Blog For Arizona

Worse Than Watergate. Again.

by David Safier

I'm leaving my usual education turf for a moment, because I am horrified by ABC News and Associated Press stories that the top White House officials sat around discussing torture and giving the CIA the go ahead to do pretty much whatever they wished to prisoners.

And I am disgusted that this topic is not being carried by most newspapers or talked about at any length on cable news. We're in serious impeachment territory here. Maybe even war crimes territory. The administration that has maintained, "We don't torture" has given the green light to torture. At the highest level.

Top secret meetings by what was known as the Principals discussed exactly what kind of "enhanced interrogation" should be used with what prisoner. Here are the people who attended the meetings.

• Dick Cheney
  
• Condoleezza Rice
  
• Donald Rumsfeld
  
• Colin Powell
  
• George Tenet
  
• John Ashcroft

In other words, they were attended by everyone who was anyone but Bush himself, who was shielded from the meetings. The group:

"signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
. . .
According to multiple sources, it was members of the Principals Committee that not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them.
. . .
The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News. At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Vice President Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source."

If ever there was a smoking gun that the policy of torture carried out since 9/11 was discussed and approved at the highest level of government, this is it. The administration knows exactly how toxic this revelation is. For years, they have been doing everything in their power to distance themselves from torture. Now it is right there in the White House -- in their lap, on their agenda, from their mouths.

Come on, newspapers. Come on cable news. Do your jobs. Pick this up and run with it.

Congress Must Stand Fast in Rejecting Bush's Assault on the Constitution

by John Adams

The US House of Representatives is right to reject the Administration’s cynically crafted version of the extension of the FISA amendment, the so-called Protect America Act of 2007.

Rather, our House acted wisely in passing its own version of the extension, which deletes immunity from prosecution for telecommunication providers who abetted secret and illegal wiretapping and internet monitoring.

As citizens, we must stiffen Congress’ resolve to defend our Constitution against continued assaults by the Bush Administration. Until their illegal activities were exposed by diligent investigative journalism in December 2005, the Bush Administration surreptitiously co-opted telecommunications providers to spy on both foreign and American phone calls and emails, operating under the provisions of a secret Executive Order signed by President Bush.

The Administration’s version of the FISA law extension would have precluded the filing of lawsuits against the telecommunications companies, essentially preventing any discovery in litigation into the Administration’s illegal spying activities. In contrast, the House version of the FISA amendment extension allows citizens the opportunity to bring suits before the court against these telecommunications companies for their clandestine cooperation with the Administration.

We should applaud the House for crafting a bill that will allow Americans to discover – in court -- more about the Administration’s flouting of our constitutional rights.

The fight between the Bush Administration and Congress over the Protect America Act (and its predecessor, the Patriot Act) is deceptively framed as a battle over the imperative of protecting our country from overseas threats. Instead, the struggle exemplifies the Bush Administration’s assault on real national security – our Constitutional liberties.

We have suffered much from terrorists -- certainly, we must confront Al Qaeda and their ilk. But in their assault upon the people of the United States, Al-Qaeda is abetted by those in this Administration who exploit the American people’s fears and demand the surrender of our most treasured liberties.

We stand at a crossroads in the defense of our Constitution, and in the defense of our real national security interests, as the henchmen who control our national security apparatus, both military and civilian, assiduously harness modern information technology to gain ever greater access to our privacy.

Administration officials, and the appointed heads of our intelligence bureaucracy, argue that the terrorist threat justifies the use of ever more powerful technologies to conduct ever more intrusive domestic monitoring, and therefore the government must exercise that capability.

The bare truth is that this Administration exploits the fear of terrorism to gain greater control over our intelligence and national security apparatus.

Still, the Administration sets the conditions for even greater abuses of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution. The Administration argues that the FISA law dating from the 1970s is obsolete, citing among other justifications that contemporary computer data-mining and traffic analysis techniques did not exist then. The truth is that behind closed doors, the Administration crafts a policy supporting the technology of intrusion.

The Administration’s perverse argument goes like this: because there now exist more effective techniques of intrusion, we should change the law to enable their employment. It is worth noting that the stakes are huge for the profits of corporations that depend on the further development and employment of the new intrusion technologies. However, as citizens, we should be most concerned with the erosion of our basic rights.

Truly, the long-term damage to our rights are yet to come, as a generation of right-wing judicial appointees create their legacies over the next decades, promising to weaken the process of judicial review of such Executive Branch abuses. This President and his Administration’s officials, who have taken an oath to protect the Constitution, are in truth spying on the American people, and violating the Constitution they purport to protect.

The strength of the United States derives from our constitutional processes, the respect we have for our own system, and the credibility and inspiration our example provides to less fortunate nations. A Commander-in-Chief who runs roughshod over Congress, demanding blind obedience from the American people because only he and his henchmen know best, damages our national unity as well as our reputation as a nation of law and democracy.

Truly, the protection of our national security includes many factors, not least of which is the people’s trust in the process of intelligence surveillance. There must also be credibility that intrusions into the long-cherished rights of a free population will be proportionate and reasoned.  Without that trust and credibility, we breed domestic insecurity and international condemnation.

One of our wisest Constitutional framers, Benjamin Franklin, said: “Those who would give up essential liberty in order to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Our liberties are not negotiable. They have been paid for by the blood of more than two centuries of genuine American patriots. It would be unconscionable for us to mortgage our constitutional heritage of liberty in order to placate the charlatans and criminals of this Administration who cynically claim they want to protect us from terrorism.

In hijacking our Constitution, this Administration and the technological goons who abet them deserve our scorn. Real national security for our country -- the defense of our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic -- demands that Congress stand fast in opposing the Administration’s self-serving constitutional mayhem, and stand by their wise version of the extension of the so-called Protect America Act of 2007.

First Post - In Defense of Liberty!

by John Adams

First of all, thanks to Mike Bryan and Blog for Arizona for the opportunity to contribute to this exciting, progressive community.  It's a privilege to share our thoughts on today's issues.

Since this is my first post, please allow a brief introduction.

I retired from Active Duty in the US Army in September 2007, as a Brigadier General, with over thirty years' service to our Constitution as a Military Intelligence officer, Army Aviator, and Foreign Area Officer.

With on the ground experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan (temporary duty in 2004), I also served in Africa (Operation Guardian Assistance, Rwanda, 1996), Europe (Operation Allied Force, the Balkans, 1999), and the Middle East (Operation Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, 1991).

On 9/11, I was at the Pentagon, 100 yards from the crash site...and on that tragic day I participated in the rescue and recovery of the shattered bodies of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. As a committed servant of the Constitution of the United States of America, I am determined to combat the murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

But I am just as determined to combat the fear-mongering criminals in the Bush Administration who assault our Constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us—and who under false pretenses, send our brave troops to die in the unconscionable occupation of Iraq.

From first-hand experience, I know national security issues. I also know that the Bush Administration cynically exploits our fears to gain ever more control of our national security apparatus, benefit the richest among us economically, and eviscerate our constitutional liberties.

Although I have taken off my Army uniform, I am no less committed to fighting for our Constitution—and for real national security—than I was when on Active Duty.

However, as John F. Kennedy said in his acceptance speech for his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1960, "We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light a candle that can guide us."

In that spirit, please allow me to address a brighter subject...the movement to elect Barack Obama as our next President. Barack has a life experience that demonstrates his capacity for hard work and commitment...and most important for someone who aspires to the Presidency, Barack is a brilliant, caring, perceptive, and courageous leader.

My own life experience convinces me that Barack Obama is the greatest leader we have seen in America for generations. He has the experience, the judgment, and the passion to inspire all Americans, to unite us, and to carry this country forward beyond ethnic and economic divisions.

As a delegate pledged to Barack Obama, I will fight to make him our nominee at our Democratic National Convention.  With the help of Americans united in the conviction that we must change the course of our country, and chart a new one that benefits all our people, we will elect a President of whom all Americans will be proud.

I am privileged to call Blog for Arizona my "home," including at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I welcome your thoughts—and your counsel—as we march toward Denver and beyond.

The Base that Wasn't

If you haven't seen the 3rd part of the BBC's "The Power of Nightmares," which details the invention of Al Qaeda as a vast terrorist network, you should see it:

Feingold Speaks Against Flawed FISA Revision

UPDATE: VICTORY! Reid pulled the version with immunity. It will likely creep back on the calendar in January, but for now the beast is slain.

If you aren't sure what the fuss is about regarding granting immunity to telecoms for the assistance in the Administration's past violations of FISA, then this is the video to make the issue and what's at stake crystal clear for you.

Senator Dodd is in the midst of a filibuster against Majority Speaker Reid's version of the FISA revision that grants retroactive immunity. Despite Reid's own Intelligence Committee reporting out a version with no immunity, Reid has insisted on introducing the House version which does include it. He's going out of his way, and ignoring an openly acknowledged Senatorial hold by Dodd, seemingly just to mollycoddle the telcoms and to cover Bush's backside. Looks to me like it's time for our out-of-touch Majority Speaker to go, too.

If there is one Senator above all others whom I would like to see lead our majority forward in a principled and intelligent fashion, it would be none other than Senator Feingold, who demonstrates in the above video why he is so manifestly the right man for the job in this time of crisis for our society.

What Terrorists Want

It is a pedestrian observation that terrorists are human beings and therefore have a human psychology which we can study and understand. Strangely, that simple observation seems almost heretical, possibly even subversive in our currently political climate. It seems to imply that terrorists are not aberrant monsters, or possibly even that they are normal in some respects.

Maybe it does imply that, but it is certainly true that it also means that we can understand the enemy better if we try to get in his head rather than just demonize him as a sub-human, brain-washed automaton, living only to kill for his cause. There is no greater folly than to fail to use all the civilized tools at our disposal to defeat terrorists. If we dismiss the advantage that truly understanding our enemy can convey out of some idealogical commitment to portraying the enemy as a caricature, rather than as full human beings, we only harm ourselves.

Here is a wonderful discussion with Dr. Louise Richardson, Executive Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University on how to understand terrorism and contain the threat through a deeper understanding of the motives and goals of terrorists. She is the author of a book entitled "What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat." Both the conversation and the book may challenge your assumptions and push you out of your comfort zone.

GOP planning to campaign again on immigrant issue

Link: GOP pressing immigrant issue.

I didn't realize that Republican strategists were actually pushing Congressional recommit votes on immigration-related language to paint Democrats as pro-immigrant. I have to say, I'm utterly delighted that they are hanging that anchor around their own necks.

I think most Americans, and especially independents, recoil at policies and political stands they see as cruel, petty, or mean. And there is little in American politics today that is meaner and slimier than the hatred wrapped in patriotism that is the hard-right GOP message on immigration. I get a little frisson of delight when I imagine the ads they are brewing up using these votes.

"Gabby Giffords didn't vote to cut off the health care coverage of immigrant children. She didn't vote to kick immigrant children out of public housing. She wouldn't vote to punish public schools that enroll the children of undocumented immigrants. Gabby Giffords: she just won't screw those immigrant children."

Yeah. That'll work on the vast majority of Americans who aren't eaten up with xenophobic mania.

The GOP apparently didn't learn their lesson in 2006 when their ($) candidates who made immigrant-baiting a major theme of their campaigns got their clocks cleaned across the board. If they need some more tutoring, I think we Democrats should be happy to give it to them.

We need to establish a Democratic system of values regarding the immigration debate, however. The only reason why Republicans are driving this issue is because they at least have a consistent narrative - hateful and divisive though it may be. We Democrats need  to talk about eliminating the need for illegal border crossings, saving lives and reducing the crime along the border, treating both American and Mexican laborers fairly in both countries, and the great American tradition of welcoming and assimilating new citizens.

Democrats sound soulless and stupid when we ape Republican themes of cracking down on employers, and militarizing the border, and treating immigrants as criminals and undesirables; when our Democratic politicians 'me too' the block-headed policy initiatives of Republicans - like building a damn wall - it simply makes the insane seem sensible.

I don't want our party to create a compromise with the sheer insanity that passes for policy among Republicans. I would prefer the status quo ante to compromises that would make life even worse for the immigrants already here, endanger the lives of those that will surely come, and entrench harmful policies in our immigration law for another generation. This is a fight that we can win if we stop accepting the Republican terms for this debate: hatred, fear, xenophobia, and prejudice.

So the GOP wants to square off and make immigration a central issue? I say bring it on, because they have nothing useful to say on the subject. The only we won't win is if we accept that their vision of immigration of in America is in any way legitimate or useful. We have to name the prejudice and hate fueling the GOP's obsession with the immigration issue, or they get to continue to appeal to voters anxieties and prejudices without paying the electoral price. I am sickened when I hear Democrats talking about immigration in the same fearful and divisive way that Republicans do, simply because Democratic leaders aren't offering an alternative vocabulary of ideas.

We got lucky in 2006 that the American people are naturally resistant to demagogues, and largely resisted the GOP siren songs without much help from Democrats; we would be foolish to continue to rely on Americans' continued self-discipline if we aren't even offering a counter-narrative they can stop their ears with.

National Security Letters and You

One of the most egregious violations of our constitutional traditions in the so-called PATRIOT Act is the power of issuing National Security Letters given to the FBI. These letters allow the FBI to harvest massive amounts of private and confidential information without a warrant, judicial review, any means to challenge the demands' validity, or any independent oversight of the absurdly low evidentiary standard under which the letters issue. The recipient of such a letter is put under a perpetual gag order, except that now under an amendment to the Act a recipient may now consult a lawyer, but may not even tell Congress about the letter. Worse, the information collected has no expiration, even if it turns out to be useless to any investigation. Instead the information is warehoused in a giant database currently consisting of over 500 million records that over 10,000 federal employees have access to, and an untold number of state employees through joint terror task forces.

The FBI's own internal audits have found that there have massive abuses of the letters, failures in training, and that there is not a single instance when these powers have led to the arrest or prosecution of a single terror suspect. Instead these powers have been used in thousands of standard criminal investigations, especially drug cases. Regardless of the efficacy of such tactics, these extraordinary powers were not instituted to make the FBI's job easier when pursuing street criminals, but in an attempt to keep us safe from terrorist attack. Of course it would be easier for police forces everywhere to be able to simply dispense with the judicial oversight provided by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, but soon thereafter this would no longer be a free society.

The following documentary, "FBI Unbound," tells the story of how these letters came to be, their legal significance, and their use and abuse. Bruce Fein, who is quickly becoming, along with Bob Barr and Ron Paul, one of my conservative heroes, also makes a compelling case that this power is irresponsible, unconstitutional, and violative of our deepest American values. Please watch; it's well worth the time.

PART 1:

PART 2:

9/11 Truth: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics Debate

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! brought together the makers of the the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change" and the authors of the Popular Mechanics 9/11 conspiracy debunking article and book. The Popular Mechanics guys pretty much clean the "Loose Change" boys' clocks. They end up looking like petulant children whose only resort is to call their PopMech counterparts liars. Yet new polling indicates that 84% of Americans do not believe the official version of the events of 9/11. Go figure. Judge for yourself.

Part 1:

Part 2 (you can skip this one, it just repeats the end of Part 1):

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Pirates of the Mediterranean by Robert Harris

via: The New York Times:

Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
Published: September 30, 2006
Kintbury, England

"IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world's only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome's port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: "The ruined men of all nations," in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, "a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps."

Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: "The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment."

What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of "Civis Romanus sum" - "I am a Roman citizen" - was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.

But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.

"Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone," the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. "There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits."

Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury - 144 million sesterces - to pay for his "war on terror," which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.

Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey's opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey's genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book - the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as "soft" or even "traitorous" - powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of "serious" physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant - all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.

An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.

In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar - the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey's special command during the Senate debate - was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.

It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the
system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon - and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.

It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome's democracy - imperfect though it was - rose again.

The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result."

Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of "Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome."

Questioning the Official 9/11 Story

Do you believe that the government (especially this government) has never, and will never, lie to you about important matters of public concern? Do you believe that those in the vast secret apparatus of state justified by 'national security' would never do unsavory and even criminal things in the name of 'security' or what they believe to be the 'national interest'?

If your answer to those questions is 'Yes', don't bother to continue. Your critical faculties aren't up to the task I am now asking you to undertake.

I want you to question the official conspiracy theory that the government and media have force fed us consistently begining literally minutes following the first plane striking the the WTC.

I am not proposing to replace the official conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory; I haven't got access to all the facts, and thus cannot construct for you an alternate story that stands up to genuine sceptical inquiry. I only want you to consider that there may not be a conspiracy theory that fits the facts we have been allowed to know. I want you to consider living with the painful ambiguity of not knowing what happened on 9/11, because you haven't been told what happened. I want you to consider that perhaps you cling so strongly to the official conspiracy theory, despite evidence probably already known to you, because it is better to think you know the truth, no matter how terrible, than to know that you don't know, and can't know, what really happened on 9/11.

I only mean to point out all the facts we are missing, the evidence we lack, the contradictions and sheer improbabilities that are shot through the official theory. Like a scientific proof, or a criminal case in court, or a forensic examination of a mysterious death or accident, I ask you to demand proof, not conclusions; demand facts, not assertions; demand to be convinced, and to not allow the uninformed opinion of so many sway you. Most people know nothing more than what they've been told about the events of 9/11. Why assume they - and you - have been told anything other than a plausible and psychological satisfying story?

I ask you to consider the evidence that is not there and question why. To consider the facts that are part of the public record that don't fit the official conspiracy theory. To question the assumptions and articles of faith the offical conspiracy demands that you accept, and if they don't hold up to scrutiny, to discard them. The most difficult thing for me as I looked closer at some of this evidence was to admit that maybe I didn't know what I thought I knew. Maybe I didn't have all the answers. Maybe we don't have all the facts. Maybe there are other explanations that fit the evidence better, but which I find it impossible to accept. The hardest part for me was deciding that it was OK not to know what happened on 9/11.

The film that follows is called Loose Change. It presents many of the inconvenient facts and evidence that don't fit with the official conspiracy theory. I think they do try fairly heavy-handedly to imply that our own government had a major role in the events of 9/11. In doing so, I think they rely far too much on the sort of speculation and specious evidence that makes the official conspiracy theory so unconvincing. I am ultimately unwilling to replace one delusion with another. With that caveat, I strongly recommend the film as a starting point in the search for the unadorned facts.

I don't expect any source of information to be unbiased. Loose Change is no exception. I think it is too prone to look for evidence of fresh conspiracies and give too much credence to information that is subject to error and manipulation, but the essential critiques of how the towers collapse, the evidence and lack of it for a airliner at the Pentagon, and the oddities surrounding Flight 93 deserve serious consideration, and further investigation. The lack of an open investigation by the NTSB and the disappearance of flight data recorders all give me such serious reservations about the validity of the government's investigations.

Next, a video which combines interview and archive footage with excerpts from a public hearing called 'Confronting the Evidence' presents in more detail some of the same problems, as well as many new and troubling ones. It is presented here in a five part series: (NOTE: If you have trouble with the videos, reloading the page will likely correct any problems)

 

       

Finally, a documentary using archive footage which points out some unusual and not immediately apparent aspects of the footage which you likely saw when it was broadcast on TV. I don't know how to explain away some of the information the host presents. The name of the documentary is '9/11: In Plane Sight' - no that's not a misspelling.

 

        There are issues with the credibility and motive of some of the sources in both documentaries, I feel, but most of the facts and issues raised do not rely on the credibility of the speaker for their force. After watching these videos, if you still haven't any qualms about the story you've been told, there's probably little I could say to convince you to suspend judgement. Even if you continue to accept the underlying premise of the official conspriacy theory that Al Qaeda operatives were involved, the handling of the investigation and public response should still give you plenty of food for thought.

Just remember, the official story is no less a conspiracy theory than any other - it has just enjoyed the more powerful catapult for the propaganda because of its 'official' status.

UPDATE 6/12: An alert commenter provided some links that purport to debunk the debunkers. This information, too, should be considered. A critique of Loose Change, Popular Mechanics feature article on 9/11 conspiracies, and Cooperative Research's timeline of 9/11, are all good resources. I would welcome any further sources in this vein to post.

Massacre in Iraq: Haditha is Arabic for Mi Lai

Below is an interview with and story of a young survivor of the Haditha massacre. Her entire family was murdered by American soldiers in their home.



The following is an interview with Rep. John Murtha regarding the Haditha massacre, intercut with more footage of the young survivor.


This story is starting slowly, but it has been covered early by TIME magazine, and is now being reported in the mainstream press, with Google News tracking just under 500 hits on 'Haditha'; but for a story of this importance, that is a pittance. This is a story that Americans aren't going to want to hear; hell, I don't want to know about it. But it will inevitably build until Haditha is a short-hand for murderous attrocity, as Abu Grahib is shorthand for torture. Not since Mi Lai has there been a more egregious example of a group of soldiers snapping under the pressure of a frontless war in which the enemy and the civilian are nearly indistinguishable.

The soldiers are absolutely in the wrong and must be made to pay the price of thier crimes (three officers have so far been disciplined over the murders). Rep. Duncan Hunter (R), chairman of the House Armed Service Committee has promised a hearing on the incident.

Total Information Awareness Runs Amok

Stewart Heady of Tsaile, Arizona wrote in the mailing list ProgressForAZ the following interesting story which I think makes an important point about the need for oversight of datamining and roving surveillance systems:

"In the year after 9/11 I was living in the Seattle area.  There are a lot of immigrants in the whole region from Vancouver on down to Portland, an area with a population of about 6 million.

The street of Vancouver, B.C. at night look like photos you may have seen of the famous Ginza strip in downtown Tokyo.  Most of the neon is Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Laotian, etc.  In southeast Seattle, brochures on how to get a library card are printed in about a dozen languages. The most spoken language may actually be Somali. 

Looking around you see the future. Whites are actually just another ethnicity in a mix that reflects all of humanity.  A knot of women talking at a bus stop is commonly dressed in full length burkhas, as there are many muslims.  It could be that muslims outnumber Christians in some neighborhoods.

So it made local news when the FBI swooped in and closed a few small grocery stores that catered to Somali patrons and provided them with "halal" meat.  One store had its whole inventory confiscated and taken to a landfill.  This was a small, struggling business and they never recovered.

What happened was a study in how a mistake by someone in a Washington office looking at numbers on a computer screen can turn into tragedy for real people in a distant city.

At the beginning of the month, Somali women who lived in group housing to pool resources went to the store together. They all came from a rural environment where the diet for the month generally included a goat killed in an halal way. This is pretty similar to "kosher."  So in the big city, they buy a whole goat from a grocer.  The stores know to stock a large quantity at the beginning of the month because most of the whole month's sales will occur on one or two days.

To the person monitoring electronic transactions of the type these women are used to, this looked like a sure sign of terrorist activity.  So he recommended that the FBI shut these stores down.  Somalis and other muslims felt they were targeted for attack because they were just muslims, and a lot of them were in great fear of the surrounding society.  They had to spend a lot more time on buses in order to find alternative halal sources.

FBI agents knocked on a lot of muslim community doors, and arrested a few people as terror suspects who were just foreigners acting a little odd because they didn't have enough acquaintance yet with living in America.

The problem with a surveillance program that is not subject to checks and balances, and that operates in secret, is that unknown persons simply sitting and looking at data on a computer screen somewhere is empowered to make decisions that can really screw things up for people they will never know.

About six or so years ago, 60 minutes ran a segment interviewing a former NSA analyst.  He pointed to an example from the Midwest somewhere.  A woman was talking to a friend on the phone.  She referred to the fact that her son had been in a school play the evening before and that he was really bad.  She used the word "school" and "bombed" repeatedly in telling the story.

The analyst pointed out that this had caused her to get put on a priority watch list, because the system was monitoring for key words.

These systems have a great deal of power that most of us know nothing about.  They give the humans that run them the ability to magnify the kinds of errors made in the average office every day into devastating consequences. 

We really must insist on Constitutional safeguards."