September 17, 2012
written by:Susanne Posel
Source: The Intel Hub
In Virginia and Indiana, Simon Property, owner of 393 properties worldwide, including the Town Center in Aurora, (the shopping mall located near the Century 16 Theater in Colorado where the Batman shooting took place) plans to partner with DHS and Janet Napolitano to participate in the See Something, Say Something campaign which turns average American citizens into Stasi.
New participants in the DHS surveillance campaign are representatives from Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National Football League.
According to Napolitano:
“We’re all safer when everyone is alert and engaged” and she wants the American public to spy on each other because our continued safety is “a shared responsibility”.
With the assistance of Simon Malls, tenants and employees of tenants will be encouraged, through the use of the Delphi technique, into spying and reporting “suspicious behavior” displayed by fellow employees and patrons.
Napolitano has said that the DHS will expand their Stasi into every city, state, university, private business, transportation depot, hotel/motel, and retail stores by brainwashing the public into believing that spying for the US government is actually patriotic.
Napolitano explains:
“When we each do our part, we keep our nation safe, one hometown at a time.”
Reported last month in mainstream media was the premise that the DHS had reason to believe that there was reasonable supposition that radicalized extremists could threaten shopping malls.
Federal and local law enforcement was on alert that Middle Eastern Islamic militants or rightwing extremists could and most likely would threaten a shopping mall to instill fear into the general public.
The Southern Poverty Law Center who is sponsored by both the FBI and the Zionist-controlled Anti-Defamation League reported that militia groups in the US had risen to 824 and that there was an intensification of racist hatred by white supremacists in the militia movements.
Equating the patriot movement with radicalized extremists in the mainstream media effectively blurs the line between government-sponsored terrorism and support for our Constitutional Republic.
According to a 2004 report from the DHS entitled Characteristics and Common Vulnerabilities Infrastructure Category: Shopping Malls, every mall in America is a “soft target” which could be used by terrorists to “cause economic damage, inflict casualties and instill fear.”
DHS specified that among other types of security breaches, explosives (such as a car bomb or suicide bomber) tops their list of potential “threats of concern” regarding shopping malls.
Last month, DHS, through the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) solicited 1,400 pounds of ammonium nitrate and A-5 Flake RDX – the same ingredients needed for a home-made fertilizer bomb.
Interestingly, the DHS, by request of Congress, formed the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program wherein they oversee purchases of ingredients that could be used to produce an improvised explosive devise (IEDs).
An attack on a shopping mall could potentially cause casualties of an estimated 46,000 according to the National Research Bureau. DHS outlined the fact that vulnerabilities in the construction of malls could be taken advantage of by terrorists.
By infiltrating ventilation systems, electrical or telecommunications systems, and water plumbing and sewage systems, a typical shopping mall in a general region could be used as a devastating weapon.
In response to managing this potential threat, DHS has conducted training exercises with state, local and private sector partners “to enhance awareness of terrorist threats to the nation’s critical infrastructure and key resources.”
Goldman Sachs is promoting Simon Properties as a sure investment. Goldman Sachs is beginning to back the property corporation which is shown by their recent statement :
“We think the market will be positively surprised by the company’s growth potential due to the annualized benefit of 2012 acquisitions and the front-ended strength of the company development pipeline.”
Goldman Sachs has been involved in many disasters and false flag attacks within the domestic US including manipulation of the stock market just before a disaster manifested.
Just before the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, Goldman Sachs unloaded 44% of their stocks in BP.
Goldman Sachs profited from the attack on 9/11 by funding the building of a new headquarters where the Twin Towers once stood which in turn qualified the globalist banking firm to sell $1 billion in Liberty Bonds tax-free as well as reap $49 million in job-grants, tax exemptions and energy discounts.
In May of 2012, the Global Campaign Against Improvised Explosive Devices (GCAIED) wrote a letter to Obama with the signatures of 23 members of Capitol Hill to bring “consensus” against the threat of IEDs.
With intelligence gathered by the National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System, there is a doubling of IEDs being manufactured annually by civilians. The GCAIED claimd that IEDs will be used to attack civilian populations with the intention to disrupt daily routines, healthcare and the November elections.
False flag operations are an effective way for the government to gain control over their citizens. When the Hegelian Dialectic (problem-reaction-solution) is used, as we have seen in classic globalist-directed false flags, we are introduced to a Boogeyman then that new Boogeyman commits a terrorist act against the populace and the US government must step in with restrictions on freedoms to increase public safety.
Could the DHS be preparing a false flag involving our shopping malls in order to introduce a new control system that will further restrict our freedoms under a stronger and over-reaching police state?
Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporate-funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.
Minor Editing by Alex Thomas
Showing posts with label U.S. domestic state terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. domestic state terrorism. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Times Square Bomber Linked With CIA-Controlled Terror Group
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 6, 2010
A man arrested in Pakistan in connection with the Times Square car bombing attempt who had traveled with accused bomber Faisal Shahzad is a member of a terrorist organization that is controlled by British MI6 and the CIA.
Sheik Mohammed Rehan, who was arrested on Tuesday in Karachi, “Allegedly drove with Shahzad from Karachi to Peshawar on July 7, 2009, in a pickup truck, authorities said. They returned to Karachi July 22. It is not known why they went to Peshawar and whether they met with anyone there,” reports the L.A. Times.
Rehan is a member of the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, a terrorist organization that came to prominence in the mid-1990’s and has been involved in attacks in the disputed Kashmir border region between India and Pakistan. The group also helped carry out the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament which brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war, tensions that proved very lucrative for British and American arms manufacturers who sold weapons to both sides.
“The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament — which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war — were conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, both of which are covertly supported by Pakistan’s ISI,” writes Michel Chossudovsky. “Needless to say, these ISI-supported terrorist attacks serve the geopolitical interests of the US. They not only contribute to weakening and fracturing the Indian Union, they also create conditions which favor the outbreak of a regional war between Pakistan and India.”
Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group now emerging in connection with the Times Square incident, was founded by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the 9/11 bagman who delivered $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta at the behest of General Mahmud Ahmed, then head of the ISI. Mahmud Ahmed, the man who ordered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to bankroll the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, was meeting with Republican Congressman Porter Goss and Democratic Senator Bob Graham in Washington DC on the morning of 9/11. In the days before and after the attack, Ahmed also met with CIA Head George Tenet as well as current Vice-President Joe Biden, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In a report on Jaish-e-Muhammad’s involvement in the murder of Daniel Pearl, who was investigating the ISI, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that the Pakistani government, “Believe that Saeed Sheikh’s power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA.”
Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf also alleged that Sheikh was recruited by MI6 while studying in London for the effort to destabilize Bosnia. During the 1992-1995 Bosnia conflict, the CIA helped Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to train and arm Bosnian Muslims.
In 2002, the London Times reported that Sheikh “is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan’s military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization.”
Despite Sheikh’s intimate involvement in numerous acts of terror as well as political kidnappings, including the 2008 Mumbai massacre, he was protected by both the CIA and British intelligence at every turn.
To recap, this is the man who founded the group now emerging in connection with the botched Times Square bombing – a CIA and MI6 asset.
“Experts believe Jaish-e-Muhammad still benefits from links with Pakistan’s powerful government intelligence community. Some experts believe Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency facilitated the group’s formation,” states yesterday’s L.A. Times article.
As the vast majority of geopolitical analysts concur, the Pakistani ISI is virtually nothing more than a CIA outpost. The ISI does nothing without the Agency giving its approval. The CIA has paid millions of dollars to the ISI since 9/11, accounting for no less than a third of the ISI’s entire budget, despite the foreign spy agency’s notorious history of funding and arming terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and despite the fact that it bankrolled the 9/11 hijackers.
Since the CIA has its fingerprints all over almost every Middle Eastern terror group, it’s unsurprising that an Agency connection to the Times Square bomber has come to light. We’ve never come across a terrorist who wasn’t trained, equipped, radicalized, entrapped, or provocateured by a western intelligence agency or a terror group controlled by a western intelligence agency.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/times-square-bomber-linked-with-cia-controlled-terror-group/
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 6, 2010
A man arrested in Pakistan in connection with the Times Square car bombing attempt who had traveled with accused bomber Faisal Shahzad is a member of a terrorist organization that is controlled by British MI6 and the CIA.
Sheik Mohammed Rehan, who was arrested on Tuesday in Karachi, “Allegedly drove with Shahzad from Karachi to Peshawar on July 7, 2009, in a pickup truck, authorities said. They returned to Karachi July 22. It is not known why they went to Peshawar and whether they met with anyone there,” reports the L.A. Times.
Rehan is a member of the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, a terrorist organization that came to prominence in the mid-1990’s and has been involved in attacks in the disputed Kashmir border region between India and Pakistan. The group also helped carry out the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament which brought India and Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war, tensions that proved very lucrative for British and American arms manufacturers who sold weapons to both sides.
“The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament — which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war — were conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, both of which are covertly supported by Pakistan’s ISI,” writes Michel Chossudovsky. “Needless to say, these ISI-supported terrorist attacks serve the geopolitical interests of the US. They not only contribute to weakening and fracturing the Indian Union, they also create conditions which favor the outbreak of a regional war between Pakistan and India.”
Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group now emerging in connection with the Times Square incident, was founded by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the 9/11 bagman who delivered $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta at the behest of General Mahmud Ahmed, then head of the ISI. Mahmud Ahmed, the man who ordered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to bankroll the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, was meeting with Republican Congressman Porter Goss and Democratic Senator Bob Graham in Washington DC on the morning of 9/11. In the days before and after the attack, Ahmed also met with CIA Head George Tenet as well as current Vice-President Joe Biden, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In a report on Jaish-e-Muhammad’s involvement in the murder of Daniel Pearl, who was investigating the ISI, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that the Pakistani government, “Believe that Saeed Sheikh’s power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA.”
Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf also alleged that Sheikh was recruited by MI6 while studying in London for the effort to destabilize Bosnia. During the 1992-1995 Bosnia conflict, the CIA helped Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to train and arm Bosnian Muslims.
In 2002, the London Times reported that Sheikh “is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan’s military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization.”
Despite Sheikh’s intimate involvement in numerous acts of terror as well as political kidnappings, including the 2008 Mumbai massacre, he was protected by both the CIA and British intelligence at every turn.
To recap, this is the man who founded the group now emerging in connection with the botched Times Square bombing – a CIA and MI6 asset.
“Experts believe Jaish-e-Muhammad still benefits from links with Pakistan’s powerful government intelligence community. Some experts believe Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency facilitated the group’s formation,” states yesterday’s L.A. Times article.
As the vast majority of geopolitical analysts concur, the Pakistani ISI is virtually nothing more than a CIA outpost. The ISI does nothing without the Agency giving its approval. The CIA has paid millions of dollars to the ISI since 9/11, accounting for no less than a third of the ISI’s entire budget, despite the foreign spy agency’s notorious history of funding and arming terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Muhammad and despite the fact that it bankrolled the 9/11 hijackers.
Since the CIA has its fingerprints all over almost every Middle Eastern terror group, it’s unsurprising that an Agency connection to the Times Square bomber has come to light. We’ve never come across a terrorist who wasn’t trained, equipped, radicalized, entrapped, or provocateured by a western intelligence agency or a terror group controlled by a western intelligence agency.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/times-square-bomber-linked-with-cia-controlled-terror-group/
Greg Palast: “Remove the Bloodsuckers”
The Excavator
May 8, 2010
The solution to the Greek crisis, and the global debt crisis, is simple according to investigative reporter Greg Palast. In his 2001 article called “The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold,” Palast suggests that we should “remove the bloodsuckers,” who are the global financial wizards that work at the IMF, WTO and the World Bank and practice the art of dark finance. Palast details the step-by-step plan of how these transnational economic parasites bring entire nations to ruin, which he learned after he gained a hold of some precious World Bank documents that laid out the banksters’ game-plan of how to harness the financial will of sovereign nations and use it against them. Palast also talked with Joseph Stiglitz, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and a Nobel prize winner, for the piece.
Step one, Palast recounts, is ‘Briberization,” and it involves the criminal global financiers paying national leaders of poverty-stricken nations hefty amounts of dough for the direct sale of public assets to oligarchical corporations and private foreign banks. All the illegal dough of the traitorous leaders is then safely stashed in secret Swiss bank accounts, miles and miles away from the nation’s angry citizens whose livelihoods and incomes are stripped in the process.
Step two is what is referred to as the “Hot Money” cycle by Stiglitz. This is how the cycle works, as described by Palast, “Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.” Step two is mainly about hijacking of pension funds, gutting employment benefits, and other social safety nets that people work all their lives for.
To put it another way, the criminal oligarchic parasites hypnotize a nation to sleep, bend it over, strip it of its clothes, and then rape it. That is the way the secret relationship works behind doors. The transnational banksters are all about economic rape. Rape of public assets, rape of pension funds, rape of electrical and water systems, rape of currencies, rape of everything that secures nations and keeps them alive.
And when the nation finally wakes up late in the afternoon, it realizes that it was robbed deaf, dumb, and blind the night before. It also discovers that it acquired an economic STD, so the pain has only begun and recovery is far from sight. An even bigger revelation awaits the nation, which will cause panic in the streets, and thrust the nation further into the economic abyss.
The people then begin to find out that the vampires from the IMF and World Bank never left the night before, they were hiding in the nation’s economic closet, where they’ve patiently waited to put the third step into effect, which is a sharp rise in food and gas prices, and other commodities that keep a nation running from day to day on an even keel. This step eventually leads to what Palast calls “Step-Three-and-a-Half,” and what Stiglitz brands as “The IMF riot.” It is attributed to the IMF because they basically engineer the collapse through their crippling policies and proposals for social spending cuts, which create the conditions for riots, public rage and civil unrest.
We are all familiar with the images from these riots around the world, they’ve taken place in Indonesia, Argentina, and now were seeing them in Greece. They include burning buildings. Streets in mayhem. Thuggish Stormtroopers protecting the Capitol and beating kids. Old and young fighting back with pots and pans. Entire roads up in flames. Palast writes:
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it’s bright side – for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.
The fourth and last step is called “poverty reduction strategy” by the World Bank/IMF, or if you don’t like the Big Brother coinage, the more apt term is “monopoly market politics.” People often mistake this last step with free trade policies, but one important thing to keep in mind, as Palast says, is that this is “free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank,” in other words, it is corporatist-monopolist trade in the guise of free market capitalism.
II.
Speaking to Alex Jones in March 2002 about the article, Palast said that the IMF/World Bank/WTO policies amount to “systematically tearing nations apart.” The global economic illusionists have done it to African and Latin American nations, and now they have their bloody, slug-infested eyes set on European and North American nations.
And the economic parasites never have new tricks up their sleeves, but everywhere their tricks work exactly the same, because they’re usually backed up by military muscle, so you’re condemned to believe in them, or face death. But not everybody believes in them. Certainly not Venezuela. They showed them the door. With guns, of course. But guns need not be involved.
Recently, Germany, America, England, and France supported the IMF’s call for a global bank tax, which would be dedicated to a fund that would secure the payment of future bank bailouts. Canada is the only nation in the Western hemisphere to oppose the tax. But it is not the only nation in the world. Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, and Australia are also voicing their dissent.
Simon Nixon writes in The Wall Street Journal that the proposed IMF bank tax doesn’t address structural problems within the global financial system, and should not be implemented. In his article “IMF Bank-Tax Plan Is No Substitute for Proper Regulation of the Sector,” Nixon writes:
But while taxing the banks may be a legitimate way to raise revenue, the IMF is on weaker ground with its claim that its proposed taxes directly address weaknesses in the global financial system exposed by the crisis. It argues that its proposed Financial Stability Contribution (FSC) would charge banks for the cost of implicit government guarantees by levying a fee on their liabilities less their equity and insured deposits, similar to the Obama administrations proposed bank-liability tax. The IMF recommends the money raised goes into a fund to cover the cost of future bailouts. Aware such a fund could encourage banks to run bigger risks, the IMF says governments must also introduce special resolution regimes allowing regulators to seize and restructure failing banks.
The IMF is also proposing a Financial Activity Tax (FAT), which would tax bank profits and banker pay as a way of keeping a lid on bonus payments, or what the IMF calls “excessive rents.” This would be similar to one-off taxes introduced this year by the U.K. and France in response to public outrage over this year’s giant bank bonuses.
But these proposals address only the symptoms and not the cause of the financial crisis. The real challenge for policy makers is to eliminate altogether—or at least minimize as far as possible— the implicit government guarantees that fueled excessive risk-taking in the boom and reduce the systemic risks posed by the failure of large banks that have left taxpayers in this crisis saddled with such huge bills.
That can only be done by much higher capital requirements and radical structural reform. The IMF is right to point out that higher capital requirements are themselves a form of tax. Indeed, from a macroprudential point of view the two approaches may achieve similar outcomes. But taxes don’t provide the same incentive for institutions to avoid excessive risk taking.
Allister Heath, author of “IMF plan: the wrong kind of reform,” has similar complaints about the IMF proposals. He writes:
There is a vital distinction between asking banks to pay a fee to finance this wind-down fund – and telling them the cash will be used for future bailouts, which would fuel more moral hazard. A related, crucial reform would be to set-up automatic procedures for the private sector to recapitalise troubled banks; this would allow bail-ins, as opposed to bail-outs. Banks could issue contingent convertible securities (CoCos); these debt instruments would convert to equity if capital ratios fell below an agreed level. Ordinary debt could also be turned into equity if a bank were to run out of capital. These ideas would transform banking, make it more market-based, introduce incentives to control risk and protect taxpayers. It is a tragedy the IMF and politicians are so obsessed with taxing everything that moves that they are incapable of a grown-up debate.
III.
A democratically mature reform would include smart regulation of credit and financial institutions, the reintroduction of public banking, the reduction of public subsidies to undeserving corporations and banks, the reinstatement of the principles of free economic competition, and lastly, the termination of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, i.e. the “bloodsuckers,” whose agenda is to establish an oligarchical grip on nations and peoples, and deprive them of all prosperity, as well as economic and political independence.
May 8, 2010
The solution to the Greek crisis, and the global debt crisis, is simple according to investigative reporter Greg Palast. In his 2001 article called “The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold,” Palast suggests that we should “remove the bloodsuckers,” who are the global financial wizards that work at the IMF, WTO and the World Bank and practice the art of dark finance. Palast details the step-by-step plan of how these transnational economic parasites bring entire nations to ruin, which he learned after he gained a hold of some precious World Bank documents that laid out the banksters’ game-plan of how to harness the financial will of sovereign nations and use it against them. Palast also talked with Joseph Stiglitz, the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and a Nobel prize winner, for the piece.
Step one, Palast recounts, is ‘Briberization,” and it involves the criminal global financiers paying national leaders of poverty-stricken nations hefty amounts of dough for the direct sale of public assets to oligarchical corporations and private foreign banks. All the illegal dough of the traitorous leaders is then safely stashed in secret Swiss bank accounts, miles and miles away from the nation’s angry citizens whose livelihoods and incomes are stripped in the process.
Step two is what is referred to as the “Hot Money” cycle by Stiglitz. This is how the cycle works, as described by Palast, “Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.” Step two is mainly about hijacking of pension funds, gutting employment benefits, and other social safety nets that people work all their lives for.
To put it another way, the criminal oligarchic parasites hypnotize a nation to sleep, bend it over, strip it of its clothes, and then rape it. That is the way the secret relationship works behind doors. The transnational banksters are all about economic rape. Rape of public assets, rape of pension funds, rape of electrical and water systems, rape of currencies, rape of everything that secures nations and keeps them alive.
And when the nation finally wakes up late in the afternoon, it realizes that it was robbed deaf, dumb, and blind the night before. It also discovers that it acquired an economic STD, so the pain has only begun and recovery is far from sight. An even bigger revelation awaits the nation, which will cause panic in the streets, and thrust the nation further into the economic abyss.
The people then begin to find out that the vampires from the IMF and World Bank never left the night before, they were hiding in the nation’s economic closet, where they’ve patiently waited to put the third step into effect, which is a sharp rise in food and gas prices, and other commodities that keep a nation running from day to day on an even keel. This step eventually leads to what Palast calls “Step-Three-and-a-Half,” and what Stiglitz brands as “The IMF riot.” It is attributed to the IMF because they basically engineer the collapse through their crippling policies and proposals for social spending cuts, which create the conditions for riots, public rage and civil unrest.
We are all familiar with the images from these riots around the world, they’ve taken place in Indonesia, Argentina, and now were seeing them in Greece. They include burning buildings. Streets in mayhem. Thuggish Stormtroopers protecting the Capitol and beating kids. Old and young fighting back with pots and pans. Entire roads up in flames. Palast writes:
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it’s bright side – for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.
The fourth and last step is called “poverty reduction strategy” by the World Bank/IMF, or if you don’t like the Big Brother coinage, the more apt term is “monopoly market politics.” People often mistake this last step with free trade policies, but one important thing to keep in mind, as Palast says, is that this is “free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank,” in other words, it is corporatist-monopolist trade in the guise of free market capitalism.
II.
Speaking to Alex Jones in March 2002 about the article, Palast said that the IMF/World Bank/WTO policies amount to “systematically tearing nations apart.” The global economic illusionists have done it to African and Latin American nations, and now they have their bloody, slug-infested eyes set on European and North American nations.
And the economic parasites never have new tricks up their sleeves, but everywhere their tricks work exactly the same, because they’re usually backed up by military muscle, so you’re condemned to believe in them, or face death. But not everybody believes in them. Certainly not Venezuela. They showed them the door. With guns, of course. But guns need not be involved.
Recently, Germany, America, England, and France supported the IMF’s call for a global bank tax, which would be dedicated to a fund that would secure the payment of future bank bailouts. Canada is the only nation in the Western hemisphere to oppose the tax. But it is not the only nation in the world. Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, and Australia are also voicing their dissent.
Simon Nixon writes in The Wall Street Journal that the proposed IMF bank tax doesn’t address structural problems within the global financial system, and should not be implemented. In his article “IMF Bank-Tax Plan Is No Substitute for Proper Regulation of the Sector,” Nixon writes:
But while taxing the banks may be a legitimate way to raise revenue, the IMF is on weaker ground with its claim that its proposed taxes directly address weaknesses in the global financial system exposed by the crisis. It argues that its proposed Financial Stability Contribution (FSC) would charge banks for the cost of implicit government guarantees by levying a fee on their liabilities less their equity and insured deposits, similar to the Obama administrations proposed bank-liability tax. The IMF recommends the money raised goes into a fund to cover the cost of future bailouts. Aware such a fund could encourage banks to run bigger risks, the IMF says governments must also introduce special resolution regimes allowing regulators to seize and restructure failing banks.
The IMF is also proposing a Financial Activity Tax (FAT), which would tax bank profits and banker pay as a way of keeping a lid on bonus payments, or what the IMF calls “excessive rents.” This would be similar to one-off taxes introduced this year by the U.K. and France in response to public outrage over this year’s giant bank bonuses.
But these proposals address only the symptoms and not the cause of the financial crisis. The real challenge for policy makers is to eliminate altogether—or at least minimize as far as possible— the implicit government guarantees that fueled excessive risk-taking in the boom and reduce the systemic risks posed by the failure of large banks that have left taxpayers in this crisis saddled with such huge bills.
That can only be done by much higher capital requirements and radical structural reform. The IMF is right to point out that higher capital requirements are themselves a form of tax. Indeed, from a macroprudential point of view the two approaches may achieve similar outcomes. But taxes don’t provide the same incentive for institutions to avoid excessive risk taking.
Allister Heath, author of “IMF plan: the wrong kind of reform,” has similar complaints about the IMF proposals. He writes:
There is a vital distinction between asking banks to pay a fee to finance this wind-down fund – and telling them the cash will be used for future bailouts, which would fuel more moral hazard. A related, crucial reform would be to set-up automatic procedures for the private sector to recapitalise troubled banks; this would allow bail-ins, as opposed to bail-outs. Banks could issue contingent convertible securities (CoCos); these debt instruments would convert to equity if capital ratios fell below an agreed level. Ordinary debt could also be turned into equity if a bank were to run out of capital. These ideas would transform banking, make it more market-based, introduce incentives to control risk and protect taxpayers. It is a tragedy the IMF and politicians are so obsessed with taxing everything that moves that they are incapable of a grown-up debate.
III.
A democratically mature reform would include smart regulation of credit and financial institutions, the reintroduction of public banking, the reduction of public subsidies to undeserving corporations and banks, the reinstatement of the principles of free economic competition, and lastly, the termination of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, i.e. the “bloodsuckers,” whose agenda is to establish an oligarchical grip on nations and peoples, and deprive them of all prosperity, as well as economic and political independence.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
WeAreChangeOklahoma – Arrested for Taking Video of Security Gaurds
Posted on04 May 2010.
CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST WE ARE CHANGE OKLAHOMA ACTIVIST WHO FILMED MALL COPS
By Andrew W. Griffin
Red Dirt Report, editor
Posted: April 29, 2010
reddirtreporter@gmail.com
OKLAHOMA CITY – Five months after being charged with assault and battery following an unprovoked altercation with Penn Square Mall security guards, We Are Change Oklahoma activist James Lane said all charges against him have been dropped.
Lane, who was interviewed by this reporter about the case last November contacted Red Dirt Report this week to explain that he had been facing as much as six months in jail over an incident last Thanksgiving weekend where he and other WAC-OK activists held an action at the popular Oklahoma City mall during the so-called “Black Friday” shopping day.
After “deception dollars” were dropped off a balcony and a bullhorn was used, Lane, activist Brent Southard and others were chased by mall security guards, including Richard Wisner, Daak Love and David Ray Hodges.
Armed with a camera during the direct action, Lane was approached by the guards who ultimately detained him, injuring him in the process and confiscating his camera. Lane insists he did not resist arrest and that he was treated terribly by the guards and largely ignored by the Oklahoma City cop who arrested him.
As Lane told RDR in the original interview, “Even though I was the victim of the brutal, unprovoked assault, and never touched a single officer, I was charged with assault and battery.”
Lane said that he declined to make a plea deal, which included assault charges and ultimately a disorderly conduct charge.
Lane said the prosecuting attorney obstructed Lane’s attorney’s attempts to gain access to the camera and video that showed what he had done.
Eventually, Lane said, he obtained the video, which had not been deleted, and that would be used at the trial.
“There was some confusion as to why I wanted to go to trial,” Lane said. “The city attorney backed out from the case and put another attorney in.”
Attorney Laura Yates, noted Lane, “seemed shocked” that they were having to go through court. The attorney, added Lane, “had to get the book out and read what they were charging me on.”
The first trial ended with “continuance for discovery.” The second trial, the three security guards were there and were questioned, asked if lane had engaged in disorderly conduct or a physical altercation.
“They said, ‘No, no, no,’” Lane said.
Lane said Yates then asked, ‘When Mr. Lane put his hand up, did he intend to do you harm,’ and they said I did not. That’s when the prosecutor slumped at the podium.”
Lane said he believes Yates was “disappointed the witness told the truth” and that they would not go forward with these trumped-up charges.”
Red Dirt Report called Oklahoma City Municipal Court to speak with Yates. She was not available and has not yet returned the call.
Wisner, Love and Hodges were also served papers for a civil case Lane has filed.
“They were visibly shaken,” Lane said of the security guards after receiving the papers.
Lane said he knows that they are in a pickle.
“They filed a false police report or they perjured themselves in front of the court,” Lane said.
Asked if Yates decided to file charges against the men who Lane claims did not tell the truth about what happened, he said she did not.
Lane said his attorney, Elliot Everett, pointed out a few things where one of the testifying security guards contradicted himself, but he said it apparently wasn’t relevant to the judge.
Everett could not be reached for comment.
As for the civil case, the men have not yet responded to it.
“I am 36 years old,” Lane said. “Never been arrested and never sued anyone in my life.”
Curious about his thoughts regarding what happened, Lane said, “It seems to be a good old boy network. The police officers were complicit in a false arrest. Whenever I told them that the man (security guard) assaulted me, they said I was out of touch with reality.”
“I’m disappointed, more than anything. I thought judicial system sought to find the truth. I’ve discovered it’s just a good ol’ boy network,” Lane said. “A person can get caught up in the system.”
As noted earlier, Lane said he is seeking justice through the civil action he filed.
“If I find (justice) there, I won’t pursue it further,” he said. “But the reason I am pursuing this is I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t want anyone else to get hurt.”
As for his We Are Change Oklahoma activist colleague Brent Southard, he was found guilty of disorderly conduct and received six months probation. Southard told Red Dirt Report he was disappointed with how things turned out.
Lane said the judge said Southard had failed to follow the security guard’s instructions. Lane said they were not cops and joked, “So, I guess anytime someone in a costume tells you to stop, you better stop.”
Added Lane bitterly: “What a mockery of our judicial system.”
Copyright 2010 West Marie Media
Link:http://www.wearechange.org/?p=1437
CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST WE ARE CHANGE OKLAHOMA ACTIVIST WHO FILMED MALL COPS
By Andrew W. Griffin
Red Dirt Report, editor
Posted: April 29, 2010
reddirtreporter@gmail.com
OKLAHOMA CITY – Five months after being charged with assault and battery following an unprovoked altercation with Penn Square Mall security guards, We Are Change Oklahoma activist James Lane said all charges against him have been dropped.
Lane, who was interviewed by this reporter about the case last November contacted Red Dirt Report this week to explain that he had been facing as much as six months in jail over an incident last Thanksgiving weekend where he and other WAC-OK activists held an action at the popular Oklahoma City mall during the so-called “Black Friday” shopping day.
After “deception dollars” were dropped off a balcony and a bullhorn was used, Lane, activist Brent Southard and others were chased by mall security guards, including Richard Wisner, Daak Love and David Ray Hodges.
Armed with a camera during the direct action, Lane was approached by the guards who ultimately detained him, injuring him in the process and confiscating his camera. Lane insists he did not resist arrest and that he was treated terribly by the guards and largely ignored by the Oklahoma City cop who arrested him.
As Lane told RDR in the original interview, “Even though I was the victim of the brutal, unprovoked assault, and never touched a single officer, I was charged with assault and battery.”
Lane said that he declined to make a plea deal, which included assault charges and ultimately a disorderly conduct charge.
Lane said the prosecuting attorney obstructed Lane’s attorney’s attempts to gain access to the camera and video that showed what he had done.
Eventually, Lane said, he obtained the video, which had not been deleted, and that would be used at the trial.
“There was some confusion as to why I wanted to go to trial,” Lane said. “The city attorney backed out from the case and put another attorney in.”
Attorney Laura Yates, noted Lane, “seemed shocked” that they were having to go through court. The attorney, added Lane, “had to get the book out and read what they were charging me on.”
The first trial ended with “continuance for discovery.” The second trial, the three security guards were there and were questioned, asked if lane had engaged in disorderly conduct or a physical altercation.
“They said, ‘No, no, no,’” Lane said.
Lane said Yates then asked, ‘When Mr. Lane put his hand up, did he intend to do you harm,’ and they said I did not. That’s when the prosecutor slumped at the podium.”
Lane said he believes Yates was “disappointed the witness told the truth” and that they would not go forward with these trumped-up charges.”
Red Dirt Report called Oklahoma City Municipal Court to speak with Yates. She was not available and has not yet returned the call.
Wisner, Love and Hodges were also served papers for a civil case Lane has filed.
“They were visibly shaken,” Lane said of the security guards after receiving the papers.
Lane said he knows that they are in a pickle.
“They filed a false police report or they perjured themselves in front of the court,” Lane said.
Asked if Yates decided to file charges against the men who Lane claims did not tell the truth about what happened, he said she did not.
Lane said his attorney, Elliot Everett, pointed out a few things where one of the testifying security guards contradicted himself, but he said it apparently wasn’t relevant to the judge.
Everett could not be reached for comment.
As for the civil case, the men have not yet responded to it.
“I am 36 years old,” Lane said. “Never been arrested and never sued anyone in my life.”
Curious about his thoughts regarding what happened, Lane said, “It seems to be a good old boy network. The police officers were complicit in a false arrest. Whenever I told them that the man (security guard) assaulted me, they said I was out of touch with reality.”
“I’m disappointed, more than anything. I thought judicial system sought to find the truth. I’ve discovered it’s just a good ol’ boy network,” Lane said. “A person can get caught up in the system.”
As noted earlier, Lane said he is seeking justice through the civil action he filed.
“If I find (justice) there, I won’t pursue it further,” he said. “But the reason I am pursuing this is I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t want anyone else to get hurt.”
As for his We Are Change Oklahoma activist colleague Brent Southard, he was found guilty of disorderly conduct and received six months probation. Southard told Red Dirt Report he was disappointed with how things turned out.
Lane said the judge said Southard had failed to follow the security guard’s instructions. Lane said they were not cops and joked, “So, I guess anytime someone in a costume tells you to stop, you better stop.”
Added Lane bitterly: “What a mockery of our judicial system.”
Copyright 2010 West Marie Media
Link:http://www.wearechange.org/?p=1437
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Blackmail: How The Controlling Elite Owns Politicians
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 26, 2010
Homosexual rumors surrounding Senator Lindsey Graham underscore the core reason why the vast majority of Congress members habitually support legislation that is anathema to the interests of the people they are supposed to represent, because politicians rarely achieve positions of influence without being beholden to one form of blackmail or another.
ALIPAC’s William Gheen provoked national headlines last week during a speech in front of thousands of Tea Party supporters when he publicly requested that Graham come out of the closet and admit that he is gay.
“William Gheen called on Senator Lindsey Graham to be honest with American voters about his homosexual lifestyle to assure that Graham’s desire to keep it a secret could no longer be potentially used by political insiders to manipulate Graham’s behavior,” reports Before It’s News. “There are many precedents in American politics where affairs, corruption, addictions, and other situations that politicians wanted concealed were used to manipulate them with unfair advantage.”
“When you have a U.S. Senator from such a conservative state like South Carolina working hand in hand with Obama and New York liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer to pass an Amnesty bill for illegal aliens, there is something very wrong,” said Gheen. “After today’s national broadcasts, the American public will know what the DC insiders know and that was my goal.”
Gheen’s speech has since gone viral on You Tube and prompted a national debate about Graham’s sexuality and if it is being used to blackmail him into pushing the big government agenda.
The open secret that Graham is an alleged homosexual explains why he constantly supports legislation and policies that are almost universally abhorred by his South Carolina constituency – carbon taxes and the phony global warming agenda, pro-amnesty immigration reform, as well as his hostility towards the Tea Party movement.
Graham has been labeled a “Democrat in drag,” a “traitor” and a “disgrace” by conservatives for his policies and was confronted on his global warming advocacy during a town hall meeting in October last year.
This strikes at the very root of why government is broken – politicians may pay lip service to the will of the people to get elected but once in office they click their heels and march to the tune of the controlling elite. That’s because almost every one of them has some dark secret that they can be blackmailed over if they fail to follow the Washington consensus.
This is precisely what we’ve witnessed with President Obama. Despite his promises of hope and a change from the direction of the Bush administration, Obama has followed the same agenda with aggressive uniformity – beefing the war in Afghanistan while expanding it into Pakistan, renewing the Patriot Act, extending warrantless wiretaps, and growing the size of the federal government to unthinkable levels while preparing massive tax hikes.
Obama’s dubious origins, not only the “birther” controversy but the admitted fact that his real name is Barry Soetoro, have been manipulated by the controlling elite to perfection. While never blown wide open, the scandal is kept suitably bubbling under the surface as a threat that if Obama ever does try to be a real leader, his legacy will be completely destroyed.
A more sinister aspect of the same process of blackmail being exercised against Obama is the fact that he is constantly reminded that he is a target for assassination. This was in the news again today with the story of a man who was arrested carrying a gun at a North Carolina airport as President Obama was leaving on board Air Force One.
As we reported earlier this year, throughout the presidential campaign, the public was constantly told that Obama was an assassination target and that his safety was always in jeopardy, a claim that was given credibility after numerous odd secret service security lapses at public events where Obama really was put in danger, whether intentionally or otherwise.
The “gatecrashers” story also served to increase awareness about Obama being vulnerable to attack by people who can seamlessly slip through security and get face to face with the President relatively easily.
It is clear that the neo-cons are holding Obama hostage and issuing a thinly veiled threat by repeating the mantra that the only way to save his political career and his presidency is to attack Iran. There is undoubtedly a mountain of dirt being held back regarding Obama’s past that is being used to blackmail the President into following the new world order agenda – the same as with any President before him.
Becoming President of the United States and indeed being elected top any prominent political office isn’t an opportunity to change things for the better, it’s a deal that politicians make to follow the agenda or if they don’t, to have every intricacy of their private lives exposed to the attack dog media.
Being outed as a homosexual, an adulterer, or having any other personal secret exposed for the endless titillation of the press is the lightest possible punishment a politician can face for stepping out of line. If they don’t have sufficient dirt on them that can be brought out to discredit their name, then all together more unpleasant methods are used.
Blackmail is the primary reason why those in Washington consistently ignore their electorate and push for policies that enjoy little or no support from the majority of Americans.
This is why Congress has an approval rating of a paltry 10 per cent. Nine in ten Americans think Congress is doing a terrible job. This disconnect between politicians and the people isn’t merely due to inherent corruption, it’s primarily because Congress members are completely compromised before they even take office. In most cases, politicians are destroyed by the media before they can even get elected if they don’t have dirt on them that can later be used for blackmail.
Indeed, this is why the cult of personality behind Obama was allowed to be built up to sweep him into office. This is why Wall Street poured billions of dollars into Obama’s campaign fund – because they knew he was compromised, could be easily blackmailed, and would therefore dutifully acquiesce to the orders of the banking elite that he obediently serves.
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 26, 2010
Homosexual rumors surrounding Senator Lindsey Graham underscore the core reason why the vast majority of Congress members habitually support legislation that is anathema to the interests of the people they are supposed to represent, because politicians rarely achieve positions of influence without being beholden to one form of blackmail or another.
ALIPAC’s William Gheen provoked national headlines last week during a speech in front of thousands of Tea Party supporters when he publicly requested that Graham come out of the closet and admit that he is gay.
“William Gheen called on Senator Lindsey Graham to be honest with American voters about his homosexual lifestyle to assure that Graham’s desire to keep it a secret could no longer be potentially used by political insiders to manipulate Graham’s behavior,” reports Before It’s News. “There are many precedents in American politics where affairs, corruption, addictions, and other situations that politicians wanted concealed were used to manipulate them with unfair advantage.”
“When you have a U.S. Senator from such a conservative state like South Carolina working hand in hand with Obama and New York liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer to pass an Amnesty bill for illegal aliens, there is something very wrong,” said Gheen. “After today’s national broadcasts, the American public will know what the DC insiders know and that was my goal.”
Gheen’s speech has since gone viral on You Tube and prompted a national debate about Graham’s sexuality and if it is being used to blackmail him into pushing the big government agenda.
The open secret that Graham is an alleged homosexual explains why he constantly supports legislation and policies that are almost universally abhorred by his South Carolina constituency – carbon taxes and the phony global warming agenda, pro-amnesty immigration reform, as well as his hostility towards the Tea Party movement.
Graham has been labeled a “Democrat in drag,” a “traitor” and a “disgrace” by conservatives for his policies and was confronted on his global warming advocacy during a town hall meeting in October last year.
This strikes at the very root of why government is broken – politicians may pay lip service to the will of the people to get elected but once in office they click their heels and march to the tune of the controlling elite. That’s because almost every one of them has some dark secret that they can be blackmailed over if they fail to follow the Washington consensus.
This is precisely what we’ve witnessed with President Obama. Despite his promises of hope and a change from the direction of the Bush administration, Obama has followed the same agenda with aggressive uniformity – beefing the war in Afghanistan while expanding it into Pakistan, renewing the Patriot Act, extending warrantless wiretaps, and growing the size of the federal government to unthinkable levels while preparing massive tax hikes.
Obama’s dubious origins, not only the “birther” controversy but the admitted fact that his real name is Barry Soetoro, have been manipulated by the controlling elite to perfection. While never blown wide open, the scandal is kept suitably bubbling under the surface as a threat that if Obama ever does try to be a real leader, his legacy will be completely destroyed.
A more sinister aspect of the same process of blackmail being exercised against Obama is the fact that he is constantly reminded that he is a target for assassination. This was in the news again today with the story of a man who was arrested carrying a gun at a North Carolina airport as President Obama was leaving on board Air Force One.
As we reported earlier this year, throughout the presidential campaign, the public was constantly told that Obama was an assassination target and that his safety was always in jeopardy, a claim that was given credibility after numerous odd secret service security lapses at public events where Obama really was put in danger, whether intentionally or otherwise.
The “gatecrashers” story also served to increase awareness about Obama being vulnerable to attack by people who can seamlessly slip through security and get face to face with the President relatively easily.
It is clear that the neo-cons are holding Obama hostage and issuing a thinly veiled threat by repeating the mantra that the only way to save his political career and his presidency is to attack Iran. There is undoubtedly a mountain of dirt being held back regarding Obama’s past that is being used to blackmail the President into following the new world order agenda – the same as with any President before him.
Becoming President of the United States and indeed being elected top any prominent political office isn’t an opportunity to change things for the better, it’s a deal that politicians make to follow the agenda or if they don’t, to have every intricacy of their private lives exposed to the attack dog media.
Being outed as a homosexual, an adulterer, or having any other personal secret exposed for the endless titillation of the press is the lightest possible punishment a politician can face for stepping out of line. If they don’t have sufficient dirt on them that can be brought out to discredit their name, then all together more unpleasant methods are used.
Blackmail is the primary reason why those in Washington consistently ignore their electorate and push for policies that enjoy little or no support from the majority of Americans.
This is why Congress has an approval rating of a paltry 10 per cent. Nine in ten Americans think Congress is doing a terrible job. This disconnect between politicians and the people isn’t merely due to inherent corruption, it’s primarily because Congress members are completely compromised before they even take office. In most cases, politicians are destroyed by the media before they can even get elected if they don’t have dirt on them that can later be used for blackmail.
Indeed, this is why the cult of personality behind Obama was allowed to be built up to sweep him into office. This is why Wall Street poured billions of dollars into Obama’s campaign fund – because they knew he was compromised, could be easily blackmailed, and would therefore dutifully acquiesce to the orders of the banking elite that he obediently serves.
Monday, February 1, 2010
THE Powerful Testimony of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
SAFAR 1431 A.H.
(January 31, 2010)
As captured by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were. That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) – needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia – contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire – a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice – began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! – before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui – after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
© copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
(January 31, 2010)
As captured by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were. That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) – needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia – contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire – a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice – began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! – before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui – after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
© copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
Siddiqui Takes Stand in Her Own Defense In Federal Trial
By Mark Hamblett
January 29, 2010
Aafia Siddiqui yesterday denied attempting to kill U.S. personnel in Afghanistan in 2008 and insisted she was framed for the crime.
Speaking from the witness stand in Manhattan federal court, with much of her face obscured by a scarf, the U.S.-educated native of Pakistan said she had been trying to sneak out from behind a curtain and escape the police compound where she was about to be questioned on July 18, 2008, when she was shot by an American soldier. She denied seizing an unattended M-4 rifle and firing at FBI agents and military personnel.
"The next thing I know, somebody saw me and said something and shot me," Ms. Siddiqui told the jury during 30 minutes of questioning by defense attorney Elaine Sharp.
When asked by Ms. Sharp if she ever picked up a gun, Ms. Siddiqui called it "the biggest joke. I have sometimes been forced to smile under my scarf. Of course not."
Later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenna Dabbs asked her on cross-examination, "Are you saying you don't remember?"
Ms. Siddiqui responded, "I'm telling you what I know: I walked toward the curtain and then I was shot. My head does not believe that American soldiers would be so irresponsible to leave a gun around."
Ms. Siddiqui's testimony came after two days of arguments in which defense counsel for the 37-year-old neuroscientist said their client had mental health issues and diminished capacity, and should be kept off the witness stand for her own good. Prosecutors from the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office insisted she had the right to testify.
Though Ms. Siddiqui had been found competent to stand trial she has had outbursts in court that have prompted Judge Richard M. Berman to order her removed.
But the judge ultimately decided that Ms. Siddiqui's right to testify carried the day and she had neither waived that right nor forfeited it by her conduct.
Ms. Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan authorities on July 17, 2008, while allegedly carrying in her purse chemicals, a list of terror targets in New York City, instructions on how to make a dirty bomb and drawings of weapons.
Yesterday, she denied to Ms. Dabbs having any knowledge of the bag's contents.
"I can't testify to that, the bag was not mine, so I didn't necessarily go through everything," she said.
"Did you have notes on a dirty bomb?" Ms. Dabbs asked.
"To answer your question, I do not know how to make a dirty bomb," Ms. Siddiqui said, adding later, "I did not draw those pictures. I'm definitely not that good an artist, I can tell you that."
Ms. Siddiqui repeatedly snuck into her testimony her claim that she had been held in "secret prisons" and tortured before her arrest in Afghanistan.
At one point, when her head scarf began to slip over her face, her attorney, Ms. Sharp, asked her to explain her attire.
"If you've been in a secret prison, abused, you get more modest. And it's part of the religion," Ms. Siddiqui said.
Judge Berman has had to chart a delicate course with Ms. Siddiqui, who boycotted several trial sessions, repeatedly disrupted proceedings and has been removed from the courtroom several times. Most of the time she spent in the courtroom she sat slumped over the defense table with her arms crossed as on a pillow.
The judge allowed her to testify yesterday only after a lengthy question-and-answer session on whether she understood her rights and a debate between prosecutors and defense lawyers over whether statements she made to FBI agents while being treated at the hospital for a gunshot wound could be admitted into evidence.
Judge Berman ruled that the statements could indeed be used to impeach Ms. Siddiqui, and Ms. Dabbs introduced several of them, including one in which Ms. Siddiqui allegedly told an agent she had fired the weapon.
Ms. Siddiqui denied it and making the other statements as well, telling the jury at one point, "If I messed up it was torture. It was the same game."
She also denied taking pistol lessons at the Braintree Pistol and Rifle Course in Braintree, Mass., while she was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When asked by Ms. Dabbs whether she had "fired thousands of rounds" at the club, Ms. Siddiqui answered, "I have no recollection."
The prosecution is expected to counter that testimony with a witness during its rebuttal case this morning.
@|Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.
January 29, 2010
Aafia Siddiqui yesterday denied attempting to kill U.S. personnel in Afghanistan in 2008 and insisted she was framed for the crime.
Speaking from the witness stand in Manhattan federal court, with much of her face obscured by a scarf, the U.S.-educated native of Pakistan said she had been trying to sneak out from behind a curtain and escape the police compound where she was about to be questioned on July 18, 2008, when she was shot by an American soldier. She denied seizing an unattended M-4 rifle and firing at FBI agents and military personnel.
"The next thing I know, somebody saw me and said something and shot me," Ms. Siddiqui told the jury during 30 minutes of questioning by defense attorney Elaine Sharp.
When asked by Ms. Sharp if she ever picked up a gun, Ms. Siddiqui called it "the biggest joke. I have sometimes been forced to smile under my scarf. Of course not."
Later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenna Dabbs asked her on cross-examination, "Are you saying you don't remember?"
Ms. Siddiqui responded, "I'm telling you what I know: I walked toward the curtain and then I was shot. My head does not believe that American soldiers would be so irresponsible to leave a gun around."
Ms. Siddiqui's testimony came after two days of arguments in which defense counsel for the 37-year-old neuroscientist said their client had mental health issues and diminished capacity, and should be kept off the witness stand for her own good. Prosecutors from the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office insisted she had the right to testify.
Though Ms. Siddiqui had been found competent to stand trial she has had outbursts in court that have prompted Judge Richard M. Berman to order her removed.
But the judge ultimately decided that Ms. Siddiqui's right to testify carried the day and she had neither waived that right nor forfeited it by her conduct.
Ms. Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan authorities on July 17, 2008, while allegedly carrying in her purse chemicals, a list of terror targets in New York City, instructions on how to make a dirty bomb and drawings of weapons.
Yesterday, she denied to Ms. Dabbs having any knowledge of the bag's contents.
"I can't testify to that, the bag was not mine, so I didn't necessarily go through everything," she said.
"Did you have notes on a dirty bomb?" Ms. Dabbs asked.
"To answer your question, I do not know how to make a dirty bomb," Ms. Siddiqui said, adding later, "I did not draw those pictures. I'm definitely not that good an artist, I can tell you that."
Ms. Siddiqui repeatedly snuck into her testimony her claim that she had been held in "secret prisons" and tortured before her arrest in Afghanistan.
At one point, when her head scarf began to slip over her face, her attorney, Ms. Sharp, asked her to explain her attire.
"If you've been in a secret prison, abused, you get more modest. And it's part of the religion," Ms. Siddiqui said.
Judge Berman has had to chart a delicate course with Ms. Siddiqui, who boycotted several trial sessions, repeatedly disrupted proceedings and has been removed from the courtroom several times. Most of the time she spent in the courtroom she sat slumped over the defense table with her arms crossed as on a pillow.
The judge allowed her to testify yesterday only after a lengthy question-and-answer session on whether she understood her rights and a debate between prosecutors and defense lawyers over whether statements she made to FBI agents while being treated at the hospital for a gunshot wound could be admitted into evidence.
Judge Berman ruled that the statements could indeed be used to impeach Ms. Siddiqui, and Ms. Dabbs introduced several of them, including one in which Ms. Siddiqui allegedly told an agent she had fired the weapon.
Ms. Siddiqui denied it and making the other statements as well, telling the jury at one point, "If I messed up it was torture. It was the same game."
She also denied taking pistol lessons at the Braintree Pistol and Rifle Course in Braintree, Mass., while she was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When asked by Ms. Dabbs whether she had "fired thousands of rounds" at the club, Ms. Siddiqui answered, "I have no recollection."
The prosecution is expected to counter that testimony with a witness during its rebuttal case this morning.
@|Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
U.S. citizen in CIA's cross hairs
By Greg Miller
January 31, 2010
Reporting from Washington - The CIA sequence for a Predator strike ends with a missile but begins with a memo. Usually no more than two or three pages long, it bears the name of a suspected terrorist, the latest intelligence on his activities, and a case for why he should be added to a list of people the agency is trying to kill.
The list typically contains about two dozen names, a number that expands each time a new memo is signed by CIA executives on the seventh floor at agency headquarters, and contracts as targets thousands of miles away, in places including Pakistan and Yemen, seem to spontaneously explode.
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.
Anwar al Awlaki poses a dilemma for U.S. counter-terrorism officials. He is a U.S. citizen and until recently was mainly known as a preacher espousing radical Islamic views. But Awlaki's ties to November's shootings at Ft. Hood and the failed Christmas Day airline plot have helped convince CIA analysts that his role has changed.
"Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.
Awlaki's status as a U.S. citizen requires special consideration, according to former officials familiar with the criteria for the CIA's targeted killing program. But while Awlaki has not yet been placed on the CIA list, the officials said it is all but certain that he will be added because of the threat he poses.
"If an American is stupid enough to make cause with terrorists abroad, to frequent their camps and take part in their plans, he or she can't expect their citizenship to work as a magic shield," said another U.S. official. "If you join the enemy, you join your fate to his."
The complications surrounding Awlaki's case provide a rare window into the highly secretive process by which the CIA selects targets.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment, saying that it is "remarkably foolish in a war of this kind to discuss publicly procedures used to identify the enemy, an enemy who wears no uniform and relies heavily on stealth and deception."
Other current and former U.S. officials agreed to discuss the outlines of the CIA's target selection procedures on the condition of anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Some wanted to defend a program that critics have accused of causing unnecessary civilian casualties.
Decisions to add names to the CIA target list are "all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys," said the second U.S. official. "Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage -- to persons and property -- always apply."
The U.S. military, which has expanded its presence in Yemen, keeps a separate list of individuals to capture or kill. Awlaki is already on the military's list, which is maintained by the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. Awlaki apparently survived a Dec. 24 airstrike conducted jointly by U.S. and Yemeni forces.
The CIA has also deployed more operatives and analysts to Yemen. CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes was in the country last month, just weeks before a Nigerian accused of training with Al Qaeda in Yemen boarded a jetliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.
From beginning to end, the CIA's process for carrying out Predator strikes is remarkably self-contained. Almost every key step takes place within the Langley, Va., campus, from proposing targets to piloting the remotely controlled planes.
The memos proposing new targets are drafted by analysts in the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. Former officials said analysts typically submit several new names each month to high-level officials, including the CIA general counsel and sometimes Director Leon E. Panetta.
Former officials involved in the program said it was handled with sober awareness of the stakes. All memos are circulated on paper, so those granting approval would "have to write their names in ink," said one former official. "It was a jarring thing, to sign off on people getting killed."
The program is governed by extensive procedures and rules, but targeting decisions come down to a single criterion: whether the individual in question is "deemed to be a continuing threat to U.S. persons or interests."
Given that standard, the list mainly comprises Al Qaeda leaders and those seen as playing a direct role in devising or executing attacks. Espousing violence or providing financial support to Al Qaeda would not meet the threshold, officials said. But providing training to would-be terrorists or helping them get to Al Qaeda camps probably would.
The list is scrutinized every six months, officials said, and in some cases names are removed if the intelligence on them has grown stale.
"If someone hadn't popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking him to known terrorists or plans, we'd take him off," the former official said.
The National Security Council oversees the program, which is based on a legal finding signed after the Sept. 11 attacks by then-President George W. Bush. But the CIA is given extensive latitude to execute the program, and generally does not need White House approval when adding names to the target list.
The only exception, officials said, would be when the name is a U.S. citizen's.
The CIA has at times considered adding Americans' names to the target list. None were ever approved, the officials said, not because their citizenship protected them but because they didn't meet the "continuing threat" threshold.
Adam Gadahn, a California native now believed to be hiding in Pakistan, has been indicted on charges of treason and providing support to Al Qaeda. But Gadahn, former officials said, has mainly served in a propaganda role.
Officials said that whether Awlaki is added to the list hinges more on intelligence agencies' understanding of his role than any concern about his status as a U.S. citizen.
"If you are a legitimate military target abroad -- a part of an enemy force -- the fact that you're a U.S. citizen doesn't change that," said Michael Edney, who served as deputy legal advisor to the National Security Council from 2007 until 2009.
Awlaki, 38, was known for delivering fiery sermons at mosques in San Diego and suburban Virginia before moving to Yemen in 2004. Because of his radical online postings, he has been portrayed as a catalyst or motivator in nearly a dozen terrorism cases in the U.S. and abroad.
But it was his involvement in the two recent cases that triggered new alarms. U.S. officials uncovered as many as 18 e-mails between Awlaki and Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major accused of killing 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas. Awlaki also has been tied to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of attempting to detonate a bomb on a Detroit-bound flight.
"Awlaki's interested in operations outside of Yemen, and he's trying to recruit more extremists, including Westerners," said the U.S. counter-terrorism official. "His knowledge of Western culture and language makes him valuable to [the offshoot] Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.
"Taking him off the street," the official said of Awlaki, "would deal a blow to the group."
The CIA has carried out dozens of Predator strikes in Pakistan over the last year. The program is not foolproof, as drone strikes often kill multiple people even when the intended target escapes. The CIA has also made grievous mistakes in counter-terrorism operations, including capturing individuals misidentified as terrorism suspects. But the program remains valuable to U.S. officials.
President Obama alluded to the campaign in his State of the Union speech last week, saying that during his first year in office, "hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008."
Many of those strikes were aimed at gatherings of militant groups or training complexes, current and former officials said. In such cases, the CIA is free to fire even if it does not have intelligence indicating the presence of anyone on its target list.
The CIA has carried out Predator attacks in Yemen since at least 2002, when a drone strike killed six suspected Al Qaeda operatives traveling in a vehicle across desert terrain.
The agency knew that one of the operatives was an American, Kamal Derwish, who was among those killed. Derwish was never on the CIA's target list, officials said, and the strike was aimed at a senior Al Qaeda operative, Qaed Sinan Harithi, accused of orchestrating the 2000 attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole.
greg.miller@latimes.com
Julian E. Barnes in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
January 31, 2010
Reporting from Washington - The CIA sequence for a Predator strike ends with a missile but begins with a memo. Usually no more than two or three pages long, it bears the name of a suspected terrorist, the latest intelligence on his activities, and a case for why he should be added to a list of people the agency is trying to kill.
The list typically contains about two dozen names, a number that expands each time a new memo is signed by CIA executives on the seventh floor at agency headquarters, and contracts as targets thousands of miles away, in places including Pakistan and Yemen, seem to spontaneously explode.
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.
Anwar al Awlaki poses a dilemma for U.S. counter-terrorism officials. He is a U.S. citizen and until recently was mainly known as a preacher espousing radical Islamic views. But Awlaki's ties to November's shootings at Ft. Hood and the failed Christmas Day airline plot have helped convince CIA analysts that his role has changed.
"Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.
Awlaki's status as a U.S. citizen requires special consideration, according to former officials familiar with the criteria for the CIA's targeted killing program. But while Awlaki has not yet been placed on the CIA list, the officials said it is all but certain that he will be added because of the threat he poses.
"If an American is stupid enough to make cause with terrorists abroad, to frequent their camps and take part in their plans, he or she can't expect their citizenship to work as a magic shield," said another U.S. official. "If you join the enemy, you join your fate to his."
The complications surrounding Awlaki's case provide a rare window into the highly secretive process by which the CIA selects targets.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment, saying that it is "remarkably foolish in a war of this kind to discuss publicly procedures used to identify the enemy, an enemy who wears no uniform and relies heavily on stealth and deception."
Other current and former U.S. officials agreed to discuss the outlines of the CIA's target selection procedures on the condition of anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Some wanted to defend a program that critics have accused of causing unnecessary civilian casualties.
Decisions to add names to the CIA target list are "all reviewed carefully, not just by policy people but by attorneys," said the second U.S. official. "Principles like necessity, proportionality, and the minimization of collateral damage -- to persons and property -- always apply."
The U.S. military, which has expanded its presence in Yemen, keeps a separate list of individuals to capture or kill. Awlaki is already on the military's list, which is maintained by the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command. Awlaki apparently survived a Dec. 24 airstrike conducted jointly by U.S. and Yemeni forces.
The CIA has also deployed more operatives and analysts to Yemen. CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes was in the country last month, just weeks before a Nigerian accused of training with Al Qaeda in Yemen boarded a jetliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.
From beginning to end, the CIA's process for carrying out Predator strikes is remarkably self-contained. Almost every key step takes place within the Langley, Va., campus, from proposing targets to piloting the remotely controlled planes.
The memos proposing new targets are drafted by analysts in the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center. Former officials said analysts typically submit several new names each month to high-level officials, including the CIA general counsel and sometimes Director Leon E. Panetta.
Former officials involved in the program said it was handled with sober awareness of the stakes. All memos are circulated on paper, so those granting approval would "have to write their names in ink," said one former official. "It was a jarring thing, to sign off on people getting killed."
The program is governed by extensive procedures and rules, but targeting decisions come down to a single criterion: whether the individual in question is "deemed to be a continuing threat to U.S. persons or interests."
Given that standard, the list mainly comprises Al Qaeda leaders and those seen as playing a direct role in devising or executing attacks. Espousing violence or providing financial support to Al Qaeda would not meet the threshold, officials said. But providing training to would-be terrorists or helping them get to Al Qaeda camps probably would.
The list is scrutinized every six months, officials said, and in some cases names are removed if the intelligence on them has grown stale.
"If someone hadn't popped on the screen for over a year, or there was no intelligence linking him to known terrorists or plans, we'd take him off," the former official said.
The National Security Council oversees the program, which is based on a legal finding signed after the Sept. 11 attacks by then-President George W. Bush. But the CIA is given extensive latitude to execute the program, and generally does not need White House approval when adding names to the target list.
The only exception, officials said, would be when the name is a U.S. citizen's.
The CIA has at times considered adding Americans' names to the target list. None were ever approved, the officials said, not because their citizenship protected them but because they didn't meet the "continuing threat" threshold.
Adam Gadahn, a California native now believed to be hiding in Pakistan, has been indicted on charges of treason and providing support to Al Qaeda. But Gadahn, former officials said, has mainly served in a propaganda role.
Officials said that whether Awlaki is added to the list hinges more on intelligence agencies' understanding of his role than any concern about his status as a U.S. citizen.
"If you are a legitimate military target abroad -- a part of an enemy force -- the fact that you're a U.S. citizen doesn't change that," said Michael Edney, who served as deputy legal advisor to the National Security Council from 2007 until 2009.
Awlaki, 38, was known for delivering fiery sermons at mosques in San Diego and suburban Virginia before moving to Yemen in 2004. Because of his radical online postings, he has been portrayed as a catalyst or motivator in nearly a dozen terrorism cases in the U.S. and abroad.
But it was his involvement in the two recent cases that triggered new alarms. U.S. officials uncovered as many as 18 e-mails between Awlaki and Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major accused of killing 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas. Awlaki also has been tied to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of attempting to detonate a bomb on a Detroit-bound flight.
"Awlaki's interested in operations outside of Yemen, and he's trying to recruit more extremists, including Westerners," said the U.S. counter-terrorism official. "His knowledge of Western culture and language makes him valuable to [the offshoot] Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.
"Taking him off the street," the official said of Awlaki, "would deal a blow to the group."
The CIA has carried out dozens of Predator strikes in Pakistan over the last year. The program is not foolproof, as drone strikes often kill multiple people even when the intended target escapes. The CIA has also made grievous mistakes in counter-terrorism operations, including capturing individuals misidentified as terrorism suspects. But the program remains valuable to U.S. officials.
President Obama alluded to the campaign in his State of the Union speech last week, saying that during his first year in office, "hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008."
Many of those strikes were aimed at gatherings of militant groups or training complexes, current and former officials said. In such cases, the CIA is free to fire even if it does not have intelligence indicating the presence of anyone on its target list.
The CIA has carried out Predator attacks in Yemen since at least 2002, when a drone strike killed six suspected Al Qaeda operatives traveling in a vehicle across desert terrain.
The agency knew that one of the operatives was an American, Kamal Derwish, who was among those killed. Derwish was never on the CIA's target list, officials said, and the strike was aimed at a senior Al Qaeda operative, Qaed Sinan Harithi, accused of orchestrating the 2000 attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole.
greg.miller@latimes.com
Julian E. Barnes in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Big Brother: Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces
Global Research, January 17, 2010
Executive Order Seeks to "Synchronize and Integrate"
In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11.
Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency."
According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards."
"When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.
One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism's endless "War on Terror." At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."
The real-world consequences of those changes weren't long in coming.
Following their criminal inaction during 2005's Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance.
At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the Insurrection Act, a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to "suppress rebellion." How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina's flood waters could be twisted into an act of "rebellion" was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: "Drowning while Black."
Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media's deafening silence on Obama's Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in "new normal" America.
Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans such as Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, both of which are continuously updated, our "change" President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.
Under color of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, an unsavory piece of Bushist legislative detritus, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions."
The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defense no less, "shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council."
Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated "to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security" and "the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism."
Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will "exchange views" include, "the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security."
In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, "Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
When news first broke last summer of Obama's proposal to expand the military's authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA).
Congressional Quarterly reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it "would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote.
According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that "without assigning a governor tactical control" of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the "strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander."
With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defense spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power.
These maneuvers as I have previously written, have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State's writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people.
Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for "conspiracy theorists" railing against "FEMA concentration camps," Continuity of Government, and the nexus of "civil support" programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter.
Indeed, even members of Congress are considered "unauthorized parties" denied access "to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities," according to a Pentagon document published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House web site.
As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?"), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page report in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a "civil support" operation that war games various disaster scenarios.
Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (EO 12656) that "directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises." EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as "as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."
Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established "a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises." CRS avers, "The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities."
The Defense Department's role during such emergencies were intended to focus "principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events." DoD would play a "significant role" in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners.
The primary DoD entity responsible for "civil support," a focus of Obama's EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to "synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities," USNORTHCOM's role is shrouded in secrecy.
As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: "DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing."
One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, Army Times reported, that the "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home."
Analyst Michel Chossudovsky commented, "What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a 'war theater' thereby justifying the deployment of combat units." According to Chossudovsky, "The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement."
"It is noteworthy, the World Socialist Web Site commented, "that the deployment of US combat troops 'as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters' ... coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s."
"Justified as a response to terrorist threats," socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, "the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability."
Since USNORTHCOM's deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people.
After all, where the defense of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests...
Global Research Articles by Tom Burghardt
Executive Order Seeks to "Synchronize and Integrate"
In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11.
Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency."
According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards."
"When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.
One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism's endless "War on Terror." At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."
The real-world consequences of those changes weren't long in coming.
Following their criminal inaction during 2005's Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance.
At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the Insurrection Act, a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to "suppress rebellion." How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina's flood waters could be twisted into an act of "rebellion" was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: "Drowning while Black."
Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media's deafening silence on Obama's Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in "new normal" America.
Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans such as Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, both of which are continuously updated, our "change" President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.
Under color of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, an unsavory piece of Bushist legislative detritus, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions."
The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defense no less, "shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council."
Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated "to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security" and "the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism."
Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will "exchange views" include, "the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security."
In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, "Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
When news first broke last summer of Obama's proposal to expand the military's authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA).
Congressional Quarterly reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it "would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote.
According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that "without assigning a governor tactical control" of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the "strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander."
With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defense spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power.
These maneuvers as I have previously written, have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State's writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people.
Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for "conspiracy theorists" railing against "FEMA concentration camps," Continuity of Government, and the nexus of "civil support" programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter.
Indeed, even members of Congress are considered "unauthorized parties" denied access "to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities," according to a Pentagon document published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House web site.
As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?"), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page report in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a "civil support" operation that war games various disaster scenarios.
Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (EO 12656) that "directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises." EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as "as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."
Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established "a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises." CRS avers, "The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities."
The Defense Department's role during such emergencies were intended to focus "principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events." DoD would play a "significant role" in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners.
The primary DoD entity responsible for "civil support," a focus of Obama's EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to "synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities," USNORTHCOM's role is shrouded in secrecy.
As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: "DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing."
One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, Army Times reported, that the "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home."
Analyst Michel Chossudovsky commented, "What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a 'war theater' thereby justifying the deployment of combat units." According to Chossudovsky, "The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement."
"It is noteworthy, the World Socialist Web Site commented, "that the deployment of US combat troops 'as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters' ... coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s."
"Justified as a response to terrorist threats," socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, "the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability."
Since USNORTHCOM's deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people.
After all, where the defense of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests...
Global Research Articles by Tom Burghardt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)