750,000 cadres.

This secret state within a state extends into the homeland’s critical infrastructure and beyond.  For example, the arms industry provides good jobs, making American imperial aggression seem a positive value.

And this is how the psyched-out people become one of the moats.

As it is modeled on the totalitarian corporate paradigm, the National Security State in al its manifestations fits the classic definition of a fascist dictatorship.  And we know what its intentions are.  They have been stated.

In the days after 9-11, right wing Republican stalwart Kenneth W. Starr, the Clinton inquisitor, said the danger of terrorism requires “deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to matters of national security.”

But is there an on-going emergency that requires defer to the political branches, meaning the right-wing ideologues who rule the National Security State ? And what does it mean for Establishment opponents if due process is completely abandoned at home, and subjected to politics?

Michael Ledeen, a former counter-terror expert on Reagan’s National Security Council, blamed 9-11 on Clinton “for failing to properly organize our nation’s security apparatus.” Ledeen’s solution to the problem of those who sneered at security was “to stamp out” the “corrupt habits of mind.“  By which he means Liberalism.

In other words, the reactionary right wing that owns the National Security State wants to impose its total rule on the people in order to create a security conscious, uniform citizenry – marching in lock step, flags waving – that is necessary to win the war on terror. This is how the National Security professionals are incrementally creating the requisite fascist social structure – through terror, the best organizing principle ever. ”This is time for the old motto, ‘kill them all, let God sort ‘em out.’ New times require new people with new standards,” Ledeen asserted. “The entire political world will understand it and applaud it. And it will give us a chance to prevail.”

When Ledeen says “political” world he means the “owners of the business” of state terror, the right wing ideologues who pack the National Security State and the capitalist Establishment they serve.

And they have won the propaganda war, folks.

Return to Top of Page



Big Sis To Get Expanded Role In Policing Internet


Paul Joseph Watson
September 14, 2010

Two cybersecurity bills that would hand President Obama the power to shut down parts of the Internet in the event of a national emergency have now been merged into a single unified piece of legislation that Democrats will try to pass before the end of the year, with the Department of Homeland Security being given a larger role in policing the world wide web.

Janet NapolitanoUnder the new draft bill, which is a combination of the two versions originally crafted by Senators Joe Lieberman and Jay Rockefeller, Janet Napolitano’s DHS will be handed broader authority to determine how to handle potential cybersecurity threats.

“DHS will get expanded authorities. I think that’s clear,” said James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert with think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has studied the new bill.

An expanded role for Homeland Security would be somewhat ironic given the fact that the DHS itself recently failed an extensive cyber-security audit conducted by the agency’s own Inspector General.

“The DHS US-CERT office is currently plagued by at least 600 vulnerabilities that could compromise sensitive data, including 202 which have been classified as high-risk,” reported TG Daily.

Homeland Security’s failure to adequately secure its own internal network will lead to questions about why the agency should be given vast new authority to secure America’s cyber assets and the public Internet.

Democrats want to get the bill passed within the next four weeks, although “sticking points” could delay the legislation, according to a Senate aide familiar with the bill. However, lawmakers are determined to put the package up for a vote before the end of the year.

“Senate Majority Harry Reid has put the measure on his list of top-priority bills to get through the Senate this year,” sources told MoneyControl.com.

Lieberman’s version of the original bill includes language that would hand President Obama the power to shut down parts of the world wide web for at least four months with no congressional oversight. The combined version appears to shift that responsibility to DHS, who under the pretext of a national emergency could block all Internet traffic to the U.S. from certain countries, and close down specific hubs and networks, creating an ominous precedent for government regulation and control over the Internet.

Return to Top of Page


Click Here to Comment

Take a Poll

Best way to stimulate the economy...