That’s what happens when the Government — marching under the deceitful Orwellian banner of Look Forward, Not Backward — demands that its citizens avert their eyes from the crimes of their leaders so that all can be forgotten: the crimes become non-crimes, legitimate acts of political choice, and the criminals become instantly rehabilitated by the message that nothing they did warrants punishment.  That’s the same reason people like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales are defending their torture and illegal spying actions not in a courtroom but in a lush conference of elites in Aspen.

The U.S. Government loves to demand that other countries hold their political leaders accountable for serious crimes, dispensing lectures on the imperatives of the rule of law.  Numerous states bar ordinary convicts from profiting from their crimes with books.  David Hicks, an Australian citizen imprisoned without charges for six years at Cheney’s Guantanamo, just had $10,000 seized by the Australian government in revenue from his book about his time in that prison camp on the ground that he is barred from profiting from his uncharged, unproven crimes.  

By rather stark contrast, Dick Cheney will prance around the next several weeks in the nation’s largest media venues, engaging in civil, Serious debates about whether he was right to invade other countries, torture, and illegally spy on Americans, and will profit greatly by doing so.  There are many factors accounting for his good fortune, the most important of which are the protective shield of immunity bestowed upon him by the current administration and the more generalized American principle that criminal accountability is only for ordinary citizens and other nations’ (unfriendly) rulers.

The post The Fruits of Elite Immunity appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The post Terrorists For The FBI appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

And of course Fox News reported on this:

“Our 2011 Allen & Ginter product will continue Topps’ historic tradition of chronicling heroes both on and off the playing field,” Topps VP, Mark Sapir, said in a statement. “We’re thrilled to announce that this year’s set will include limited edition autographs of our country’s 43rd President, George W. Bush – marking the first time ever that a living President has made their autographs available in a trading card product.”

The limited edition autograph cards feature an image of Bush throwing out the first pitch at Game 3 of the 2001 World Series at Yankee Stadium, just weeks after the 9/11 suicide bombings of the World Trade Center.

Also included are 10 special cards signed in red ink, some with inscriptions next to the former president’s autograph, including “#43” and “U.S.A.”

It is a thoughtful way to remember this, the event that killed thousands of human people and plunged America into a costly, pointless war. Good marketing, Topps.  [Fox News]

The post George W. Bush Shilling Autographed 9/11 Baseball Cards appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

I am not going to get into the “some” reasons for this post; although, I have plenty to say on the subject. Instead, for the purpose of this piece, and for those audiences, I am going to answer the “whys.” Why “some” still question and seek answer(s) and accountability on 9/11.

Why 9/11? Because “they” claim that’s what gives them the right to override our Constitution and all other laws guaranteeing our liberties and privacy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what “they” claim as justification for every one of our many wars.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what “they” say is the reason for us having to be violated, humiliated, groped and fondled for the “privilege” of travel.

Why 9/11? Because that’s when “they” began the illegal eavesdropping of all our communications.

Why 9/11? Because that’s how “they” legitimize excessive secrecy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the excuse “they” use to implement torture and severe human right violations and escape all liabilities.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the rationalization “they” use to expand ‘their’ size and power.

Why 9/11? Because “they” have successfully made it a means to justify many unjustifiable ends.

Why 9/11? Because that holds answers to many questions “they” don’t want you to ask.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the question “they” don’t want ever answered.

Why 9/11? Because maybe that is what “they” really wanted.

Why 9/11? Because “they” should not get away with it.

With all due respect to those who are still not satisfied with my answers to their “why” question, we’ll be publishing articles, podcast interviews and investigative videos on 9/11 and related topics for the next few weeks… or maybe longer. We hope to have those friends as an open-minded and critical thinking audience during our 9/11 coverage here at Boiling Frogs Post.

The post Answers in Absolute for "Why 9/11?" appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The ruling by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York came in a motion by the American Civil Liberties Union that the intelligence agency be held in contempt. Although he ruled against the ACLU motion, the judge applauded the efforts of the ACLU’s legal team for prompting the disclosure of thousands of documents related to detainee treatment.

“What you and your colleagues have done in getting this story to the American public has been extraordinary,” Hellerstein said.

In a rare move, Hellerstein sanctioned the CIA by ordering it to pay attorneys fees for the ACLU.

But he stopped short of holding the spy agency in contempt for the destruction of interrogation tapes.

“Bottom line, we’re in a dangerous world. We need our spies. We also need surveillance,” Hellerstein said.

The tapes were made in 2002 and showed the interrogations of two suspected al Qaeda leaders — Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. According to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, some of the videos showed controversial interrogation techniques including waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

Government officials have said the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 at the orders of Jose Rodriguez, then head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service (NCS), with the approval of NCS lawyers. Then-CIA Director Mike Hayden wrote in a December 2007 staff memo saying the tapes were made as “an internal check” on the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques and the decision to destroy them was made “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquires.”

The tapes had been part of a massive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the ACLU. In 2007, the ACLU moved for contempt and sanctions against the CIA but the case was deferred pending a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor.

The ACLU renewed its motion in February arguing that “high-level CIA officials knowingly flouted their obligations under FOIA and this Court’s orders — apparently with the specific intent of evading the public accountability that FOIA was enacted to ensure,” according to the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

On Monday, ACLU lawyer Lawrence S. Lustberg was back in federal court demanding that the CIA and Rodriguez be held in contempt and sanctioned in the form of attorney’s fees for “brazenly violating” the judge’s orders.

“It’s the invocation of a remedy that has existed literally for centuries — that nobody is above the law,” Lustberg said.

“There has to be accountability in every level of government.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ausa Tara LaMorte told the court that the CIA has turned over documents related to the case and has implemented new protocol regarding the destruction of records. Beyond the new policies within the agency, LaMorte said, the CIA has offered to pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. The contempt citation, LaMorte argued, was unwarranted.

“Every single argument the plaintiffs have made show that they want to exact retribution from the CIA,” said LaMorte.

With Hellerstein’s ruling Monday, details of CIA payment for the ACLU legal fees still have to be worked out.

The post CIA Not in Contempt for Destroying Interrogation Tapes appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Astute followers of American politics might think those items a dog whistle, evoking the worst civil liberties abuses permitted by the USA PATRIOT Act and other “emergency” provisions passed in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001.

They are, in fact, just a few of the powers claimed in an Egyptian “emergency” law passed in 1958, that goes even further than the controversial American security provisions.

The law has been used to keep the country under an officially declared “state of emergency” since the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat in 1981. Prior to that, it had been invoked frequently since 1967, in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli war.

Egyptians have been campaigning against it ever since.

Criticism of the policies escalated again last May, when their parliament extended the government’s emergency powers for another two years.

Authorities promised to limit the law’s application to terrorists and drug traffickers: a promise which human rights advocates called into doubt.

In an unclassified diplomatic cable from the US embassy in Cairo, released by secrets outlet WikiLeaks on Friday, American officials acknowledged the many abuses the law had brought on, from torture to caps on personal expression, limits on public assembly and the seizure of publications.

The cable explains:

— The Emergency Law creates state security courts, which issue verdicts that cannot be appealed, and can only be modified by the president.

— The Emergency Law allows the president broad powers to “place restrictions” on freedom of assembly. Separately, the penal code criminalizes the assembly of 5 or more people in a gathering that could “threaten public order.”

— Over the past two decades, the vast majority of cases where the government has used the Emergency Law have been to target violent Islamist extremist groups such as the Islamic Group and Al-Jihad, and political activity by the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the GOE has also used the Emergency Law in some recent cases to target bloggers and labor demonstrators.

Provisions of the law were used in recent years to arrest members of the country’s minority party, the Muslim Brotherhood. The government has often scapegoated the group as one of their reasons for needing such laws.

Opposition leader and Nobel winner Mohamed ElBaradei, who was placed under house arrest on Friday, had previously suggested they demonize this group simply to perpetuate their enhanced power over the people.

The country was gripped in a series of growing protests since Jan. 25, with tens of thousands of protesters risking their lives to demand President Mubarak, a key US ally, resign power. He’s held the country’s highest office for over three decades.

Torture and brutality in Egypt’s prisons was long known to American officials, another leaked cable revealed Friday.

During murder investigations, police regularly rounded up 40 to 50 suspects and hung them by their arms until they obtained a confession from someone, according to the cable.

Another leaked cable noted that “credible human rights lawyers believe police brutality continues to be a pervasive, daily occurrence in [Egyptian] detention centers, and that [the State Security Investigative Service] has adapted to increased media and blogger focus on police brutality by hiding the abuse and pressuring victims not to bring cases.”

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s National Democratic Party was ostensibly reelected in late 2010 by 83 percent of the popular vote, but many elections observers called the election fraudulent. The Muslim Brotherhood and Wafd, the other opposition party, boycotted the election. Voting in December was hindered by violence in many places around Egypt.

Though Mubarak has been in power over three decades, US Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that he is not a “dictator” and should not resign, in spite of the popular uprising against his regime.

The post Egypt's "Emergency" Powers Mirrored in Post-9/11 USA appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Ernesto Mendez, urged Washington on Tuesday to prosecute offenders as well as senior officials who ordered the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

“The United States has a duty to investigate every act of torture. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen much in the way of accountability,” Mendez told Reuters.

The Argentinean diplomat also said he plans to visit Iraq to investigate what he called a “very widespread practice of torture” of detainees by US-led forces, following the 2003 occupation of the war-torn country.

The new UN expert who, himself, is a victim of prison torture during Argentina’s dictatorship in the 1970s, also plans to visit Guantanamo prison.

Mendez says he wants to conduct his own probe there on condition that US officials allow him to interview prisoners still being held at Guantanamo by the Obama administration.

He also condemned Bush’s comments in his recently published memoir, “Decision Points.”

In his book, Bush confirms that he personally approved a request by CIA agents to use waterboarding and other forms of torture in the interrogation of so-called “terror suspects.” He claims that his decision helped save lives.

Bush’s autobiography, which has been much publicized in the mainstream media, is considered as an attempt to politically resurrect the ex-president’s badly-tainted reputation during his tenure.

This is while many human rights activists believe that Bush is a war criminal who should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Among his crimes are unleashing two wars on Afghanistan and Iraq following the September, 11, 2001 event. The ongoing conflicts have killed over a million Afghan and Iraqi civilians and left nearly 6,000 US soldiers dead.

The unpopular former US leader is also blamed for the torture of hundreds of Iraqis, Afghans and other Muslims in US detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bagram in Afghanistan and Guantanamo in Cuba.

Last week, Amnesty International, stated that the United States must prosecute Bush for torture after a criminal probe into his admissions.

During recent month, the United States’ human rights records have come under scrutiny.

In an unprecedented move two weeks ago, the United Nations Human Rights Council launched an investigation into the country’s rights violations for the first time.

Although the assessment leads to no action, it undermines Washington’s immunity from punishment over torture, continued military trials, detentions and targeted drone killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The post UN Urges Full US Torture Investigation appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

President Barack Obama will have the final word on whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be given a trial or whether the man dubbed the “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks will remain imprisoned without trial indefinitely, the Washington Post reports.

Peter Finn and Anne Kornblut write that conservative opposition to a civilian trial in Manhattan and liberal opposition to a military tribunal are prompting the administration to consider simply not trying Mohammed at all.

The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.

The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.

The Post adds that the White House “has made it clear that President Obama will ultimately make the decision.” If a trial does happen, it won’t be before the next presidential election. And even then a trial would require “a different political environment.”

The report’s assertion that the administration is considering abandoning military tribunals because of “liberal opposition” suggests confusion within the White House on how to proceed with trials of Guantanamo detainees. The administration has seen fit to convict Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen captured in Afghanistan at age 15, in a military tribunal. A plea deal that saw Khadr admit guilt in the murder of a US Army Sgt. Christopher Speer was criticized as a “????.”

Last year, the New York Times reported that Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times while in US custody. A debate has raged back and forth over whether the torture led to any actionable intelligence.

The Post also reports that the White House has effectively given up on shutting down Guantanamo Bay, a key promise in Obama’s presidential campaign.

Administration officials also think that they will probably not secure the funding and legal authority from Congress to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and transfer any remaining detainees to the United States. There are 174 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, down from 241 when Obama took office. Diplomatic efforts continue to reduce that number through the resettlement or repatriation of detainees cleared for transfer by an interagency task force.

But, one official said, “Gitmo is going to remain open for the foreseeable future.”

The post Report: Obama May Deny KSM a Trial appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.