Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, said yesterday that he is "seriously considering" filing legislation to give Congress legal standing to sue President Bush over his use of signing statements to reserve the right to bypass laws.

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, made his comments after a Judiciary Committee hearing on signing statements, which are official documents that Bush has used to challenge the constitutionality of more than 750 laws when signing legislation .

Bush has issued more signing statements than all previous presidents combined. But he has never vetoed a bill, depriving Congress of any chance to override his judgment. If Congress had the power to sue Bush, Specter said, the Supreme Court could determine whether the president's objections are valid under the Constitution.

"There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statements far beyond the customary purviews," Specter said at the hearing. He added that "there's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes, excluding the provisions he doesn't like. . . . The president has the option under the Constitution to veto or not."

But a lawyer for the administration, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle Boardman, testified that Bush has shown Congress respect by using signing statements instead of vetoes when he has concerns about parts of bills.

"Respect for the legislative branch is not shown through [making a] veto," Boardman argued. "Respect for the legislative branch, when we have a well-crafted bill, the majority of which is constitutional, is shown when the president chooses to construe a particular statement in keeping with the Constitution, as opposed to defeating an entire bill that would serve the nation."

Senator considers suit over Bush law challenge
Charlie Savage, The Boston Globe, June 28, 2006

Ms Boardman's novel assessment of what constitutes respect notwithstanding, I think Senator Specter would be well advised to introduce a bill outlawing signing statements altogether instead of considering whether or not to try and sue the President over this or that signing statement. The President has a choice as to whether to accept a bill as law of the land or reject it using his veto power. If the veto is overridden by the Congress the bill still becomes law. End of story.

9/11: the impossible, the improbable, the implausible

22 May 2006

September 11, 2001. The day the world changed. Or so we are told.

We are also told the events of that day had been subject of several extensive official investigations. There are documents that have been produced as the result of those investigations - namely, the 9/11 Commission Report and an assorted collection of government-commissioned studies. We will refer to the version of events parlayed in the Report as the official version. The following is a partial list of problems found in, and anomalies associates with, that version of the events of 9/11.

The items on this list labeled "impossible" are claims laid in the official theory that can not be reconciled with general scientific knowledge. It must be noted that the laws of nature are not absolute and there is some theoretical probability of absolutely any event occurring. Yet some events, such as a boulder leaving the ground and floating through the air on its own, are so unlikely as to be considered impossible. The reason we say they are impossible is that they violate what has come to be known as basic laws of science. In this discussion that determines what we shall refer to as "impossible".

The term "improbable" shall refer to what is theoretically possible but unlikely to occur. Some may say unlikely enough not to be considered a realistic scenario.

The term "implausible" shall refer to what is also theoretically possible but does not conform to expected patterns of human behaviour.

Filed under "Impossible"

• Near free-fall speed collapse of WTC1 (10 seconds), WTC2 (10 - 14 seconds) and WTC7 (6.5 seconds). The collapse of the latter one is most mysterious as that building was not struck by an airliner and only suffered direct strike damage that was largely superficial relative to the scale of the building. Regardless of how the collapse of those three buildings was initiated it is alleged to have been a progressive failure. That is an impossibility as it contradicts basic laws of physics including the Law of conservation of momentum. As calculated by Jim Hoffman it would take a building such as either one of the Twin Towers at least 15.5 seconds to fall as a result of "pancaking" even assuming each subsequent floor being hit by the floors above gave way with no resistance and merely were at a standstill prior to being hit. That model excludes such factors as resistance each floor should be expected to provide, the air resistance or considerations of energy needed to pulverize the contents of the buildings reported to have been turned into fine dust.
  


• The pools of molten steel found in the ruins of the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11. According to the official version of the 9/11 the fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt the steel, merely sufficiently hot to weaken it. That latter point is suspect too but it is pretty much a given that at no point were the fires caused by the aircraft impact hot enough to melt any steel.

Filed under "Improbable"

• Four airliners successfully hijacked and subject to intercept procedures are not intercepted, even though one of them, American Airlines Flight 77, flies after being hijacked for over 40 minutes. All four hijackings are facilitated in a highly unusual manner - the pilots are removed from the controls, sometimes murdered, with hijackers taking over the cockpit. All four hijackings occur in what is probably the world's most heavily defended airspace - the US Northeast. The failure to intercept occurs in direct violation of the procedures and guidelines in place.
  


• The individuals alleged to have taken over the job of piloting hijacked airliners were all characterized by their flight instructors as rather inefficient, if not hopelessly inept, pilots. That is especially striking in the case of Hani Hanjour who allegedly piloted AA 77 into the West Wing of the Pentagon executing a descending turn so difficult that even professional pilots are divided on the issue of whether or not it could be executed at all in a Boeing 757, the aircraft Hanjour allegedly piloted.


• Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of AA 77, chooses to aim for the West Wing of the Pentagon. That was an extremely odd choice of target as that part of the Pentagon was at the time udergoing renovation and as a result largely empty. That renovation included installation of blast-resistant windows and other modifications aimed at making the building more fire and blast-resistant. The approach to that part of the building was most difficult. But, knowingly or unknowignly, Hanjour still chose to perform a near-impossible meneuver directing the aircraft under his control at the section of the building opposite from where the offices of the Secretary of Defense and other top brass are. If Hanjour simply dove into the building aiming for the center he would have most likely killed a lot more people there.


• On September 11, 2001 a number of war games, some simulating aircraft hijackings were in progress. Mohammed Atta and his team seem to have chosen a very lucky day for them as, among other things, a number of false radar blips were inserted into civilian and military radar systems to simulate fake hijackings. As a result the air defense system in place had trouble distinguishing real-life hijacked aircraft from the make-believe ones which made proper response difficult if not impossible. This begs several questions. For instance, how often do multiple large-scale war games and disaster preparedness excercises take place on the same day? What is the likelyhood that a team of foreign terrorists alleged not to have any inside contacts would just so conveniently for them happen to schedule their strike for that particular day?

Filed under "Implausible"

• Al Qaeda, the group alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9/11, never openly claimed responsibility for them. That makes little sense, if only due to the fact that if they indeed were the perpetrators it would be rather naive of them to expect not to be found out as hardly ever in history has a perfect crime of such a monumental proportion been executed. So if you have indeed commited an act that is in line with your ideology, is likely to enhance your prestige amongst your followers and admirers and is, on top of that, virtually impossible to keep secret for long - then why not just announce it? Instead, according to the official version of 9/11, the culpability of Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden was aknowledged by Bin Laden on a low-quality video tape found in Afghanistan. Several Arab aquaintances of mine while not voicing any strong opinions regarding this tape this way or the other claimed that while watching it on TV they could tell that the language spoken was Arabic but the quality of the recording was so poor that they had to read subtitles to understand what was being said. Meanwhile, some experts with a specific experience of translating Bin Laden's speeches claim that the above-mentioned "confession video" is a fake as are most if not all audio recordings attributed to Bin Laden in the recent years.


• The Secret Service fails to evacuate President Bush from the school where he is making a photo-op appearance while the attacks of 9/11 are unfolding. Consequently, no one in his security detail is reprimanded or sanctioned in any way. The event at the Emma Booker Elementary School had been scheduled in advance and was known to the public. It would have been absurd to assume that the President was not a target while a surprise attack was in progress. With a supposedly unknown number of potentially hostile hijacked airliners roaming the sky who and how could have known that one of them would not try and take out the school building where the President was attending an event of no decision-making value? What way was there that one could be sure terrorists would not try to level that building potentially killing the President along with hundreds of bystanders? If you were President and your security detail were so slow thinking on their feet wouldn't you consider firing them - simply out of concern for your own survival if for no other reason? In situations such as that of September 11, 2001 it would be entirely natural for anyone to think of whether or not the threat could directly impact them - in this case, if an airliner could be targeting the location they are at. Many a coworker of mine worried that the government facility I worked at on that day might come under attack. As someone familiar with pilotage I viewed that scenario as unlikely but overall, given the information available at the time, my coworkers' concerns didn't strike me being unreasonable or a sign of panic. Now take into account the fact that security operatives are specifically trained to anticipate potential threats to the persons or objects in their care. Their apparent failure to consider the possibility that an unfriendly airliner might be making its way towards the Booker Elementary would be a certain sign of being unfit for their duty.


• Mohamed Atta, the alleged leader of the terrorist team, checked in a suitcase containing incriminating evidence at the airport in Portland, Maine. Contents included Boeing airliner flight manuals, a copy of the Koran, Atta's will and other papers that later helped federal investigators to trace back the terrorist plot. However, it is very strange that Atta would pack all these things. What he expected to need for the actual hijacking he would have been expected to take with him as carry-on. But why would he carefully collect items that could easily arouse suspicion and pack them in his luggage? According to the FBI he and Abdulaziz Alomari arrived at the airport in Portland with only a few minutes to spare. If any airline security or law enforcement officer became suspicious of them and decided to question them for any length of time that may have interfered with the timing of the whole operation. Why would an expertly trained terrorist such as Atta chance that?


• The 9/11 Commission whose creation the Administration initially opposed was finally created after a staggering 411 day delay. Its final report some came to call The 9-11 Omission Report. This is hardly a joke given the glaring inconsistencies and omissions littering that report. For instance, the mystery of WTC 7 is not mentioned there once. The Administration appears largely content with what the Commission came up with even though one would expect that the country's leadership would be interested in a true exhaustive analisys of how a surprise attack of such magnitude could ever materialize. The unprecedented events of that day also have significant implications for many industries such as insurance, architecture, firefighting, urban planning and others. Yet there does not apear to be much open discussion of such implications. That appears to run counter to what would be expected if 9/11 were truly what the official story would have us believe.


• Sibel Edmonds is a Turkish American linguist who worked in the FBI's translations unit from September 20, 2001 to March 22, 2002. She was fired following her discovery of deliberate inefficiency, incompetence and potential criminal activity, some in her opinion related to the 9/11 terror attacks, in the unit and attempts to report her concerns up the chain of command. She was consequently fired, intimidated and silenced by a gag order issued by the Attorney General. Consequent legal action by Edmonds was blocked by the Administration, ostensibly on the 'State Secrets Privilege' grounds. The 9/11 Commission reluctantly spoke to her, but whatever she had to say never made its way into the Commission's final report. On August 1, 2004 Edmonds wrote a public letter to the Commission's Chairman Thomas Kean. Here's part of what she has to say regarding her allegations and subsequent gag orders issued to her, "After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ‘ protecting certain foreign business relations.’ The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘ safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.’ Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag." Now it is perfectly legitimate for you to ask why anything Sibel Edmonds alleges is to be trusted in the first place. There is certainly no reason to take anything she says at face value but it is worth noting that the Justice Department Inspector General had pretty much acknowledged the validity of Edmonds' allegations. In fact, it was after reading the above-quoted letter of hers that this author started to have serious doubts about the true nature of the 9/11 Commission Report. Even years after 9/11 it doesn't look like the FBI's translation capabilities are a serious concern to the powers that be as the picture still appears to be that of dire inefficiency. Does this agree with the notion of an all-out "war on terror"?
  


• If there is nothing to hide then why is the US government hiding so much, including records of things anyone could have observed? The question mainly pertains to the multitude of 9/11-related materials the government is reluctant or outright unwilling to release. For instance, the feds are still holding on to some of the videos of the Pentagon attack that were taken by security cameras located in public places.

Please note that the list offered in this article is by no means complete or exhaustive. Can you reconcile these anomalies with the official version of the events of 9/11? Many experts have tried and failed. It must be noted that failure to explain the "impossible" claims alone must inescapably lead one to the conclusion that the official story is a sham, likely designed to cover up the real story.

Let me reiterate it. You've got to either demonstrate - to yourself and preferably others - that the impossible and highly improbable events suggested by the official explaination of the events of 9/11 are somehow possible or to accept that the official explaination of what happened does not hold water. In case it is the latter your choice fundamentally is whether to accept this reality as inevitable or join those who demand a real investigation of 9/11. That choice is yours, and yours alone.

Whistleblowers Are Not Protected, Mr. Goss

11 March 2006

Former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has written an open letter to CIA Director Porter Goss in response to his New York Times op-ed. What follows is exerpts from her letter with some comments by yours truly.

Sir, as you must very well know after your years in Congress as a representative and as a member of the intelligence committee, there are no meaningful legal protections for whistleblowers. What is troubling is that while you are well aware of the fact that there are no meaningful or enforceable laws that provide protection to national security whistleblowers, you nevertheless state that such workers are covered by existing laws. That is simply false. You state that "the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act was enacted to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information." The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which appears to be the legal channel provided to national security employees, turns out on closer inspection to be toothless. Please refer to the recent independent report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on National Security Whistleblowers on December 30, 2005. The report concludes that there currently are no protections for national security whistleblowers - period. Let me provide you with a recent example illustrating the fallacy of your claim:

In December 2005, Mr. Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and action officer, sent letters to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, and requested meetings to brief them on probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the NSA and DIA.  In his letter Mr. Tice, as a law abiding and responsible intelligence officer, stated "Due to the highly sensitive nature of these programs and operations, I will require assurances from your committee that the staffers and/or congressional members to participate retain the proper security clearances, and also have the appropriate SAP cleared facilities available for these discussions." On January 9, 2006, the NSA sent an official letter to Mr. Tice stating "neither the staff nor the members of the House or Senate Intelligence committees are cleared to receive the information."

Now, Mr. Goss, please explain this to the American public: What happened to your so-called appropriate congressional channels and protections available to national security whistleblowers? Mr. Goss, what "protected disclosure to congress"? According to the NSA no one in the United States Congress is "cleared enough" to hear reports from national security whistleblowers. Please name one whistleblower to date who has been protected after disclosing information to the United States Congress; can you name even a single case? Or, is that information considered classified? How do we expect the United States Congress to conduct its oversight responsibility and maintain the necessary checks on the Executive Branch, when agencies such as yours declare the members of congress "not cleared enough" to receive reports regarding conduct by these agencies? Where do you suggest employees like Mr. Tice go to report waste, fraud, abuse, and/or illegal conduct by their agencies? Based on your administration's self-declared claim of inherent power and authority of the executive branch overriding courts and the United States Congress, what other channels are left to pursue?

Okay, now let's move to this notion you and the administration seem to be so very keen on: Classified & Sensitive Information. Let's start by asking how we define "classified & sensitive information," and who decides what is classified and sensitive? According to the statement by Thomas S. Benton, National Security Archive, on March 2, 2005, during the congressional hearing on "Emerging Threats: Overclassification & Pseudo-Classification," the deputy undersecretary of defense for counterintelligence and security declared that 50% of the Pentagon's information was over-classified, and the head of the Information Security Oversight Office said it was even worse, "even beyond 50%." Don't you find the percentage of falsely classified information appalling? Well, you should; it is your responsibility, because the executive branch, under the office of the United States President, is solely responsible for classification or pseudo-classification of information. Now, based on this knowledge, what should happen when you tell the public, when you tell the United States Congress and the media "Oh, you are not allowed to have this information; this information is highly sensitive and classified"? This is what should happen: we, the people, the Congress, and the media, should first ask you for the merits of the classification; have you prove to us that the information in question should in fact be classified; and you, the executive branch, have the obligation to truthfully respond.

On the issue of classification in your op-ed you go further and cite the cost of unauthorized disclosure to the American taxpayer, "unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars." Since you brought up the issue, let's explore it fully and give the American people the real facts, shall we? The Office of Management and Budget report on classification costs to U.S. agencies (the CIA's are still classified; but of course!), gave us a benchmark number and some sense of comparative expense to the taxpayer - the reported dollar figure was over $6.5 billion in fiscal 2003. Now, since the percentage of falsely classified data has been determined to be in the range of 50%, the cost of our agencies' pseudo classification to the American taxpayer amounts to over $3 billion. Mr. Goss, you do the math; do you really want to attempt to twist and misuse the cost of classification to try to strike a chord with the taxpayers? It is not going to stick; wouldn't you agree?

Whistleblowers Are Not Protected, Mr. Goss
Sibel Edmonds,  February 11, 2006

This is, in my opinion, a very well worded document testifying to the great danger of unchecked classification powers. I have already said that:

It is my opinion that the classification mechanism currently in use in the US is deeply flawed and needs to be revised. One idea would be to have an independent body - maybe a committee of some sort outside of the government - that would decide what gets classified and for how long. The system we have now is broken and a threat to our security and liberties.

On Classification Powers, February 19, 2005

For one thing, I am deeply troubled by the notion that there is information classified to the members of Congress. I am more and more leaning towards the opinion that nothing ought to be classified to them; yes, one of them may turn out to be a traitor, but the same potentially holds for appointed security operatives, whether military or civilian.

There exists a widespread notion that preventing sensitive information from being disclosed enhances national security - if not always, then most of the time. Edmonds' letter calls that into question:

Let's try your security angle on the subject of classification, where you state "disclosure of classified intelligence inhibits our ability to carry out our mission and protect the nation." The entire 9/11 Commission report includes only one finding that the attacks might have been prevented (Page 247 & 376). They quote the interrogation of the hijackers' paymaster, Ramzi Binalshibh, who commented that if the organizers, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had known that the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, had been arrested at his Minnesota flight school on immigration charges, then Bin Laden and KSM would have called off the 9/11 attacks, because news of that arrest would have alerted the FBI agent in Phoenix who warned of Islamic militants in flight schools in a July 2001 memo; a memo that vanished into the FBI's vaults in Washington. The Commission's wording is important here: only "publicity" could have derailed the attacks. Classification is indeed a very important mechanism, if it is applied diligently and wisely; however, as illustrated above, in certain circumstances, even with respect to national security information, classification can run counter to our national interests.

Mr. Steven Aftergood, the Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, so very eloquently stated "the information blackout may serve the short-term interests of the present administration, which is allergic to criticism or even to probing questions. But it is a disservice to the country. Worst of all, the Bush administration's information policies are conditioning Americans to lower their expectations of government accountability and to doubt their own ability to challenge their political leaders. Information is the oxygen of democracy. Day by day, the Bush administration is cutting off the supply."

Mr. Goss, since you proudly quoted from the Rob-Silberman Report released in March 2005, let me do the same and present you with another quote: "In just the past 20 years the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NRO, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have all been penetrated. Secrets stolen include nuclear weapons data, US cryptographic codes and procedures, identification of US intelligence sources and methods (human and technical), and war plans. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the damage that foreign intelligence penetrations have caused." It appears that the only ones not privy to our so-called sensitive government and intelligence information are the American citizens, since our enemies and allies have been successfully penetrating all our intelligence agencies (including yours sir) and nuclear labs and facilities. Sir, with all due respect, you have not even succeeded in protecting your own agencies, offices and facilities against foreign penetration; you seem to be incapable of conducting appropriate background checks on your own employees; you failed to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; and you have failed in gathering intelligence and reporting it accurately on the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. With this kind of record how can you go on lecturing the Congress and the American people on your superiority and inherent authority to do whatever you wish, however you wish, and without having to provide any report or any answer to anybody, including the United States Congress?

Last year, the CIA, your agency, classified the entire findings of the Inspector General's investigation into the failures of CIA managers prior to 9/11. Sir, I believe you made the case for this classification based on your intention to protect the wrongdoers within the CIA bureaucracy from being "stigmatized." Is this what your op-ed intended to say? Did you mean to say that these national security whistleblowers may end up stigmatizing the wrongdoers and incompetents within the rank and file of the CIA by divulging information that you decided to classify to prevent exposure of embarrassing and criminal activity? Was that a Freudian slip, since nowadays the lines get blurry between classification for national security purposes and classification to protect the agency's bureaucrats?

While Ramzi Binalshibh hardly strikes me as a reliable witness in this particular instance there may be some truth to what he is saying - namely that had the Al Qaeda leadership known how close the US authorities came to discovering the 9/11 plot they may have opted to save their troops for another day and called the operation off. Whether that is the case or not, Edmonds makes a very compelling case that classification, just like any powerful tool, can do both good and harm - and in the hands of incompetents tends to do the latter.

While formally the letter is addressed to Porter Goss in reality it is addressed to all of us. The importance of the issues that Edmonds is raising can simply not be overstated.

This just in from the courtroom

March 8, 2006

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The man the government presented as its FBI expert on Al Qaeda admitted in federal court Tuesday that no FBI agents had alerted him before Sept. 11, 2001, that Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested in Minnesota trying to learn to fly jumbo jets just weeks before the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked.

That was one of several key elements about Sept. 11 and Al Qaeda that FBI Supervisory Agent Michael Anticev said he didn't know or was never informed about by other top law enforcement officials.

...

Asked a wide range of questions, many of them dealing with major Al Qaeda enterprises such as the attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole and a plot to blow up planes over the Pacific Ocean, Anticev often answered by saying merely, "I don't know … I've heard that … I guess so."

He was the government's first witness in the federal sentencing trial of Moussaoui, a French citizen facing a possible death sentence as a Sept. 11 collaborator.

Anticev was presented to the court as one of the bureau's top experts on Al Qaeda; he said he had honed the specialty since 1996 and eventually helped supervise other agents working on Al Qaeda squads.

...

McMahon asked Anticev about the Finsbury Park Mosque in England, a notorious meeting place for Moussaoui and other radical Muslims and a recruitment center for Al Qaeda.

"I have very limited knowledge on that," he said.

MacMahon asked Anticev about Abu Hamza al Masri, the virulent anti-American cleric at the mosque, who long has been sought in this country on terrorism-related charges.

"I really don't know too much about him," Anticev said. "I know he's a very radical fundamentalist imam who was inspiring jihad."

On the question of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed being apprehended and said to be the Sept. 11 mastermind, an event that many Bush administration sources have described, Anticev responded: "Well, I know from the media that he is in some kind of custody."

Al Qaeda Expert Offers Few Details at Moussaoui Trial
Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times, March 8, 2006

Serrano's is a pretty colorful account of the Moussaoui trial, definitely worth a read. No, it does not exclusively consist of FBI-bashing:

The government's second witness, FBI Agent Jim Fitzgerald, one of two case agents on the Moussaoui case, described the work of the Sept. 11 investigation set up after the terrorist attacks.

In contrast to Anticev, Fitzgerald was crisp and sharp on the stand, speaking without notes as he led the jury through a comprehensive chronicle of the 19 hijackers' travels to America and described them as working in pairs until their final assignments.

He also testified that they often acted in this country just as Moussaoui did.

For instance, Fitzgerald said, many set up post office boxes and e-mail accounts and took fitness training. They bought small knives and took flight lessons. They generally used their own names.

Agent Fitzgerald - who, it would seem, was not presented as a top-notch expert - appears professional, confident and honest:

... he admitted that even though Moussaoui emulated the hijackers, there was no evidence he ever met or spoke with any of the 19.

"Sir, I cannot put him with them," Fitzgerald told the defense lawyer.

But let us take another look at Supervisory Agent Michael Anticev who it would be my guess was meant to be a witness with a clout, maybe even a star witness. With my characteristic lack of modesty allow me to state that my Al Quaeda expertise likely exceeds his. Unless he posseses some kind of special expertise such as knowledge of Arabic or other relevant languages, that is - but if he possesed that sort of knowledge it would be even more surprising that he knows so little about the subject, that he hasn't, for instance, read any of Abu Hamza al Masri's sermons. I would if I were to testify in the trial of a man whose alleged crimes were likely inspired by those sermons. All I've got, of course, is anecdotal reports, but it still leads me to believe that most likely Anticev posseses no special linguistic skills, no special knowledge of relevant culture and history and his overall knowledge of the subject is not even at the level of somebody who as a layman would simply do some reading on the subject. Unfortunately that sort of apparent incompetence when it comes to counterterrorism is not that different from what is being reported from Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Regardless of how knowledgeable Anticev is of Al Qaeda in general, it is unlikely his knowledge and expertise would have made any difference in preventing 9/11 as he was not even informed of Moussaoui's arrest. And even had Moussaoui told investigators that he planned to participate in what would become the 9/11 it is far from certain that any one from the top-level leadership of the security services would have listened to him any more than they did to Coleen Rowley who happened to be an FBI agent and who, along with a number of colleagues, suspected that Moussaoui did in fact intend to perpetrate something akin to what the government now acuses him of keeping mum about.

So, was it a crime for Moussaoui to keep silent about a terrorist attack that he knew was in the works - in case he actually knew about it which is not proven? Maybe. Does it amount to direct participation? That's questionable but possibly so. What do we know beyond a reasonable doubt? I would say, not very much: we know that Moussaoui trained to be a suicide pilot and was a member of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group.

That may not be much but that is surely enough to lock him up for a long time, possibly for life. But the government is definitely trying hard to execute him. I don't have much sympathy for him and despite my general opposition to the death penalty don't particularly care if he dies in an execution chamber. Except for one thing - this is somewhat akin to the way the case of Timothy McVeigh was handled. Up to his very execution the government seemed to be doing all it could and then some to see to it that McVeigh does not draw one more breath than absolutely necessary; and as we now know there may have been reasons for that other than the rightful indignation - namely, that those involved in the coverup of the Oklahoma City bombing could well have had significant interest in making sure that McVeigh is permanently silenced. Could something similar be at play here with Moussaoui?

The secret 9/11 evidence: what is the government hiding?

March 3, 2006

A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11.

"It is outrageous that the government is withholding this vital information", said James H. Fetzer, founder and co-chair of the society. "This concerns one of the monstrous events of our time and deserves to be in the public domain." The group, whose members include such prominent figures as David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, John McMurtry, Wayne Madsen, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and Andreas von Buelow, has been speaking out against what its own research suggests has been complicity by elements of the administration in the crime.

They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items.

Experts Call for Release of 9/11 Evidence
PRWeb, March 1, 2006

I would like to specifically emphasize, once again, that just like in the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing where a surveillance tape shot by a camera pointed out into a public street has been classified by the authorities, many of the pieces of evidence being requested now fall into the same category: they were recordings of events taking place in a location open to the public; while such recordings can be made secret temporarily while the investigation into a crime is ongoing permanent removal of such recordings from the public domain can not possibly be justified and is an assault on our freedom. It is also a threat to our security as it allows the law enforcement to avoid pressure and censure in the event some corrupt law enforcement officials decide to turn a criminal investigation into a sham.

The tapes of the Pentagon strike - some of them, if not all - were also shot from a public location and depict what just about anybody could have seen. 911Truth.org presents some very interesting details of this whole situation in an article titled "Government Responds to Flight 77 FOIA Request":

According to a Washington Times news report that has been removed from the Web (still available on the "Wayback Machine" search engine), hotel employees had time enough to watch "the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation."

As for the gas station, which is "open only to Defense Department personnel," it is "the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll." Its owner was interviewed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch in December 2001:

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." (Article archived at nationalgeographic.com)

The swift confiscations are suspicious; the agents were obviously dispatched to grab the videos immediately after the Pentagon was struck.

Within minutes? Not bad for an agency incapable of even properly processing a criminal trying to turn himself in. And also remember that those were surprise attacks no one could have imagined. Yet the FBI knew exactly where to go to colect those tapes. Gotta' love those fed supermen (and women)!

To conclude here let me state that I do not know what is being hidden here; it is possible that some of the evidence contains nothing of consequence and is being held by the government for the sole purpose of having independent 9/11 researchers go down a wrong track. The possibilities here are numerous and I wouldn't be able to even list them all; I also feel I don't need to. It is sufficient that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the results of the so-called official investigation into the events of 9/11 are worthless. We have got this monstrous crime that has not been resolved; quite possibly, those responsible for it have not been held to account. This is an outrage that is crying out to all of us.

Katrina trip: short timeline

27 October 2005

As soon as I returned from the Gulf Region I decided that I have to report on what I had seen there, and that I want to do a good job of it. In fact that was my intent even before I started the trip. Whether I succeed remains to be seen as I am still working on a detailed report. That is clearly taking some time, so here goes a short timeline outlining the details of this trip.

As I have already reported we took off on Monday, September 26. As I have also reported the next day, Tuesday, September 27 I ended up stranded in Tuscaloosa, AL where I spent the following day investigating my options for moving on, trying to decide which way to go, contemplating this world and drinking beer. On the morning of Thursday, September 29, I managed to rent a car - which was not trivial in that area at that time, I got lucky - and drove on down. At about 5 PM that day I got to Covington, LA where I was searched by the military and law enforcement personnel who - and here comes this blessing in disguise - told me that there was a curfew in effect in town and after 9 PM I risked being arrested for just being on the street. So I moved on heading West and soon found myself in Baton Rouge. The center of city did not look particularly welcoming with a massive police and military presence around the emergency shelter - which, if I remember correctly occupied one of the major hotels - and the overall feel of instability in the air. So I decided to get out of there and find a place where I could orient myself and decide where to go next.

I found just such a place within at most a half-hour - a hotel on the outskirts of the city. The first thing I asked them was about the curfew - and, thankfully, there was none. Nor, of course, were there any rooms available at the hotel. But they did have a computer with an Internet connection which they kindly allowed me to use and soon enough I found the new location for the Veterans for Peace relief operation:

Saving Ourselves After Katrina (SOS)

Servicing the Mississippi Gulf Coast and Louisiana
New location for ALL shipments, drop-offs and volunteer check-in:

Saving Ourselves, 2810 Mill St, Mobile, AL 36607

Tel.: 1-866-372-9SOS

The structure there may be a little confusing as the VFP is working with S.O.S. and several other groups but that was the central location for the effort. That was also where I decided to go.

And go there I did. To avoid the traffic along the coast I decided to take Route 98 through Missisipi. On the way there, in Columbia, MS I saw vehicles lined up alongside the road. The time was about 11:30 PM. Those turned out to be people waiting to enter the local Expo Center - which I was told was for the most part a rodeo arena - which has been converted into a Red Cross facility. The objective of those waiting in line was to receive an allowance of either $345 or $375 (I forget which as I was a little tired at the moment and the Red Cross has not provided a meaningful answer to my inquiries regarding the mechanics of the situation). As I was talking to the people waiting in those vehicles I was accosted by a whole slew of the law enforcement officers (some had insginia, others did not) who searched both myself and my vehicle. They started out by threatening to execute me. The exchange went somewhat like this.

"Hands on the vehicle, or you'll be shot. Where you from?"

"Boston."

"This ain't Boston here. This is Missisipi. We shoot people here. We shoot the fuck out of them."

Having announced this achievement of note they did not shoot me, did not even arrest me or take any of my belongings - though they did make a mess of them. At any rate, they let me go, and at least at the moment I did not make any waves as I was concerned both for my own safety but more so for the people on the roadside who clearly did not have the resources to just take off and go.

I finally got tired of driving and stopped over at the Inn on the Hill in Hattiesburg. They allowed me to camp out in my car in front of the hotel - as, needless to say, there were no rooms to be had. However, tired as I was I could not really sleep so I struck a conversation with the two people working the front desk, a white woman and a black man. Both of them suffered some damage from Katrina. The woman had sheltered a friend from New Orleans. According to her that man - a Korean War veteran and a diabetic to boot - had to suffer a nightmare of being stranded in the streets of New Orleans, prevented by the armed police from staying on a highway overpass, then lifted to a field somewhere in Louisiana and left with about 150 fellow survivors for three days without any supplies - be that food or water or camping equipment. In the course of those three nighmarish days he witnessed three deaths, all female, one of them pregnant. He suffered snake and insect bites, was airlifted to an Austin, TX hospital and miraculously survived.

His story is, unfortunately, far from unique. I plan on clearing some details by hopefully arranging a direct interview with that New Orleans man himself and reporting on it separately.

At about 7 AM on Friday I took off for Mobile. In about three hours I was at the warehouse. The first day there I spent helping manage the goods as by the time I arrived all the delivery trips had already been planned and I obviously was not part of any of them. Frankly having been awake for over a whole day I was in a state when routine work of moving boxes was about all I was capable of intellectually.

September 30, 2005 S.O.S. Warehouse Mobile, AL This is me. In the background are generators. They were a hot item, as were chainsaws as there were a lot of trees to be cut. And, of course, cleaning supplies and food and medicine - and many other things - were also in demand. Note that for all it has to show this warehouse at the time was no more than two weeks into its operation.

Working with this volunteer operation I met a number of very interesting people. Unfortunately, my stay was short as I left a mere two days later.

They were a fun group. All the nights there were parties. Some may call that excess - but one must have a way of relieving stress even in the best of times - which those in many ways were not. Here are some of the pictures I got to take over the next two days.

	Angela Woodall SOS Camp Theodore, AL (Smith & Elmo) 30.09.2005 She interviewed me on camera. First time being a subject of an interview for me.
	30.09.20005 Partying
	Jimmy 01.10.2005 S.O.S. Camp Theodore, AL Partying again...

You can see the rest of the pictures in this photo gallery.

After the work day was over on Friday - which ended early, at about 3 PM as far as I can recall - Carl Webb and I headed over to a local library to use the Internet. I purchased my return ticket there and then we headed over to the camp - which consisted of two houses in Theodore, AL at the corner of Smith Street and Elmo Ave.

That night the usual party took place. I was also interviewed by Angela Woodall (I have yet to see the footage). Then I guess I crashed.

The next day, Saturday, one of the volunteers, Nikki, and myself went on a delivery run to the Gulf coast of Missisipi. We delivered supplies to a church in Moss Point. That church was a major relief center, having fed about a thousand meals to the survivors in the first week after Katrina hit.

We also drove down the coast all the way to Ocean Springs in an attempt to assess the situation. On our way we found one field kitchen-type food distribution point with which we established contact. The idea was to have them receive supplies from the operation in Mobile. As I left the following day I don't know if that particular relationship ever came to fruition but that sort of approach was how the operation was run - and whether you view it as a success or not, it did manage to deliver the much needed supplies many places where other, more powerful groups - such as the Red Cross or FEMA - had yet to reach.

	01.10.2005 Ocean Springs, MS About 50 m from the coast The concrete markings in the background mark a spot where a house once stood.
	01.10.2005 Ocean Springs, MS
	A house once stood here... Missisipi gulf coast 01.10.2005

Saturday night was, of course, party night. We were also joined by a very special stray canine guest.

	Stray female dog Theodore, AL 01.10.2005
	Stray dog examined by medics 01.10.2005 S.O.S. Camp Theodore, AL

As I would learn later one of the volunteers, Ken, who is a Florida resident planned on taking her home with him.

The next day was an official day off as for the first time since the start of the relief operation nothing had to be done in an emergency mode. For some of the volunteers that ended up being their first day off in about a month.

The crowd went to a beach in Flordia but I was a bit tired and decided to stay. I talked some more to those who also stayed behind, snapped some more photos and then flew to New York. I was sad to leave but when I arrived to Atlanta for a change over to New York I couldn't wait to finally get there and see a familiar city.

	Paul 02.10.2005 S.O.S. Camp Theodore, AL
	Neighborhood dog 02.10.2005 S.O.S. Camp Theodore, AL
	S.O.S. Camp 01.10.2005 Theodore, AL
	Paul 02.10.2005 S.O.S. Camp Theodore, AL The bus in the background is the VFP bus.
	Holy with children 02.10.2005 S.O.S. Camp Theodore, AL
	Girl 02.10.2005 S.O.S Camp Theodore, AL
	Girl 02.10.2005 S.O.S Camp Theodore, AL
	Two girls 02.10.2005 S.O.S Camp Theodore, AL

To conclude this I would just like to say that all the hiccups notwithstanding I believe I managed to be of help to those who needed it though not to the extent I would have liked. As I stated earlier I would estimate that I have contributed several hundred dollars' worth of supplies to the effort in New Orleans. (Yes, the cargoe got there, I confirmed that.) Plus I contributed some supplies and work hours to the effort run out of Mobile.

If you wish to aid the grass roots effort of which I was part you can go to this web page to see how to. If you wish to help me reimburse my expenses - which altogether top a thousand dollars - you can do so by donating through my website by clicking on the button. Forwarding this message around and raising the awareness would also be very helpful as the relief operation in the Gulf is far from over still and regardless of how far along the process is the world needs to know about the events in the region.

Once again, let me use this space to sincerely thank all those who helped me and thus made this trip possible as well as those who intend to help. This is a noble cause - or at least so I believe.

Related materials:

Photos

Relief for victims of Katrina

Lyn and Margie's Excellent Adventure

by Margie Metzler and Lyn Stueve

Jean Laskey's photo collection and blog

Daymon J. Hartley's Camp Casey-Covington Photos

What is the Red Cross?

The Forever Elsewhere Management Agency

Property grabs and the Gulf

The federal response to Katrina is a disaster in its own right

The follies of Guantanamo

23 November 2005

Clive Stafford Smith is Legal Director of Reprieve, a British charity group specializing in aiding those facing the death penalty around the world. In the recent years he has taken on the task of representing "some 40 Guantánamo Bay detainees". In his article titled "Inside Guantanamo" (New Statesman, November 21, 2005) Smith gives his first-hand account of the visits to the prison camp. Aside from a well-versed description of the harshness and routine boredom of life there, as well as of the harsh and degrading treatment meted out to the prisoners, Smith's article contains a powerful example of how incompetently the process is sometimes run:

In addition to being devoid of law, Guantanamo sometimes seems like a truth-free zone. I am scheduled to see my client Mohammed el-Gharani. The military says he is 26 and denies that there are any juveniles on the base. Let us assume the camp authorities really believe this: what does it say about the quality of Guantanamo intelligence if they cannot even work out his age after four years of interrogation? Mohammed was not quite 15 when he was seized, and is still a teenager. I got the birth certificate from Saudi Arabia to prove it, but they still won't believe me. "He sure does look young," says one of the guards.

Hard to believe? Definitely sounds so - especially given that Guantanamo is a place where, according the Bush Administration, "the worst of the worst", the people who are our most feared adversaries, are housed. Surely one would expect that the best available resources would be brought to bear to obtain as much valuable intelligence as possible from the catch as valuable as the vicious terrorist killers our Administration officials never tire of claiming we have got under lock and key in Guantanamo Bay.

The reality of the situation, however, may be not as dramatic when it comes to how bad those "bad guys" are. Only a few of them have thus far - after sometimes as much as almost four years in detention - been charged with any crime. A number of them have been released. Some have been deemed innocent and not released because the prison authorities have not figured out what country to release them to.

And Smith's account of the interrogators' incompetence seems not to be out of line with some other news coming out of that prison camp. Seen next to a report on how three years after 9/11 the FBI still lacked the capability to translate relevant foreign-language materials, or digital storage to handle its audio materials the failure to determine a prisoner's age would not look like such a big deal anymore.

I don't like the term "war on terror". As somebody very aptly remarked, "You can't declare war on a noun". However, we certainly must do the police work necessary to intercept and disrupt various extremist groups in their violent endeavours. However, with the illegal operation like the one in Guantanamo our chances of success are slim.

What is the Red Cross?

24 October 2005

Of the many major charity organizations the American Red Cross definitely stands out in many ways. Aside from its sheer size and reach it is worthy of note how much confidence it enjoys in the corridors of power in the US. So much so that President Bush himself recently paid an "impromptu visit" to its headquarters to encourage the citizens to donate money to the Red Cross, among other things. And the loyalty between the Red Cross and the government appears to run both ways.

Naturally, one would become curious as to what predicates such a close relationship between what is chartered as an independent humanitarian relief organization and the US government. Some answers to that could be found in the Joe Allen's excellent article titled "A Bait-and-Switch Charity" (CounterPunch, October 20, 2005). Allen provides an interesting glimpse into the early history of the organization:

The Red Cross was founded in 1881 by Clara Barton, who became famous during the Civil War for organizing the distribution of food and medical supplies to Union Army soldiers.

The Red Cross is specifically mandated, according to its Congressional charter adopted in 1905, to "carry out a system of national and international relief in time of peace, and apply that system in mitigating the suffering caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods and other great national calamities, and to devise and carry out measures preventing those calamities." The organization was also to carry out its work in accordance with the Geneva Conventions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. Later, the Red Cross would also be entrusted with control of a large part of the nation's blood supply.

But who got relief after disasters has always been affected by the racism that has been part of the Red Cross' long history.

For example, during the Great 1927 Flood that destroyed large parts of the Mississippi Delta and Louisiana, Black farm laborers and sharecroppers without a doubt suffered the most. As John Barry documents in his epic history of the flood, Rising Tide, delta plantation owners refused to evacuate them out of the region for fear--rightly--that most wouldn't return to their miserable, slave-like conditions.

The Red Cross came in to provide temporary housing and food aid. What African Americans of the Delta got was prison-like camps where they were routinely beaten by white, racist National Guardsmen. Food distributed by the Red Cross was given to whites first, and if anything was left, it went to Black survivors.

Its legal status is also anything but ordinary:

People who think of the Red Cross as a "private charity" would be shocked to discover its actual legal status.

Congress incorporated the Red Cross to act under "government supervision." Eight of the 50 members of its board of governors are appointed by the president of the United States, who also serves as honorary chairperson. Currently, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security are members of the board of governors.

This unique, quasi-governmental status allows the Red Cross to purchase supplies from the military and use government facilities--military personnel can actually be assigned to duty with the Red Cross. Last year, the organization received $60 million in grants from federal and state governments. However, as one federal court noted, "A perception that the organization is independent and neutral is equally vital."

The leading administrators and officials of the Red Cross are almost always drawn from the corporate boardroom or the military high command. Among the past chairs and presidents of the Red Cross are seven former generals or admirals and one ex-president.

What I found interesting is how uniformly police and security personnel in the region affected by Katrina expressed trust and confidence in the Red Cross while at the same time viewing other relief efforts with skepticism if not suspicion. Thanks to Joe Allen I think I have now got somewhat of a clue as to why.

If Allen's view of the Red Cross as essentially a branch of the government is correct then it is hardly surprising that the actual disaster relief might at times not be that organization's top priority, having yielded to policy considerations and the general "go along to get along" mentality permeating most governmental organizations. It is also hardly surprising then that it is more concerned with raising funds - and the PR needed to that end - than with actually doing the hands-on work of helping those in need. The government never turns down an opportunity to gobble up some cash, and if the Red Cross is essentially a part of it - is it so surprising it is acting in a similar fashion?

Asks Allen,

How many people would donate to the Red Cross if they knew all this?

I don't know but I for one sure as hell ain't giving them another penny.

What stood in the way of rescue: some news just in...

Wednesday, 7 September 2005

"Their orders were to go and deliver water and parts and to come back," Commander Holdener said.

But as the two helicopters were heading back home, the crews picked up a radio transmission from the Coast Guard saying helicopters were needed near the University of New Orleans to help with rescue efforts, the two pilots said.

Out of range for direct radio communication with Pensacola, more than 100 miles to the east, the pilots said, they decided to respond and turned their helicopters around, diverting from their mission without getting permission from their home base. Within minutes, they were over New Orleans.

"We're not technically a search-and-rescue unit, but we're trained to do search and rescue," said Lieutenant Shand, a 17-year Navy veteran.

Flying over Biloxi and Gulfport and other areas of Mississippi, they could see rescue personnel on the ground, Lieutenant Udkow said, but he noticed that there were few rescue units around the flooded city of New Orleans, on the ground or in the air. "It was shocking," he said.

Seeing people on the roofs of houses waving to him, Lieutenant Udkow headed in their direction. Hovering over power lines, his crew dropped a basket to pick up two residents at a time. He took them to Lakefront Airport, where local emergency medical teams had established a makeshift medical center.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant Shand landed his helicopter on the roof of an apartment building, where more than a dozen people were marooned. Women and children were loaded first aboard the helicopter and ferried to the airport, he said.

Returning to pick up the rest, the crew learned that two blind residents had not been able to climb up through the attic to the roof and were still in the building. Two crew members entered the darkened building to find the men, and led them to the roof and into the helicopter, Lieutenant Shand said.

Recalling the rescues in an interview, he became so emotional that he had to stop and compose himself. At one point, he said, he executed a tricky landing at a highway overpass, where more than 35 people were marooned.

Lieutenant Udkow said that he saw few other rescue helicopters in New Orleans that day. The toughest part, he said, was seeing so many people imploring him to pick them up and having to leave some.

"I would be looking at a family of two on one roof and maybe a family of six on another roof, and I would have to make a decision who to rescue," he said. "It wasn't easy."

While refueling at a Coast Guard landing pad in early evening, Lieutenant Udkow said, he called Pensacola and received permission to continue rescues that evening. According to the pilots and other military officials, they rescued 110 people.

The next morning, though, the two crews were called to a meeting with Commander Holdener, who said he told them that while helping civilians was laudable, the lengthy rescue effort was an unacceptable diversion from their main mission of delivering supplies. With only two helicopters available at Pensacola to deliver supplies, the base did not have enough to allow pilots to go on prolonged search and rescue operations.

"We all want to be the guys who rescue people," Commander Holdener said. "But they were told we have other missions we have to do right now and that is not the priority."

The order to halt civilian relief efforts angered some helicopter crews. Lieutenant Udkow, who associates say was especially vocal about voicing his disagreement to superiors, was taken out of the squadron's flying rotation temporarily and assigned to oversee a temporary kennel established at Pensacola to hold pets of service members evacuated from the hurricane-damaged areas, two members of the unit said. Lieutenant Udkow denied that he had complained and said he did not view the kennel assignment as punishment.

Navy Pilots Who Rescued Victims Are Reprimanded

David S. Cloud, The New York Times, September 7, 2005

And here is what Andrea of Get Your Act On!, a New Orleans activist, has to say:

Meanwhile, the denial of aid appears to be continuing, though some supplies are getting into the city. Daniel, our friend that just got out of the city, reports that the National Guard troops that arrived in his neighborhood two days ago - the first signs of anyone other than the few residents left, were “good guys” and astounded to find out that the people left there had received no supplies of any kind. One helicopter pilot, upon finding this out, took it upon himself to go get supplies and within an hour had made 3 supply drops to the neighborhood. However, this was the action of an individual, the guard had not been given directions to bring food and water to people, merely to patrol the streets and ‘keep the peace.’

The stories Daniel has to tell are horrific, and we will be relating them over the next few days. He describes living in a complete war zone - the few people left in houses holed up together with guns, fearing for their lives. A big fire broke out in a warehouse on the levy that they thought was going to burn down the entire neighborhood. He talked about the ‘ghosts’ walking down St. Claude - the people who managed to escape from their attics in the flooded out lower 9th ward - people in a state beyond shock. Again, the stories of people calling the one radio station in town from their attics, desparate, saying there was but a foot of space left between the flood waters and the roof and to please come get them before they died - but there was no one to come get them.

So many stories of relief efforts being turned away. Wildlife and Fisheries who had a couple hundred boats going into the lower 9th ward for the first two days, rescuing the people trapped in attics and on roofs - until they were ordered to stop. A group of Virginia State troopers who came down with a truckload of supplies to help NOPD - who were stopped at the perimeter of New Orleans and ordered to go away. A US Naval hospital ship with 400 beds, doctors, helicopters, all sorts of equipment - they were in the gulf when the storm hit and were the first to arrive in the area - they are sitting empty, not allowed to help.

The list of instances in which rescuers were stopped in their tracks can easily be continued and would likely still not be complete.

This is your government at work. You are paying for this - if you are lucky with you tax dollars, and if you are not - with your blood or even your very life, or that of your family, friends or neighbors.

And now back to Oklahoma City and all those years and events since...

Thursday, 25 August 2005

As I have already said in this space, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing is an event that from relatively early on had given rise to some skepticism on the part of many an analyst. The holes in the investigative conclusion presented to the public are many and it is not my intent to present them all here. Granted, no event of considerable complexity can be explained with absolute clarity, the ommissions and inconsistencies of the official theory of the OKC bombing exceed what I consider acceptable threshold. Those interested could go to many an excellent website dedicated to the subject, for instance to the ones listed below:

WRH: The Oklahoma City Bombing

Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee

American Patriot Friends Network: Oklahoma Bombling Cover-Up

Lately, the investigation into that atrocity which took the lives of 168 and destroyed many other lives appears to have gotten a new lease on life. And if you are not apt to take little-known sources seriously, you still may want to listen now as it is now a US Congressman requesting that the issues be investigated thoroughly and properly:

This newspaper has obtained a copy of U.S. Rep. Dan Rohrabacher's tersely worded letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, asking him to comply with a federal judge's order directing the Oklahoma City FBI office to provide records regarding their investigation at Elohim City and the Mid-west bank robbery gang.

Rohrabacher, R-Calif., recently interviewed convicted killer Terry Nichols and others with information concerning the April 19, 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City.

...

Dated Aug. 19, Rohrabacher implored the agency head, "I ask that you comply with Judge Kimball's order and not make attempts to block his ruling by delay tactics or other judicial challenges. Further attempts by your agency to obstruct this case will only undermine the FBI's credibility in the eyes of the public."

"Congressman hopes FBI will not delay investigation into OKC bombing", J. D. Cash, McCurtain Daily Gazette, August 23, 2005

Personally, I believe that both the Congress and the public must no longer request that the matter be properly investigated - we must demand that, and we must demand that in no uncertain terms. But be that as it may the latest developments in the OKC bombing investigation are welcome news.

Even if the investigative moves of today end up being another snow job - and of that there is quite a realistic possibility - the very fact that the necessity of such moves was aknowledged is testimony to a number of important happenings. For instance, we must realise that the fact that something has been investigated by the government does not mean it was investigated, and not covered up - regardless of how many agents were involved or how high-profile the case. It is also important to know that obscure independent researchers often get things right where the major research and media institutions fail. The reasons are many - but I would think that the independence and low operating costs of the researchers - such as today's bloggers and their precursors of yesteryear - is a key factor.

I have also written a lot about the events of 9/11 and how the official version of those events might not be all that strong. Let us assume things being reported now about the 1995 OKC atrocity are even half true. After that, wouldn't you be inclined to become a bit of a "9/11 skeptic" as well? Wouldn't you want to demand that those events too be adequately investigated?