Some of the controversial “sting” operations “were proposed or led by informants”, bordering on entrapment by law enforcement. Yet the courtroom obstacles to proving entrapment are significant, one of the reasons the stings persist.

The lengthy report, released on Monday by Human Rights Watch, raises questions about the US criminal justice system’s ability to respect civil rights and due process in post-9/11 terrorism cases. It portrays a system that features not just the sting operations but secret evidence, anonymous juries, extensive pretrial detentions and convictions significantly removed from actual plots.

“In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act,” the report alleges.

Out of the 494 cases related to terrorism the US has tried since 9/11, the plurality of convictions – 18% overall – are not for thwarted plots but for “material support” charges, a broad category expanded further by the 2001 Patriot Act that permits prosecutors to pursue charges with tenuous connections to a terrorist act or group.

In one such incident, the initial basis for a material-support case alleging a man provided “military gear” to al-Qaida turned out to be waterproof socks in his luggage.

Several cases featured years-long solitary confinement for accused terrorists before their trials. Some defendants displayed signs of mental incapacity. Jurors for the 2007 plot to attack the Fort Dix army base, itself influenced by government informants, were anonymous, limiting defense counsel’s ability to screen out bias.

Human Rights Watch’s findings call into question the post-9/11 shift taken by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies toward stopping terrorist plots before they occur. While the vast majority of counterterrorism tactics involved are legally authorized, particularly after Congress and successive administrations relaxed restrictions on law enforcement and intelligence agencies for counterterrorism, they suggest that the government’s zeal to protect Americans has in some cases morphed into manufacturing threats.

The report focuses primarily on 27 cases and accordingly stops short of drawing systemic conclusions. It also finds several trials and convictions for “deliberate attempts at terrorism or terrorism financing” that it does not challenge.

The four high-profile domestic plots it found free of government involvement were the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 plot to bomb the New York subway; the attempted Times Square carbombing of 2010; and the 2002 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport’s El Al counter.

But the report is a rare attempt at a critical overview of a system often touted by the Obama administration and civil libertarian groups as a rigorous, capable and just alternative to the military tribunals and indefinite detention advocated by conservative critics. It comes as new pressure mounts on a variety of counterterrorism practices, from the courtroom use of warrantless surveillance to the no-fly list and law enforcement’s “suspicious activity reports” database.

In particular, Human Rights Watch examines the extent and impact of law enforcement’s use of terrorism informants, who can both steer people into attempted acts of violence and chill religious or civic behaviour in the communities they penetrate.

Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, a social services agency, told the Guardian she almost has a “radar for informants” sent to infiltrate her Brooklyn community.

While the FBI has long relied on confidential informants to alert them to criminal activity, for terrorism cases informants insert themselves into Muslim mosques, businesses and community gatherings and can cajole people toward a plot “who perhaps would never have participated in a terrorist act on their own initiative”, the study found.

Many trade information for cash. The FBI in 2008 estimated it had 15,000 paid informants. About 30% of post-9/11 terrorism cases are considered sting operations in which informants played an “active role” in incubating plots leading to arrest, according to studies cited in the Human Rights Watch report. Among those roles are making comments “that appeared designed to inflame the targets” on “politically sensitive” subjects, and pushing operations forward if a target’s “opinions were deemed sufficiently troubling”.

Entrapment, the subject of much FBI criticism over the years, is difficult to prove in court. The burden is on a defendant to show he or she was not “predisposed” to commit a violent act, even if induced by a government agent. Human Rights Watch observes that standard focuses attention “not on the crime, but on the nature of the subject”, often against a backdrop where “inflammatory stereotypes and highly charged characterizations of Islam and foreigners often prevail”.

Among the informants themselves there is less ambiguity. “It is all about entrapment,” Craig Monteilh, one such former FBI informant tasked with mosque infiltration, told the Guardian in 2012.

Informants, the study found, sometimes overcome their targets’ stated objections to engage in terrorism. A man convicted in 2006 of attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan told an informant who concocted the plot he would have to check with his mother and was uncomfortable planting the bombs himself. One member of the “Newburgh Four” plot to attack synagogues and military planes – whose case is the subject of an HBO documentary airing on Monday – told his informant “maybe my mission hasn’t come yet”.

Once in court, terrorism cases receive evidentiary and pre-trial leeway rarely afforded to non-terrorism cases. A federal judge in Virginia permitted into evidence statements made by a defendant while in a Saudi jail in which the defendant, Amed Omar Abu Ali, alleged torture, a longstanding practice in Saudi Arabia. The evidence formed the basis for a conviction, and eventually a life sentence, for conspiracy to assassinate George W Bush. Mohammed Warsame, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, was held in solitary confinement for five years before his trial.

Another implication of the law-enforcement tactics cited the report is a deepening alienation of American Muslims from a government that publicly insists it needs their support to head off extremism but secretly deploys informants to infiltrate mosques and community centers.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism inspired by violent jihadists is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family,” Obama said in a high-profile 2013 speech.

Yet the Obama administration has needed to purge Islamophobic training materials from FBI counterterrorism, which sparked deep suspicion in US Muslim communities. It is now conducting a review of similar material in the intelligence community after a document leaked by Edward Snowden used the slur “Mohammed Raghead” as a placeholder for Muslims.

The post Government Agents ‘Directly Involved’ In US Terror Plots appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

To write about Mike requires the tranquility of recollection but at the moment, all is turmoil.

Mike, you told us, “Evolve or perish.” Yet in Apocalypse Man you merged them, speaking of death as the ultimate evolution. One day we’ll all find out whether that is, in fact, the case but it’s not the message you used to impart!

Among the emails that have tumbled in this evening is a wonderful link which is sorely needed at such a time: Hope and Courage http://www.oilempire.us/hope.html. Accompanying it, the following quote from Thomas Keneally’s Schindler’s List:

“Where’s the electric fence?” Clara asked the woman. To her distraught mind, it was a reasonable question to ask, and Clara had no doubt that the friend, if she had any sisterly feeling, would point the exact way to the wires. The answer the woman gave was just as crazed, but it was one that had a fixed point of view, a
balance, a perversely sane core.

“Don’t kill yourself on the fence, Clara,” the woman urged her. “If you do that, you’ll never know what happened to you.”

It has always been the most powerful of answers to give to the intending suicide. Kill yourself and you’ll never find out how the plot ends. Clara did not have any vivid interest in the plot. But somehow the answer was adequate. She turned around. When she got back to her barracks, she felt more troubled than when she’d set out to look for the fence. But her Cracow friend had — by her reply — somehow cut her off from suicide as an option. LINK

****

The hardest part of this, for me, is that everything I did with or for Mike was in an effort to prevent this day from ever happening. CollapseNet was literally formed to provide a means for Mike to make a living. In doing so, he was brought back into a world of despair that he thought he had retired from. He absorbed the pain of the world on a daily basis until he could not take it any longer, and he left CollapseNet when it got to be too much. But that pain kept following him, and there is nothing that anyone could do about it for him.

He told me many times that Jenna saved his life after Venezuela. I reached out to him in 2009 to help resurrect his career and his honor, and help get him back on his feet again. I know his death is not on me, but I still can’t help feeling, unlike his experience with Jenna, that I failed…or that by “helping” him, it merely brought him back on his path of self-destruction.

My grandfather once told me, “Never mourn the death of a fool,” and suicide has always fit into that category to me. But not this time…this time, it just really fucking hurts.

I’m so sorry you’re gone, Mike. I hope you are finally at peace, and one with Gaia.

Wes

The post Michael Ruppert Has Died appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

An analysis of health data collected through the World Trade Center Health Program of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan’s Upper East Side, has found cancer incidence rates statistically higher than expected among World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers.

Elevations were found for cancers in all areas of the the human body combined, as well as for specific cancers that attack the thyroid, prostate, blood, lymphoid and soft tissues.

The research found cancer rates were the highest in those highly-exposed responders trapped in the dust cloud that resulted when the World Trade Center towers collapsed or who worked a significant number of days at the WTC site, otherwise known as Ground Zero.

The study, “Cancer Incidence in World Trade Center Rescue and Recovery Workers, 2001-2008,” was founded on self-reported health information, along with follow-up medical testing data from 20,984 consenting participants in the WTC Health Program.

A total 575 cancers were diagnosed in 552 individuals.

Released online April 23 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the findings were in agreement with previous research on firefighters conducted by the New York City Fire Department and with research on New York City residents conducted by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s WTC Health Registry.

But, while “previous studies have looked at cancer incidence rates after September 11,” they overlooked the linkages between time, place and levels of exposure, said study co-author Philip Landrigan, MD. “This study is significant because for the first time it examines associations between several types of cancers in a specific population – WTC rescue and recovery workers – and levels of exposure to the dust on the debris pile in lower Manhattan.”

Cancers among the 20,984 consenting participants in the WTC Health Program were identified through state tumor registries in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.

Standardized incidence rates were calculated to compare cancers diagnosed in responders to predicted numbers for the general population.
“The findings of this study, while significant, should be interpreted with caution given the short follow-up and long latency period for most cancers,” said corresponding study author Samara Solan, MD, an Instructor of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine. “However, our findings strongly highlight the need for continued follow-up and medical surveillance of WTC responders.”

The World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program stands as the federal government’s principal public health response to 9/11 and continues to coordinate the NY-NJ Consortium of occupational medicine providers of program services.

With funding from the federal government, the treatment program offers free and confidential medical and mental health evaluation, long-term monitoring and treatment for eligible WTC rescue, recovery and clean-up workers, including volunteers, who responded to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City.

Since its July 2002 kickoff, the program has medically screened over 30,000 WTC rescue and recovery workers and volunteers in all 50 states.

The post 9/11 Rescuers 15 Percent More Likely To Get Cancer appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The document (PDF), dated Dec. 1, 2001 and delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”

Despite this briefing, just days later on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told the late Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, that the meeting in Prague had been “pretty well confirmed.”

Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don’t know at this point. But that’s clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

Cheney’s claim was one of the strongest rhetorical links between the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and Iraq in the administration’s arguments for war, even though it was refuted by the CIA more than once. The initial allegation reportedly came from misinformed Czech intelligence agents, and almost became part of a 2003 speech by the president — a plan that was scrapped after the CIA station in Prague issued a still-classified cable insisting that it was not true.

Even after the CIA had again refuted the link between Iraq and the 9/11 hijacker, Cheney still repeated it during a Sept. 2003 appearance on Meet the Press. Shortly after Russert confronted him with polling that showed as much as 69 percent of Americans believed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney responded:

With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

The problem with that now appears to be that the vice president did know the intelligence was bogus, but continued repeating it to support his argument for war. No link was ever established between the Iraqi regime and the attacks of Sept. 11.

Despite insisting publicly that no deal had been made to invade Iraq in the run-up to war, notes from aides to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which were subsequently handed to reporters, showed that he directed the Pentagon to draw up invasion plans on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001.

A survey conducted in Sept. of last year (PDF) by the University of Maryland found that at least 38 percent of Americans still believe the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda.” An additional 15 percent still believe Iraq was “directly involved in carrying out” the Sept. 11 attacks.

The post Dick Cheney Lied About Iraq Connection To 9/11 Attacks appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The revelation is the latest twist in an increasingly bizarre story about the disruption of an apparent attempt by al-Qaida to strike at a high-profile American target using a sophisticated device hidden in the clothing of an attacker.

The plot, which the White House said on Monday had involved the seizing of an underwear bomb by authorities in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 days, had caused alarm throughout the US.

It has also been linked to a suspected US drone strike in Yemen where two Yemeni members of al-Qaida were killed by a missile attack on their car on Sunday, one of them a senior militant, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso.

But the news that the individual at the heart of the bomb plot was in fact an informer for US intelligence is likely to raise just as many questions as it answers.

Citing US and Yemeni officials, Associated Press reported that the unnamed informant was working under cover for the Saudis and the CIA when he was given the bomb, which was of a new non-metallic type aimed at getting past airport security.

The informant then turned the device over to his handlers and has left Yemen, the officials told the news agency. The LA Times, which first broke the news that the plot had been a “sting operation”, said that the bomb plan had also provided the intelligence leads that allowed the strike on Quso.

Earlier John Brennan, Barack Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser and a former CIA official, told ABC’s Good Morning America that authorities are “confident that neither the device nor the intended user of this device pose a threat to us”.

US officials have said the plot was detected in its early stages and that no American airliner was ever at risk.

The FBI is conducting forensic tests on the bomb as a first step towards discovering whether it would have cleared existing airport scanning systems. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator for California who heads the Senate intelligence committee, gave an early hint when she said that she had been briefed about the device which she called “undetectable”.

But AP quoted an unnamed US official as saying current detection methods probably would have spotted the shape of the explosive in the latest device.

Just how major an escalation in threat is posed by the bomb remains unclear. Security sources have told news agencies that it was a step up in levels of sophistication from the original underwear bomb that was used in a failed attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.

The device used a more refined detonation system, and Brennan said “it was a threat from a standpoint of the design”.

When it comes to who made the device the focus is on an al-Qaida’s offshoot, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Matthew Levitt, a counter-terrorism expert at the Washington Institute, said that the interception of the plot amounted to a significant achievement for US security agencies.

He said: “The FBI is holding the device, which suggests that this was done by having boots on the ground. This was a sophisticated operation that shows we are making in-roads in serious places.”

Levitt, who was involved as a senior analyst in the FBI’s investigation into 9/11, said that it was natural to be sceptical in a presidential election year about security announcements. “But this was not political, it didn’t come from the White House and my sense was that it was a really unique success,” he said.

Levitt said that the spotlight would now be even more intense on Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, AQAP’s assumed bomb-making chief, who is thought to be hiding out in Yemen.

Asiri is believed to have been the creator of the Detroit underwear bomb as well as explosives that were packed into printer cartridges bound for Chicago in 2010.

The post 'Underwear Bomber' Was Working for the CIA appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Edmonds, once a contract linguist at the bureau, was fired a decade ago after complaining to FBI managers about shoddy wiretap translations and alleging that an interpreter with a relative at a foreign embassy might have compromised national security by blocking translations in some cases and notifying targets of FBI surveillance.

Edmonds sued for unlawful termination, but Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped her lawsuit by invoking the state secrets privilege. He said her claims might expose government secrets that could damage national security.

Attorney Stephen Kohn said his client’s book, “Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story,” contains no classified information, yet has been under review by the bureau for the past year. Bureau regulations promise reviews will take only 30 working days. In all, reviews can cover a dozen different factors, which may significantly delay the 30-day limit, said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson.

Kohn said the bureau’s interpretation of its legal responsibility has gone far beyond classified information.

The lawyer cites language in a Feb. 7 FBI letter that says the matters Edmonds writes about involve “many equities, some of which may implicate information that is classified.” Kohn also cites a non-disclosure agreement Edmonds signed that says the agreement is intended to prevent disclosure that would be “contrary to the law, regulation or public policy.”

In response, the bureau’s public affairs office pointed to the FBI website, which says the job of the bureau’s prepublication review office is to ensure that FBI personnel safeguard “sensitive and classified information” from unauthorized disclosure. The website says the obligation to safeguard is based on “statutes, regulations, access and employment agreements, contractual clauses and the fiduciary relationships into which employees or contractor personnel enter.”

Kohn says there are numerous court decisions which have held that prepublication review only can be used for secret and classified information.

“What this says is that Sibel Edmonds — and possibly countless other thousands of FBI employees and contractors — sign an agreement to have documentation censored if the FBI director thinks it’s contrary to public policy,” said Kohn.

______________________________________

PRESS RELEASE From the National Whistleblower’s Center:

Washington, D.C. April 10, 2012. Today, the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) revealed that the FBI required employees to sign employment contracts that are illegal under Federal law. The NWC launched the investigation in response to a nearly yearlong campaign by the FBI to prevent the publication of whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ new book, Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story.

On April 26, 2011, Ms. Edmonds followed official procedure and submitted her manuscript to the FBI for pre-publication clearance. Under the terms of her employment agreement and controlling regulations, the FBI was required to review and approve the submission within thirty (30) days. Instead of complying with the law, the FBI intentionally stalled the approval process for over 341 days and has still refused to “clear” the book for publication.

…

The NWC is also releasing documentation confirming that the FBI required employees, including Ms. Edmonds, to sign the illegal contracts that allowed the FBI to censor issues of “public policy” it found embarrassing.  According to Ms. Edmonds attorney, Stephen M. Kohn, “the controlling law strictly limits government’s ability to censor its employees. Agencies like the FBI may require pre-publication review of its employees’ writings, but may only censor classified or secret information.  The government may not censor books or other writings on ‘policy’ grounds.  The FBI’s employment contract with Ms. Edmonds is overreaching and illegal.”

Additional documents demonstrate that the agency acted illegally to prevent Ms. Edmonds from publishing a manuscript that might embarrass the agency.

The book in question, Classified Woman: The Sibel Edmonds Story, discusses Ms. Edmonds’s experience as an FBI Language Specialist who discovered and blew the whistle on serious security breaches and cover-ups at the Washington Field Office. The FBI fired Ms. Edmonds for making protected disclosures about the misconduct she observed and later invoked the “state’s secret” privilege to suppress her story.

An independent investigation by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General confirmed her allegations and the illegality of her termination. However, the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege in 2002 in order to have Ms. Edmonds’ whistleblower claims dismissed and to protect the government from embarrassment.

In recognition of her work to expose intelligence failures, Ms. Edmonds received the 2006 First Amendment Award, presented by the PEN American Center and Newman’s Own.

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, also stated:

The FBI must stop harassing Sibel Edmonds. The law is crystal clear on the government’s ability to censor federal employees and contractors. When reviewing their writings, the government has the single ability to strike classified or secret information. The government may not censor a book based on “policy.” Here, the FBI has invented new powers for itself, violating the Constitution. Congress should investigate all employment agreements drafted by the FBI to ensure that they are legal and not designed to censor speech protected under the First Amendment.

Sibel Edmonds’ website

Classified Woman on Amazon

The post FBI Blocks 9/11 Whistleblower's Book appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan.

Lawyers for the Saudis, who have already moved to have the affidavits thrown out of court, declined to comment on the assertions by Mr. Graham and Mr. Kerrey. “The case is in active litigation, and I can’t say anything,” said Michael K. Kellogg, a Washington lawyer for the Saudis.

Officials at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, who have emphatically denied any connection to the attacks in the past, did not respond Wednesday to requests for comment.

The Saudis are seeking to have the case dismissed in part because they say American inquiries — including those in which Mr. Graham and Mr. Kerrey took part — have essentially exonerated them. A recent court filing by the Saudis prominently cited the 9/11 Commission’s “exhaustive” final report, which “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi individuals funded” Al Qaeda.

But Mr. Kerrey and Mr. Graham said that the findings should not be seen as an exoneration and that many important questions about the Saudis’ role had never been fully examined, partly because their panels simply did not have the time or resources given their wider scope.

Terry Strada of New Vernon, N.J., whose husband died in the World Trade Center, said it was “so absurd that it’s laughable” for the Saudis to claim that the federal inquiries had exonerated them.

Unanswered questions include the work of a number of Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to Al Qaeda, as well as the role of a Saudi citizen living in San Diego at the time of the attacks, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had ties to two of the hijackers and to Saudi officials, Mr. Graham said in his affidavit.

Still, Washington has continued to stand behind Saudi Arabia publicly, with the Justice Department joining the kingdom in trying to have the lawsuits thrown out of court on the grounds that the Saudis are protected by international immunity.

State Department officials did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday on the impact of the court declarations.

The senators’ assertions “might inject some temporary strain or awkwardness at a diplomatic level,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, a senior national security official in the George W. Bush administration. Even so, he said, “the United States and the Saudis have developed strong counterterrorism cooperation over the last decade, and that relationship will not be undermined.”

The post Two Ex-Senators Claim Possible Saudi 9/11 Role appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Foreword by Cindy Sheehan

After years of profound involvement in the US antiwar movement, I can now sniff out partisan political frauds, and the author of this memoir, Jon Gold, is not one of them.

A partisan political fraud latches on to an issue or cause or cause celebré until that thing or person is not popular anymore, then he/she bails out at the first opportunity.

A person who really cares about humanity realizes that the cesspool of partisanship creates and/or fosters the problems for pure political gain. Jon Gold is one of these people.

When people were killed on 9/11, Jon Gold was at first a Fox News-aholic who wanted revenge for those killings―but only because he cared about the people who were killed and their families. Now, through self-education and mentors, whom he generously acknowledges throughout this book―he realized that we were all lied to on 9/11, and he has worked diligently to highlight the truth because he still cares about the people who were killed on that day, their families, and the people who are still being killed because of our country’s reaction to the attack.

My oldest child, Casey, was just one of those victims of the insane response to the attacks on 9/11 and I became famous and infamous because of my protests against the wars and the Bush regime―well, after I became notorious, I began to become literally bombarded by people and their causes because they believed that I had a platform, megaphone, or soapbox to highlight these causes.

Some of those causes were absurd―from the man who was convinced that Stephen King killed John Lennon, and if I would only help him expose that, world peace would ensue (he actually jumped on the hood of my car in Berkeley once) to the man who wanted me to come to Arizona to be a character witness for his friend who was accused of killing a cow. I kid you not!

The most prevalent of these people who bombarded me, though, were the 9/11 “Truthers.” I was harassed all over the world by them and I swear if one more person asked me if I saw Loose Change I was going to forget my pacifism and punch him (it was always a him) in the face. The sad thing about this harassment was that I never believed the so-called official story of 9/11 and would have tended to be an ally to these people, but they were so rude and pushy. And, I didn’t feel that I had the time or the inclination to wade through the stacks of information that they tried to force on me―True Confession time, I left a lot of that material in cabs or garbage cans.

I was sincerely beginning to loathe 9/11 “Truthers” with a passion I reserved for the U.S. Empire. The only thing that saved them from my total loathing was the fact that I realized that they were usually well-meaning and had good intentions, but I was, and still am, turned off by the “hologram,” “laser-beam,” “Israel was totally responsible” crowd that really make the movement seem insane.

I don’t remember when Jon Gold first started messaging me at the MySpace thing, but I remember he began by apologizing for the people in the movement who harassed me mercilessly―which got my attention. Here was a “Truther” (Jon hates that label) that wasn’t attacking me for my “cowardice” in not publicly saying that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Well, of course it was, but I (and neither does anybody else, no matter how sure they seem) know how far inside it went.

Jon Gold never demanded that I watch any movies, (although he helped a very good one get financing), read any books, or publicly announce anything using my platform. Gradually, my anger at the truth movement began to fade and I was able to do things like publicly support NYCCAN and its push for a ballot measure to have a new investigation of 9/11―and I have become friends with others in the movement and, through Jon, met Bob McIlvaine, whose son, Bobby, was killed on 9/11, and has become another tireless activist for justice.

Since our MySpace beginnings, Jon and I have become close friends. We have organized events in DC as members of Peace of the Action (POTA) and even were arrested together in front of the White House and we very romantically shared the first ever “stay away order” from said White House with about four other activists and went on trial for that arrest and were both exonerated.

9/11 truth is still not my “thing,” but because of Jon Gold, I am open to it and don’t have a knee-jerk reaction (which means I used to want to knee any Truther that approached me in the male parts―kidding―I do that sometimes) to anyone in the movement.

Jon is kind of young to be writing a memoir, so this is just Part One of a long and, we all hope, productive career of activism and a life filled with love, justice and peace.

Cindy Sheehan
Vacaville, Ca
February 10, 2012

The post 9/11 Truther: The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

UPDATE: The above was posted about an hour after the GI Files had been announced. It seems relatively minor compared to some of the other items coming out, but still quite interesting and perhaps important. Now, 12 hours later, it’s apparent that the scope of issues involved in the GI Files release will be immense. Spying on activists, insider trading, money laundering, “sexual control” of assets and mind-boggling arrogance and incompetence seem to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Here is the full Wikileaks GI Files press conference, which took place a few hours ago:

Cass Sunstein even gets a mention, in connection to the Bhopal tragedy and cover up, of all things.

RELATED:
Hate Rally at Ground Zero
Who Funds Muslim-Baiting in the US?
With CIA Help, NYPD Moves Covertly in Muslim Areas

The post Stratfor: Imam of "Ground Zero Mosque" is an FBI Asset appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

In October of 2001 the US Army had about 54 drones in its arsenal, however that would change soon after the attacks of 9/11. Some numbers are noted by the Scientific American:

The U.S. Army’s drone armada alone has expanded from 54 drones in October 2001, when U.S. combat operations began in Afghanistan, to more than 4,000 drones performing surveillance, reconnaissance and attack missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (pdf).

There are more than 6,000 of them throughout the U.S. military as a whole, and continued developments promise to make these controversial aircraft—blamed for the deaths of militants as well as citizens—far more intelligent and nimble.

From 54 drones in 2001 to the current 6,000 in-stock, within 10 years of 9/11 the US Army saw a net increase of their drone arsenal by 11,000%.

That was then. This is now:

A new law signed by Obama last week, HR 658, is set to increase the amount of drones in the skies over the USA. The Washington Times has this:

The legislation would order the FAA, before the end of the year, to expedite the process through which it authorizes the use of drones by federal, state and local police and other agencies.

Section 332 of the new FAA legislation also orders the agency to develop a system for licensing commercial drone flights as part of the nation’s air traffic control system by 2015.

The provision in the legislation is the fruit of “a huge push by lawmakers and the defense sector to expand the use of drones” in American airspace, she added.

The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.

Business Insider points out important facts to remember:

This new bill follows up the Army’s January directive to use drone fleets in the U.S. for training missions and “domestic operations.”

And both of these initiatives are mandated in the NDAA (section 1097) that calls for six drone test ranges to be operational within six months of that bills signing December 31.

The commercial drone market would be worth hundreds of millions more if the bill passes.

Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and many other ‘Corporate Partners‘ are poised to profit heavily from the legislation. They are the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International or AUVSI, a conglomerate of ‘defense’ companies that essentially lobbied for and drafted HR 658.

Republic Report highlights the fact that AUVSI doubled its lobbying expenses last year:

In addition, major manufacturers like Northrup Grumman spent tens of millions lobbying last year.

These lobbying expenditures covered the FAA drone expansion law, but also encompassed other military related legislative items, making a more comprehensive look at drone lobby spending more difficult to pin down.

In a separate article, Republic Report reports that AUVSI also bragged in a power-point presentation that:

– Page 6: “the only changes made to the UAS section of the House FAA bill were made at the request of AUVSI. Our suggestions were often taken word-for-word.”

What will the drones be doing in the US? Afterall, 30,000 drones in US airspace is still many thousands more drones than is currently employed to fight wars throughout the World.

In late 2011 MSNBC reported that since 9/11, 30,000,000 cameras have been installed throughout the streets of the US.

Rasmussen Reports released stats that show the approval rating for Congress has slipped to a historic low of 5%.

Obama recently signed the NDAA which allows for the detention of US citizens, without due-process.

Could it be that concerns beyond privacy are reasonable?

The post The Growing 9/11 Drone Army appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.