Shooting the Messenger
by William F. Jasper
July 7, 2008

For six years, Sibel Edmonds has been carrying out an heroic crusade to protect her adopted country from national security threats within the top levels of the American government. Hired as an FBI translator in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, Edmonds, a Turkish American, threw herself into the daunting task of translating thousands of hours of recordings of backlogged intercepts in Turkic, Farsi, and Azerbaijani. What she heard on the tapes was alarming: Turkish agents in the United States bribing high-level U.S. officials and obtaining our military and intelligence secrets. What she witnessed at the FBI was even more appalling: translators who were intentionally filing false translations and passing information to foreign powers; and, what’s even worse, FBI superiors who did nothing about it when these serious breaches were brought to their attention.

Unwilling to settle for the bureaucratic “don’t rock the boat” response she faced from immediate supervisors, Sibel Edmonds decided to take her concerns higher up the FBI chain of command. The result? She was fired, and those she tried to have investigated got off scot-free; some fled the country to avoid potential prosecution, while others continued their alleged criminal and treasonous activities. Some of the FBI colleagues who blocked her efforts were promoted.

How could this be, especially in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when “homeland security” was our number one concern? And especially since FBI Director Robert Mueller had expressly promised that the agency’s notorious penchant for punishing whistle-blowers was now a thing of the past.

In a November 2001 memorandum to all FBI employees, Director Mueller stated: “I will not tolerate reprisals or intimidation by any bureau employee against those who make protected disclosures, nor will I tolerate attempts to prevent employees from making such disclosures.”

However, Director Mueller’s assurances notwithstanding, the case of Sibel Edmonds is Exhibit A in a long line of examples indicating that reprisal and intimidation against whistle-blowers continues to be standard operating procedure at the FBI and other federal agencies. The public may be tempted to wonder: “Well, if the national security compromises Mrs. Edmonds alleges are as grave as she claims, why doesn’t she go the Congress, or the courts, or the media?” She has attempted to do all of that, but has been blocked at every turn by a smothering gag order imposed by the Bush administration under the “State Secrets Privilege.” The gag order not only classified all of Edmonds’ testimony to the 9/11 Commission, to the investigative staffs of congressional committees, and to the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), but even letters by members of Congress requesting information from the executive branch.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sibel Edmonds vs. the Nuclear Terrorists
May 22, 2008
Erik Larson

Sibel Edmonds is a national security whistleblower and senior Senators Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy, and Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine called her a credible witness- much of her testimony was corroborated by others at the FBI. She was hired by the FBI September 21, 2001 as a contract translator, and fired March 26, 2002 after pressing allegations of corruption, espionage and coverup in the FBI’s Translation Unit. Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed “state secrets” privilege in her case and even classified her date of birth. According to the American Civil Liberties Union she’s the most gagged person in US history. Recently, she broke her gag orders; January 2008 the Sunday Times of London published her claims that still-classified FBI investigations uncovered State Department, Congressional and Pentagon officials trafficking in nuclear secrets, obstructing investigations into 9/11 and more. The series was picked up by media around the world, but almost entirely ignored by the US media, and not commented on by the US government. This article summarizes some of her most troubling allegations, and the response of the US government and media.

Since 2002, Sibel Edmonds has been very public with her allegations involving “unclassified” evidence of wrongdoing- these include:

Supervisor Mike Feghali was telling translators to slow down work so they could show Congress a backlog and justify a budget increase. This was right after 9/11 when agents in the field were urgently requesting translations. In addition to new leads about 9/11, one special agent requested retranslation of a document that had been translated before 9/11, thinking that important information may have been missed in the first translation. Retranslation revealed that information had been omitted that referred to building blueprints and pictures being sent overseas, as well as information regarding criminal actions in connection with obtaining VISAs through certain mideast embassies. Feghali decided not to send the new translation to the agent; instead he sent a note saying the original translation had been correct.

Sibel Edmonds discovered that her co-worker, Melek Can Dickerson, was connected with Turkish agents that were targets of FBI investigations, that had spies operating in the State Department and Pentagon who were passing on military and intelligence secrets. Dickerson mistranslated and stamped “not pertinent” hundreds, possibly thousands, of documents and wiretapped conversations related to these investigations, and with the help of Supervisor Mike Feghali, forged signatures on documents and stole hundreds of others from the FBI office.

A 10-year Iranian intelligence asset informed 2 FBI agents and a translator in April 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks on 4-5 US cities, with planes, that some of the people were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months. The translator, Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented the info, and the two agents reported it to Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields by filing “302” forms. Frields did nothing with the information before 9/11, and after 9/11 told them to keep quiet about it. Sarshar reported this incident to the Deparment of Justice Inspector General.

Read the rest of this entry »

4th Amendment: Rest in Peace
By Cindy Sheehan

4th Amendment
b. December 15, 1791
d. June 20, 2008

22/06/08 “ICH” — -

The 4th Amendment to the US constitution is just one more thing that has been murdered since bloody Emperor George took office in 2001: Over 4000 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; over one million Iraqis and Afghanis and many of our brothers and sisters in this country who have been either killed or devastated by catastrophic climate change and other violence that has become rampant.

Among the things that have been murdered in George’s quest to be the emperor of a vast US corporate-military empire are many aspects of our constitution.

The First Amendment has been obliterated with “free speech” zones; the arrests of thousands of activists trying to express their freedom of speech; the destruction of the “freedom of the press” clause began during the Reagan years and it’s untimely demise was hastened during the Clinton regime; the US technically has no state religion, but Christianity has been informally shoved down our throats with the Emperor getting revelations from his demented God that tells him to go on crusades against Muslim countries.

“Torture memos” written by law professors; torture camps; and extreme rendition slaughtered the 8th Amendment that prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment. The Military Commission and Patriot Acts dealt the deathblows to the 8th Amendment.

When Congress gave Emperor George the power to invade sovereign countries without a declaration of war from Congress—the Emperor’s loyal and obedient servants destroyed two clauses of the Constitution: the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, Clause 2) which states the treaties are the “Supreme” law of the land and the enumerated power of Congress to “declare war” (Art. I, Section 8).

Art. II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to remove a criminal administration, but the Queen of the Imperial rubber stamp arm of the empire, Nancy Pelosi, took that clause “Off the table.” When I hear that phrase, I envision a long table with lords and ladies pigging out on a banquet while the peasants starve because justice is not on that table and economic equality is out of the question.

Now, with the new law granting immunity to telecom companies and granting the federal government wide discretionary powers in spying on our communications (which has become far simpler in this electronic day and age), the Imperial rubber stamp arm of the federal government has brutally murdered another of our precious rights: the 4th Amendment which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The centuries old right of habeas corpus which protected us from arbitrary state action through unlawful detention was also destroyed, so the US has returned to pre-Magna Carta “jurisprudence” and not one of us is safe from the arbitrary crimes of the police-empire that has replaced our representative republic.

Even thought the 4th Amendment was 217 years old, it died a violent and untimely death.

I am calling for a memorial service for the 4th Amendment on Tuesday, June 24th. We in San Francisco will be gathering at City Hall at 3pm and having a solemn funeral procession to the Federal building at 3:30 pm. We will then eulogize the 4th Amendment and give it a proper send off. It served us well. Many of our brothers and sisters have never felt its presence, though, even though they have been working for civil rights for generations.

Wear black. We are a nation in mourning for our rule of law.

If you can’t join us in San Francisco, please organize a memorial service of your own.

For more info: call 415-621-5027 or email: – contact@cindyforcongress.org

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.

However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:

WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.”

Read the rest of this entry »

A Totally Lawless Regime

By Paul Craig Roberts

22/06/08 “ICH” — Think about this question: In the 21st century what regime is more lawless than the Bush Regime?

Everyone is entitled to his own answer. The only answer I can come up with is the Zimbabwe regime of Robert Mugabe. Voted out of power in the last election, the great man hasn’t left. Zimbabweans are going to have to vote again, and the great man has said that any vote that is not for him will be cancelled by a bullet.

Does anyone remember how determined the British and the Americans and everyone else was to turn Rhodesia over to Mugabe in order to save Rhodesia from the evil Ian Smith? What a fool everyone was.

But before we laugh at those fools, we had best laugh at ourselves, or cry.

It is now an incontrovertible fact, known all over the world, that George W. Bush and his regime’s operatives lied through their teeth in order to launch wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the Bush regime is doing the same thing again in hopes of launching an attack on Iran.

There have been a number of memoirs from high ranking Bush appointees who cannot stand all the lies. Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, told us that an invasion of Iraq was on the agenda prior to 9/11. There is the leaked Downing Street Memo in which the head of British Intelligence told the British Prime Minister and his cabinet that the Americans have decided to attack Iraq and are creating the “intelligence” to justify the attack.

And now we have the White House’s own spokesman from 2003-2006, Scot McClellen, ratifying what we already knew, that President Bush deceived us and led us into war based entirely on lies and fabrications, and that he, Scott McClellen, was deceived into issuing a false public denial that top Cheney aide Scooter Libby and White House operative Karl Rove were involved in committing a felony under US law by revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.

As a consequence of Bush’s lies, there are a million dead Iraqis, mostly women and children, and four million displaced Iraqis, 4,100 dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of seriously wounded. No one knows how many dead in Afghanistan. And there is the ongoing Israeli slaughter of Palestinians and Lebanese that has fallen under the rubric of the “war on terror.”

Read the rest of this entry »

McCain Campaign Hopes For Terror Attack To Swing Vote
More dead Americans on U.S. soil would be “big advantage” says top strategist
by Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 23, 2008

Top McCain strategist Charlie Black tells Fortune Magazine that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would aid the Arizona Senator to overturn Barack Obama’s lead and be a “big advantage” in helping him become President.

In an article entitled The evolution of John McCain, Black notes that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December “helped” the McCain campaign because it gave the Senator an opportunity to grandstand as a tough would-be Commander-in-Chief.

Black then brazenly points out that another 9/11-style attack would give the McCain campaign the boost it needs to claw back Barack Obama’s estimated 7 per cent lead over the Senator.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an “unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

In response to the comments, CNN’s Jack Cafferty today asked his audience if Black should be fired.

“Who says this stuff? Black has already come under fire for his work on behalf of an international assortment of goons, thugs, autocrats, and dictators… from whom he took tons of money in exchange for arranging access to the power corridors of Washington. Black has resigned from his work as a lobbyist,” writes Cafferty.

“Here’s my question to you: Should McCain adviser Charlie Black be fired for saying a terrorist attack would help McCain’s chances?”

Black’s comments follow a lineage of outrageous statements on behalf of Neo-Cons and administration officials who yearn for terror as a means of entrenching political power.

In a Washington Times report last month, national intelligence spooks all but promised that history would be repeated for a third time running, and the new President of the United States will be welcomed into office by a terror attack that will occur within the first year of his tenure.

In addition, shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.

Numerous Neo-Con’s morbid fascination and bloodlust for terror attacks and dead Americans to rescue their flagging political agenda has spilled out in public statements over the last year.

The real terrorists are coming out of the closet as they can no longer conceal their desire to see more carnage in U.S. cities.

The latest example was former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who during a Long Island bookstore appearance stated, “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ‘Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.”

In August last year Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky openly called for “another 9/11″ that “would help America” restore a “community of outrage and national resolve”.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star last July that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

Also in July 2007, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of “unfortunate events,” namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen’s perception of the war.

And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

Also See: McCain strategist: Terrorist attack ‘would be a big advantage’ in election (Raw Story)

Scott Horton Interviews Sibel Edmonds and Luke Ryland
June 15th, 2008

Sibel Edmonds and Luke Ryland discuss the London Times series on her case and the international nuclear black-market network surrounding A.Q. Kahn, the U.S. government’s total clamp-down by gag orders even against Congress, the American foreign policy hypocrisy of demonizing certain nuclear ambitions and supporting others, the military-industrial-congressional complex revolving door, the bipartisan lack of enthusiasm in pursuing whistleblower cases, the movie about Sibel’s case “Kill The Messenger,” and how it only takes one congressman to call her to testify to blow the case wide open.

“The Congress has everything it needs to

MP3 here: http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_06_12_edmonds_ryland.mp3

Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in United States History and Luke Ryland is a blogger who has closely followed her case.

Source URL: http://antiwar.com/radio/page/4/

Ex-Giant ends cross-country walk for 9/11 relief
Associated Press
June 21, 2008

SAN DIEGO (AP) – Ex-New York Giants lineman George Martin went through 24 pairs of shoes and lost 40 pounds before finishing his cross-country walk Saturday, raising $2 million along the way for sick 9/11 rescue workers.

Martin ended his nine-month, 3,003-mile trek at Embarcadero Park, where he was met by police officers, firefighters and other NFL alumni.

“I feel like a million bucks,” Martin said. “Other than a blister that I have on my left foot, I’m in great shape.”

The co-captain of the 1987 Super Bowl champions said he considered it a privilege to walk on behalf of the 9/11 first responders. He called them far more heroic than any professional athlete.

“What they did on that day, I could never do in a million years,” Martin said.

He began the walk in New York on Sept. 16 to draw attention to the plight of rescue and recovery workers who developed respiratory problems after working in the dusty ruins of the World Trade Center.

“These heroes need our collective support,” Martin said in a statement. “Many who answered our nation’s call for help now cannot even walk up the steps in their own homes due to severe respiratory and other ailments. Some are dying. They deserve our help.”

The trip began on the George Washington Bridge in Manhattan to Hackensack, N.J., on his way to a halftime appearance at Giants Stadium. Martin walked south to Tennessee, west through Texas and across the high plains and desert to California.

He trudged through rainstorms, winter ice and brutal heat, and the trip took five months longer than expected. He averaged 22 miles per day and burned through 80 pairs of socks.

Martin, who played 14 years in the NFL, is an executive at the financial services firm AXA Equitable. He lives in New Jersey.

The walk wasn’t without hitches. Strong headwind forced him to walk some parts of his route backward, from west to east, because it was too exhausting.

“While this has been a difficult undertaking, it has also been wonderful to see our nation on foot while raising awareness about the plight of these 9/11 workers,” Martin said.

He originally planned to reach the Golden Gate Bridge, but adjusted his route to finish in San Diego.

Gov’t says FBI agents can’t testify about 9/11
The Associated Press

June 19, 2008 NEW YORK: Government lawyers say the ongoing investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks could be compromised if the airline industry is allowed to seek more information from the FBI to defend itself against lawsuits brought by terrorism victims.

In papers filed late Tuesday, the government urged a judge to block aviation companies from interviewing five FBI employees who the companies say will help them prove the government withheld key information before the 2001 attacks.

The lawyers said it would be impossible to interview the employees without disclosing classified or privileged material that could “cause serious damage to national security and interfere with pending law enforcement proceedings.”

“The harm described is not hypothetical and cannot be lightly dismissed,” according to the court papers submitted by the office of U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia. “Investigators continue to seek out those parties responsible for the 9/11 attacks who remain at large.”

The largest investigation in FBI history has resulted in 167,000 interviews and more than 155,000 pieces of evidence and involved the pursuit of 500,000 investigative leads, the lawyers wrote.

They said the aviation lawyers were unrealistic to think the investigation would not be compromised if they speak to the FBI employees.

“In fact, it is not possible to disentangle the classified from the unclassified information in the context of a deposition, where open-ended inquiries may elicit responses in which classified or privileged material is intertwined,” they wrote.

So far, the government said, the FBI has turned over more than 33,000 pages of information to the aviation industry lawyers, including more than 10,000 pages of laboratory pictures and related information, witness interviews and descriptions of the hijackers’ weapons.

The airlines and aviation companies are defending themselves against lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for injuries, fatalities, property damage and business losses related to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The companies filed separate lawsuits against the CIA and the FBI last August to force terrorism investigators to tell whether the aviation industry was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the victims of the attacks agreed that the FBI should not be forced to provide more information. They recounted in court papers numerous hijackings and attacks aboard planes before Sept. 11 that they said should have put the airline industry on notice that a disastrous attack could occur.

Victims’ lawyer Donald Migliori said the case was “about one thing and one thing only — the security failures at three of this country’s largest airports that morning.” Terrorists launched the Sept. 11 attacks by hijacking planes from Boston’s Logan International Airport, Washington’s Dulles International Airport and Newark International Airport in New Jersey.

Migliori said the airline industry was “trying to create a smoke screen by suggesting that if the FBI expressed more to the aviation defendants directly then it wouldn’t have happened.” He said the victims were eager to go to trial.

“We want these families in the courtroom so they can move on with their lives and get answers,” he said.

A lawyer for the airline industry did not immediately return a phone message for comment Wednesday.

Source URL: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/19/america/Sept-11-Lawsuits.php

911 Prediction Revealed at Lindauer Hearing in NYC

Thursday, 19 June 2008, 12:08 am
by Michael Collins

This was Lindauer’s first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.

Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the United States. She told him that a “massive” attack would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon. The witness said that she mentioned this in the year 2000, which coincided with the Lockerbie trial. And then in 2001, Lindauer also mentioned the anticipated attack in the spring, 2001 and then August 2001. Godfrey said, at that time, Lindauer thought an attack was “imminent” and that it would complete what was started in the 1993 bombing (the original World Trade Center bombing).

After the hearing, Lindauer elaborated that this extreme threat scenario was done in concert with the man she says was one of her CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who has been associated with U.S. intelligence.

Federal prosecutor Edward O’Callaghan tried to diminish the prediction by asking Godfrey if Lindauer presented this a “prophesy”. Godfrey denied hearing that word mentioned in their conversations. He stated that Lindauer used the term “premonition.” The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey’s testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness. After the hearing, Lindauer said that she’d called the Department of Justice Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 reporting her fears about an attack.

The courtroom where the revelation was made is about a 15 minute walk from the site of the September 11, 2001 attack where the former World Trade Center towers once stood.

The Issue of Competency to Stand Trial

After initially evaluating Lindauer, court appointed psychiatrists in New York argued that her clams of innocence and her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusional thinking. However, a Maryland based psychiatrist and two psychotherapists with whom Lindauer visited on a regular basis failed to support the notion of delusions or a debilitating mental illness. Lindauer has told federal authorities continuously that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and she offered to prove that in open court.

Prosecutors typically disparage appeals by defendants to delay or avoid trial based on psychological stress or suffering. This case is an exception. The United States Government is the party delaying the trial based on their claims of Lindauer’s inability to assist in her own defense.

Today’s testimony was limited to what is known as “lay” witnesses. Lindauer’s expert witness, a distinguished psychiatrist and academic, will testify at a July 7, 2008 hearing that she’s competent to stand trial.

Lindauer triggered today’s hearing by refusing to attend court mandated counseling, a court requirement during her periods of release from 11 months of federal detention. In a recent interview in “Scoop,” Lindauer said: “Since August, 2007, I have refused to go back [to court mandated counseling]. I told the Court the game is over. Go to trial or drop the charges, which are ridiculous anyway. They don’t have a case, and they know it.”

More Testimony by Dr. Godfrey and Kelly O’Meara

Dr. Godfrey’s testimony contained some other elements of note. Lindauer’s defense attorney, Brian Shaughnessy of Washington, DC, asked about Lindauer’s personality and behavior. He said that she was “mercurial,” subject to periods of joy and sadness in response to the events that she experienced. He also testified that he’d never seen her as having any mental impediments.

Kelly O’Meara was also called to the stand in Lindauer’s behalf. O’Meara served as a senior congressional staffer for over two decades. She did investigative work for members of Congress on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash on Long Island Sound in 1996. She’s a former investigative reporter for Insight Magazine and the Washington Times and author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, a recent book on the dangers of psychiatric medication.

When examined by the prosecution, O’Meara said that she had no reason to believe that Lindauer had a mental disorder. Prosecutor O’Callaghan then asked if she believed that she was qualified to make that judgment. O’Meara responded affirmatively saying that she could read the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders like anybody else and compare behavior with the list of symptoms provided.

Under questioning by defense attorney Shaughnessy, the witness described an after-work group that met every Thursday over a number of years at Capitol Hill’s Hunan Restaurant. This group included Lindauer, ‘O’Meara, and lobbyists and staffers who enjoyed talking politics and having a refreshment at the end of the day. O’Meara focused on her long term close friendship with Paul Hoven, who is described by Lindauer as an intelligence operative and one of her handlers.

The O’Meara-Hoven relationship included regular meetings over several years and frequent phone calls. O’Meara mentioned that Hoven enjoyed going to dinner at her sister’s home and that she had accompanied Hoven to a shooting visit at the country home of a legendary intelligence figure.

O’Meara was asked if Hoven indicated any relationship with Lindauer. She responded that “I heard about Susan all the time from Paul.” She also described him speaking with her frequently at the Thursday night group at the Capitol Hill restaurant.

O’Meara said that after Lindauer was sent to Carswell federal prison facility, O’Meara got a “strange call” form Hoven during which he said, “Susan’s crazy.” O’Meara said that she’d never heard Hoven make those remarks before Lindauer was sent to the federal prison facility.

Lindauer’s relationship with Hoven is a key part of her defense, with the Thursday night group as one of their frequent points of contact.

On cross examination, prosecutor O’Callaghan asked O’Meara if she would be surprised if Hoven had reported only a very few meetings with her throughout his entire life.

Visibly angry, O’Meara responded by saying, “I would be insulted.”

Defense counsel Shaughnessy produced two witnesses, one a computer science professor and the other a reporter and congressional staffer. Together they provided the framework for Lindauer’s claim that she was a U.S. intelligence asset and “lay” testimony that she did not impress either witness as having any type of mental or emotional problem.

The prosecution presented no lay witnesses.

After the hearing was over, Lindauer spoke to the press. She said, “I’ve been left out to dry” by those in the government who employed her services as an intelligence asset. She described efforts that she made to develop a major contact in Iraq to help with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Lindauer’s next competency hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2008 before Judge Preska.

Previously “Scoop” coverage of the Susan Lindauer case:
American Cassandra: Susan Lindauer’s Story by Michael Collins 17 October 2007
Bush Political Prisoner Gets her Day in Court by Michael Collins June 11, 2008
An Exclusive Interview with Bush Political Prisoner Susan Lindauer by Michael Collins June 2008

Japan Times: Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global

By JOHN SPIRI
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Special to The Japan Times

In a September 2003 article for The Guardian newspaper, Michael Meacher, who served as Tony Blair’s environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003, shocked the establishment by calling the global war on terrorism “bogus.” Even more controversially, he implied that the U.S. government either allowed 9/11 to happen, or played some role in the destruction wrought that day. Besides Meacher, few politicians have publicly questioned America’s official 9/11 narrative — until Diet member Yukihisa Fujita.

In January 2008 Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan, asked the Japanese Parliament and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to explain gaping holes in the official 9/11 story that various groups — including those who call themselves the “911 Truth Movement” — claim to have exposed.

Fujita, along with a growing number of individuals — including European and American politicians — are leading a charge to conduct a thorough, independent investigation of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Three or four years ago I saw some Internet videos like ‘Loose Change’ and ’911 In Plane Site’ and I began to ask questions,” Fujita said in an interview, “but I still couldn’t believe this was done by anyone but al-Qaida.

“Last year I watched more videos and read books written by professor David Ray Griffin (a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont Graduate University who wrote the most famous Truth Movement book, ‘The New Pearl Harbor’) about things such as the collapse of World Trade Center No. 7. This building, which was never hit by an airplane, collapsed straight down. Between the videos showing the way it fell, and the numerous reports of explosions, many are convinced that this building was demolished.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
June 17, 2008,
Information Clearing House
from 911truth.org

While we are remembering Tim Russert and his years as moderator of “Meet the Press,” we would do well to recall his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney at Camp David on September 16, 2001, just five days after the 9/11 attacks.¹ In fact, Cheney himself, during an interview with NBC”s Matt Lauer the morning after Russert died, reminded us of that Camp David interview, saying: “I always, when I think of Tim and think of “Meet the Press,” that’s the show that always comes to mind. . . . It was a remarkable moment in American history.”²

Commenting that he himself “remember[ed] that interview vividly,” Lauer asked: “Anything stand out from that interview?” In his reply, Cheney said: “We went back and reminisced to some extent about what had actually happened on the morning of 9/11. So it was—it was a remarkable moment in my career.”³

It was indeed. In reminiscing about his movements that morning, Cheney contradicted what was to become a crucial element of the account that the 9/11 Commission would give of those movements.

In praising Russert”s tenure on “Meet the Press,” Cheney said: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-”-vis Tim.”⁴

Given Cheney”s appraisal of his interview with Russert as a “remarkable moment” in both American history and Cheney”s own career, we should apply Russert”s method to this interview, reminding ourselves of exactly what Cheney said, then comparing it with what was said about Cheney by the 9/11 Commission.

The Camp David Interview

After discussing with Cheney the US response to the 9/11 attacks, Russert turned to September 11 itself, asking Cheney where he was when he learned of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Replying that he was in his White House office, Cheney said that, after seeing the second attack on television, he convened a meeting in his office with Condoleezza Rice and others, then talked by telephone to President Bush (who was in Florida), discussing the public statement the latter might make. (This call would have needed to take place shortly after Bush left the classroom, which was reportedly at about 9:12,⁵ if it was to help him prepare his address to the nation, which was to be given at 9:30. The New York Times wrote: “[A]t 9:12, [Bush] abruptly retreated [from the classroom], speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.”⁶) Cheney then said:

“While I was there, over the next several minutes, watching developments on the television and as we started to get organized to figure out what to do, my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don’t say “sir” or ask politely. They came in and said, “Sir, we have to leave immediately, and grabbed me and. . .”⁷Russert asked: “Literally grabbed you and moved you?” Cheney replied:

“Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they’re bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it’s a corridor, locked at both ends, and they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.”

After confirming Russert”s supposition that this was Flight 77, Cheney continued:

“And when it entered the danger zone and looked like it was headed for the White House was when they grabbed me and evacuated me to the basement. . . . [O]nce I got down into the shelter, the first thing I did–there’s a secure phone there. First thing I did was pick up the telephone and call the president again, who was still down in Florida, at that point, and strongly urged him to delay his return.”

After discussing that advice in terms of the need to secure “presidential succession,” Cheney continued the narrative about his own movements that day, saying:

“Once I left that immediate shelter, after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went down into what’s called PEOC,⁸ the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta . . . . I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the Secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense.”

After giving still more details, Cheney said: “I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.” Cheney made clear, in other words, that he had everyone and everything he needed in the PEOC to take charge.

He then added: “But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Two New Papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

by Kevin Ryan, Journal of 911 Studies

Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The first is an article by Frank Legge, called “9/11 and Probability Theory”. Here is an excerpt:

“If we compare these two explanations for the collapse of the towers it is immediately apparent that they are different in a particularly significant way: the fire based official explanation is a series of events, like links in a chain, while the explosive based explanation is a parallel set of scientific studies of evidence.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/911andProbabilityTheory17Legge.pdf

The second paper is a letter from Kevin Fenton, entitled “WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered”:

“It is interesting to compare the collapse initiation floor in WTC1 to the central impact floors in terms of three of the main aspects thought to have influenced the collapse: impact damage, jet fuel spilled, and debris available to remove fire insulation.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

Senator Mike Gravel Calls for New Investigation of 9/11, Supports NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative

(New York, NY, June 13, 2008) — On Tuesday, June 17th at 5pm, at Union Square in New York City, former Senator Mike Gravel, speaking on behalf of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, will call for a new and far reaching investigation of the crimes of 9/11. This comes in the wake of several developments which underscore the need for a truly independent, thorough, fact-driven investigation into the events of 9/11. Consider the recent book by NY Times veteran reporter Philip Shenon titled The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation which highlighted the conflicts of interest of Executive Director Philip Zelikow. Consider the book by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton titled Unprecedented in which they stated they were “doomed to fail from the start” and they were lied to by NORAD regarding our absence of air defense. Consider the Articles of Impeachment nos. 33-35 by Dennis Kucinich which list hard evidence showing dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance by the Bush administration. Consider the revelation of the destruction in 2004 of CIA tape recordings of suspects in Guantanamo Bay which were requested by the 9/11 Commission. Consider that Arizona Congresswoman Karen Johnson, who has called attention to the research of physics professor Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage, has called for a new 9/11 investigation. The list goes on and on.

However, Congress nor any other government body aren’t likely to take action. But through the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative the voters of New York City can create the conditions that would lead to the investigation which as many as 84 million Americans desire, according to a CBS/NY Times poll, for the purpose of revealing the mountain of information which was never addressed by the government?s own investigation as well as revealing the many shortcomings and contradictions that exist.

As many as 10,000 NYC voters have already signed the petition to create this public referendum. Many 9/11 family members and first responders also support this campaign. Furthermore, former Naval officer and NSA analyst turned syndicated investigative reporter, Wayne Madsen, has recently voiced his support, stating many current and retired intelligence professionals as well as members of foreign intelligence agencies would testify what they know about 9/11 in the venue provided by this new investigation.

Come hear why the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative is the campaign whose time has come and just why former Senator Gravel supports it. Visit www.nyc911initiative.org for further details.

—————————-
Mike Gravel is a former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska who served two terms from 1969 to 1981, who became nationally known for his forceful attempts to end the draft during the Vietnam War and for having put the Pentagon Papers into the public record in 1971 despite risk to himself.

More recently, he has become a passionate advocate of the National Initiative for Democracy, which refers to proposals within the United States to allow for ballot initiatives at the federal level. In 2006, Gravel began a run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in part to promote those ideas.
—————————-
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO SUPPORT THE NYC 9/11 BALLOT INITIATIVE

If you reside outside of the NYC metro area but know people who live here, please urge them to go to the site, download the petition, and volunteer to collect signatures. Also, we ask everybody to donate a minimum of $25 to help pay for petitioning staff, banners, and literature. The need is now.

MAY 28TH RALLY NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE

Thanks to Luis Bosch, you can now view the Rally for the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, held May 28th on YouTube. The film clips are of Wayne Madsen, William Rodriguez, Sander Hicks, Jesse Richard, Chris Burke (family member), Frank Morales & Les Jamieson. Go to http://www.youtube.com/user/holyodv
In addition, the April 28th Rally for the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative is now on YouTube:
There are now great videos of the last Rally for the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative up on YouTube, thanks to Luis Bosch, a committed activist from Holyoke, Mass. Please view them at http://www.youtube.com/user/holyodv. Hear for yourself where Wayne Madsen reports that he knows people within the NSA that would testify if we were to succeed with this Ballot Initiative and create a new Commission! He also states that people within foreign intelligence agencies would testify! Does anybody need any more incentive than that to support this critical effort? Please go to www.nyc911initiative.org for full details and to donate to help with expenses. And don’t forget to tell the world about this historic action which is the culmination of nearly 7 years of alternative research and activism.

Senator Mike Gravel Calls for New Investigation of 9/11, Supports NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative on Democracy Now!

Petition to Investigate 9/11 Read in Canadian Parliament

On June 10th 2008, Libby Davies, an NDP MP from East Vancouver read our petition (for 9/11 investigation) in Canadian Parliament. Now the petition will be sent to the appropriate minister and they have 45 days to respond.

By DREW NOFTLE
June 13, 2008

Vancouver BC – Rob Duffy, Assistant to Canadian MP Libby Davies, has informed the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society that the petition read in Canadian Parliament last Tuesday regarding the demand for a Canadian Investigation into 9/11 will be handled by none other than Canadian Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day. [1]

Although such a document should likely be placed on the desk of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, perhaps some insight was used when the decision was made to forward this homework assignment to Mr. Day instead.

When we look at the credentials of Mr. Day we can see why this decision was made. Indeed, we see that no other Minister should have such a grand understanding of 9/11 than him. Mr. Day understands intelligence. He is a former CSIS agent himself. CSIS showed Canada it’s impressive counter terrorist abilities by uncovering the Air India Bombing plot in 1985 well before it happened. Unfortunately, they failed to pass this information on to the RCMP (he has worked there too) before it was too late.[2]

Mr. Day is also a former evangelical pastor. Therefore, he knows the need for us to all prepare now for the rapture and how a war with Iran will expedite its arrival. Evangelical Minister and fiction novelist Tim LaHaye used this ideology to win over votes for George W. Bush in 2000, just as Jerry Farwell did for Regean 20 years earlier. [3] In addition, Stockwell Day is also a member of the Fraser Institute. Some of the main goals of the Fraser Institute is to privatize Canada’s cherished health care system and pave the way for pharmaceuticals, as well as promote neo-con thought by sponsoring Kare Rove’s and Zbigniew Bbrezinski’s visits to Canada.

We are sure that Mr. Day (I refrain from using his proper title Honorable as I save this for those who are deserving of such a title, not those who were appointed to it) will do no more than dismiss our demands outright. But we are prepared for this – we will converge on Ottawa Sept. 11th 2008 for a massive rally – www.marchonottawa2008.org – and prepare some long term actions, as Parliament reconvenes Sept. 15th.

Read the rest of this entry »