Whither 9/11 Truth?

A big part of what got this blog started was a sense of alarm over the way that 9/11, the watershed event of our time, has led directly to more than a decade of deterioration of civil liberties and constitutional rights, massive increases of domestic surveillance, vast expansion of militarization of police, normalization of torture and indefinite detention, drone warfare, a procession of military ventures cutting a never-ending swath of death and destruction. The list of outrages is added to daily.

The line from 9/11 to this is uncontested. In a brilliant personal audio essay from 2011, Brett Veinotte of School Sucks podcast looks back to Sept. 10, 2001 and asks us to wonder if we could ever have imagined how the events of the next day would cause our lives to be so devastatingly changed for the worse.
http://schoolsucksproject.com/092-osama-bin-laden-any-questions/

Yet 9/11 itself remains an unsolved crime.

The 9/11 "truth" movement is in tatters, mired in endless debates over the way the towers were destroyed, or whether the hole in the Pentagon was big enough to have been made by a plane.There have been enough conflicting theories put forward to ensure that in mainstream public discourse, no serious discussion of who was really responsible for 9/11 can even get started.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE? Really?

The 9/11 Commission left us with the limited understanding that the largest, most expensive and most technologically advanced defense apparatus in the world failed due to sheer incompetency and negligence, at every level, by every person with any responsibility. Many people then covered up this failure to protect themselves from being embarrassed, discredited or charged with crimes. This is true as far as it goes, as amply outlined in this clip of Senator Mark Dayton. The first 12 minutes are absolutely essential to understanding 9/11 at this most basic level.



It is further essential to acknowledge that the vast scope of this failure is typically not scrutinized in the mainstream media narratives of 9/11. Instead, we are directed to respond in a purely emotional way, focusing on patriotism, on demonizing the evil terrorists, on remembering the victims, and on honoring the heroic individuals who paid the ultimate price to try to save lives in the aftermath of the attack. Of course, they should be honored and remembered with gratitude. But at the same time, we should all stand with the survivors and families of the fallen in expressing our outrage that not one single person was ever held up to be responsible for the intolerable negligence, incompetence and outright dereliction of duty that unquestionably allowed the attacks to happen. Again, Sen. Dayton's speech spells this out quite clearly, but it has been buried, excised from the public discourse.

A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING

If that was as bad as it gets, it would be bad enough. But even this admission of failure is only a distraction from a genuine understanding of our government's actions on 9/11. Fortunately. outside the mainstream, this discussion is very much alive, and with good reason. Credible, sturdy research has been going on for years now, developing into a body of evidence that clearly indicates that the functioning of our government and our national defense were subverted and degraded from the inside, before, during and after the attacks. This evidence is powerful enough that in a fair and just world, a criminal investigation would be launched immediately, targeting specific individuals in various departments of the U.S. government and military.

The research being done on this is detailed, meticulous and thorough. It does not require us to make conclusions about the existence of a conspiracy or its motives, although history gives us ample reason for suspicion.
Ref: Operation Northwoods:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501operationnorthwoods

It is merely to show that contrary to virtually all mainstream narratives, a criminal investigation is indeed warranted, into the involvement of people in our own government in the perpetration of the 9/11 attacks.

THE RESEARCHERS

For diligent, thorough and tireless research, one need look no further than James Corbett of corbettreport.com  His personal awakening to the lies and distortions in the official 9/11 narrative was the direct impetus for him to begin his journey from school teacher to one of the best independent investigators around. On this 12th anniversary he has produced a must-see one-hour video podcast, annotated with tons of links and references:
http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-280-who-was-really-behind-the-911-attacks/
as well as a supplementary article with even more notes and links:
http://www.corbettreport.com/911-truth-and-the-way-forward-starting-a-real-criminal-investigation/

Corbett's November 2012 presentation on the activities of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is mind blowing, especially when one sees how it is merely the tip of the iceberg:



Corbett himself credits the work of Kevin Ryan, a meticulous researcher with an inside connection to 9/11. According to his blog:

Kevin is a chemistry laboratory manager.  Through his work as Site Manager for the environmental testing division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), he began to investigate the tragedy of September 11^th, 2001.  Ryan was fired by UL, in 2004, for publicly asking questions about UL’s testing of the structural materials used to construct the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Again, becoming aware of the problems with the official story led Kevin to becoming a dedicated researcher. His blog, http://digwithin.net/ contains numerous highly detailed research articles. He sees the pieces of a puzzle, all scattered on the ground, and does the hard work of picking up each piece, examining what its purpose is and where it came from, and then seeing how it connects to other pieces. The result, over and over,  is at odds with the official story, and offers credible evidence of criminal activity from within our government and military. His new book is Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects.



Another amazing resource is the 9/11 Information Center, 
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911information
a huge online compendium of documents, news articles, videos and other resources regarding 9/11. This is part of a larger effort by Fred Burks and the WantToKnow.info website team to gather easily verifiable information on many important issues that are too often hidden or marginalized. Their purpose is to help build a better understanding of what is really happening in the world, in order to move forward with helping to make a better world. I applaud them and encourage you to check out the entire amazing WantToKnow site:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/

WHY BOTHER?

At this point, why bother? We should just shrug and move on, right? Who is naive enough to think that anyone with any authority cares enough to take the risk of exposing the secret workings of power in this country? The truth of 9/11 will fade into the conspiracy dustbin of history, along with the Kennedy assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iran-Contra, and so many others. Or perhaps, in another 20 years or so, the information will be gradually leaked out to verify it all, long after anyone could possibly be held accountable or brought to justice.

But we support the work of people like Corbett, Ryan and Burks, because the ideals of equal justice for all are critical to the survival of our society; if our government won't stand up for them, we must do so as individuals. A continuing trend of apathy only emboldens political leadership to further embrace the corrupting power of their positions, to engage in even more secret manipulations and authoritarian policies. We are already living in a nightmarish scenario that is a cross between Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. We can't just live in apathetic acquiescence of such a state of affairs.

Why bother? When we are confronted by events and actions that clearly violate our personal standards of morality or ethical principles, we must speak up. It is not a question of being in the right, or even being victorious in the struggle. One does not always do something based on probability of success, but because it is the only way to be faithful to one's own conscience. You can't force anyone else to agree with you, but you can be true to yourself.


COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.

Obama vs. King: Shameless Hypocrisy

The events of this week have made it easy to see the utter and total hypocrisy of President Obama, as he once again tries to associate himself with Martin Luther King, while at the same time going against everything King stood for. Obama gladly inserted himself into this week's 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington, the one in 1963 where King made his most well known speech. Behind the scenes, Obama was making plans to rain cruise missiles down on Syria.

Obama enjoys being the beneficiary of King's civil rights legacy, but he has no real respect for King. He clumsily quotes King, incorrectly and out of context, to improve his own image. In 2009, Obama was bizarrely given a Nobel Peace Prize after only being in office a few months. In an even more bizarre twist, during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (for which he had done literally nothing to deserve), Obama both cited King as an influence and utterly repudiated him in the same speech. Obama was a hypocrite then and he's a hypocrite now, as he continues to shamelessly pander to King's legacy while preparing to make war on Syria.

The rationale and justifications for this rush to war are themselves shamelessly hypocritical, and I believe should be fiercely opposed, as I discussed on my previous blog post,
"Beating The Drums Of War Again."
http://truth-dots.blogspot.com/2013/08/beating-drums-of-war-again.html

What I am calling Obama out for is doing what so many others have tried to do: to somehow pretend that Martin Luther King's positions on civil rights and economic justice can be separated from his position against war and violence. King made this quite clear in speech after speech that they are inextricably linked. To act otherwise is to demean and diminish his legacy.

I wrote about this more in depth in a post back in 2011,
"Pentagon Celebrates Martin Luther King Day?"
http://truth-dots.blogspot.com/2011/01/pentagon-celebrates-martin-luther-king.html

That post includes a YouTube clip of an amazing appearance by Dr. King on the Mike Douglas show in 1967,  in which he endures unfriendly, confrontational challenges from Douglas and his other guest. King keeps his cool and takes the high road, making brilliant points as he lays out his anti-war position.

Above all, one must always return to this stunning speech MLK gave in 1967.



Absorb what is said, and then decide whether it is time to take your stand against the senseless violence that Obama is about to inflict on not just Syria, but all of us.


COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.

Beating The Drums Of War Again

For twelve years now, we've been conditioned to accept that we're in a state of perpetual war. So is it really much of a surprise to hear the war drums beating again, this time for Syria?

Granted, Assad is a very bad guy, and his government has been one of terrible repression and unconscionable violence against its citizens. But there's always more to the story. Unfortunately, you'll have trouble gleaning the bigger picture from our political leaders and the U.S. news media. Propaganda abounds, its purpose being to obscure the finer points in favor of gross generalities and misconceptions, all presented with intent to provoke anger and fear, which in turn will result in support for military action. Critical analysis by media "journalists" is almost non-existent. What investigative reporting that exists is being systematically stifled by an Obama administration bent on crushing dissent of any kind, through its merciless campaign to criminalize whistleblowing. 

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_whistleblowers/

It is becoming more true than ever that the only information we get about government activities will be coming from official government sources. But that’s OK,  they never lie, right? Oh, wait...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/28-0

KABUKI DANCE

Here's a peek into the way this works. Last week, Fox News Sunday brought on two congressmen, a Republican and a Democrat, to help the public get used to the idea that U.S. military action in Syria is coming.



Republican Senator Corker assured the public that he is certain the Syrian government is indeed responsible for the latest chemical weapons attack, based on his careful analysis of…social media.  Hey that's good enough for me. Who needs an actual investigation?  He also assures us that "we will respond in a surgical way." This of course means cruise missiles, as the other congressman later explains. But hey, so as long as it's surgical, OK?  Nothing could go wrong with that.  He gives a blanket endorsement to the "opposition," and encourages our training of them to be upgraded from covert to "industrial strength."

Host Chris Wallace doesn't question or challenge a single word. In fact he actually admonishes Corker for suggesting that the president wait two weeks until Congress comes back to get approval for military action.  In truth, Wallace is throwing a softball to Corker so Corker can reluctantly admit the president may just have to go ahead without Congress. Oh darn.

This leads to Wallace bringing on Rep. Engel, a Democrat, who takes his cue to increase the urgency factor, saying two times in one minute: "We have to move and we have to move quickly." He thinks the president should go ahead and "get started," and Congress can just show up later and approve it.

Obviously this is what this little pre-scripted show has been leading up to: a bi-partisan expression of support for the president's decision, already made, to act unilaterally to attack Syria, based on insufficient evidence and with zero acknowledgment of conflicting views, and zero interest in considering the deeper context of the situation. Now picture this scenario being repeated in every major distribution TV network, newspaper and magazine.

The real action is behind the scenes, orchestrated in secret by the CIA and their ilk. In front of the cameras, we hear the same hypocritical rhetoric, over and over again, justifying the inflicting of violence on one Middle Eastern country after another. It's almost like they're going down a list...



Just say no. Say no to a course of action that can only lead to the deaths of more Middle Eastern civilians by American hands; a course of action which will most likely lead to the deaths of American soldiers. Don't force any more soldiers' families to sing patriotic songs in order to justify the deaths of their sons and daughters for something that has nothing at all to do with our freedom or security, and everything to do with the self-serving agendas of a privileged few.

HUMANITARIAN HYPOCRISY

Just say no when the government claims it is acting on "humanitarian" grounds. Nothing could be further from the truth, or more hypocritical. The United States has no high ground of humanitarian virtue to stand on, and any attempt to do so must be understood as an attempt to deceive and deflect attention from actual agendas. Do we really need to recite the bloody facts of recent history? Perhaps we do:

1960's, Vietnam - the U.S. deliberately used one of the most toxic chemicals ever created, Agent Orange, a "defoliant," at such high levels that it became a de facto chemical weapon, resulting in the death and maiming of almost a million people, with severe disabling health effects on survivors and horrible birth defects afflicting hundreds of thousands more, including our own soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/29/usa.adrianlevy

1980's, Iraq -  U.S. approved the sale of anthrax, bubonic plague, etc, to Iraq, and later provided Iraq with intelligence support for its campaign to use chemical weapons against Iran, and its own people.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-534798.html
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

2000's, Afghanistan and Iraq - U.S. used napalm, cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium, universally understood to be intolerably cruel and brutal weapons, causing devastating impact on civilian populations.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27-3
http://www.monbiot.com/2005/11/15/war-without-rules/

Is it unfair to blame our current leaders for the sins of the past? Perhaps, or perhaps the past informs us of the necessity to understand just how callous and inhumane our own government can be, and how easily they will lie about it. The past teaches us that we must be highly suspicious and distrustful when our leaders claim to be acting out of benevolent and humanitarian causes.

POLITICAL HYPOCRISY

The U.S is supporting Syrian "rebel" groups that oppose the Assad "regime," even though many of the rebels have openly aligned with Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a.  Al Nusra Front, the most radical and violent group of the rebel coalition, and known to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Al Nusra is a designated terrorist organization. Sounds awfully familiar.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/world/middleeast/us-designates-syrian-al-nusra-front-as-terrorist-group.html

CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS IGNORED

Secretary of State Kerry decisively condemned the Syrian government for the latest attack, even though proof of responsibility has not yet been established. Many other government officials have been rolled out to talk to the press, saying the exact same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So1T1HdDpJw

This completely ignores a mounting body of evidence that the rebels are also in possession of chemical weapons. A U.N. inspector has already stated that pretty conclusively, back in June:
http://www.france24.com/en/20130506-syria-un-del-ponte-chemical-weapons-gas-rebels-assad

The mainstream media are lining up to cheer-lead the push, just as they did in the rush to war with Iraq. Again. isn't this all too damn familiar?
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27-2

You have to go to alternative outlets like Common Dreams to find intelligent, well-informed analysis and commentary providing views contrary to the official line.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27

Sadly, their audience is tiny in comparison to the huge reach of of the mass media.

CONNECT THE DOTS

I know the implication here is provocative: that the rebels, having chemical weapons capability of their own,  would launch an attack that would kill their own people and allow it to be blamed on the Assad government, in order to provoke the U.S and NATO to enter the conflict on the opposition side.  There is the further implication that the U.S. supported this.  Is that too unthinkable, too conspiracy-ish?  Well again, history reminds us of the horrible, tragic consequences if we fail to be suspicious of dramatic events that lead to urgent calls for U.S. "intervention"…




COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.

"Those who cannot remember the past..."

"...are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

It's a tired old saying, isn't it. But the fact is it speaks to the heart of the mess our society is in today: a tragic, pervasive lack of awareness about own history and how it relates to the events of today.

Forty-nine years ago today, on Aug. 7, 1964. U.S President Lyndon Johnson easily persuaded Congress to pass the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution, giving the president broad powers to use military force against North Vietnam. This was in response to reports only five days previous, that American ships had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of North Vietnam. The mainstream media carried the stories provided to them by the government, and the drumbeat for war was pounded. Congress approved the resolution almost unanimously after a mere 10 hours of consideration. The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

The problem? The story of the attack presented to the public, and to Congress, was false, and top leadership knew it at the time. Read the Wikipedia entry for an introduction to how this happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Here's a good quick summary, with commentary by Robert MacNamara, who was secretary of Defense at the time. After reading the Wikipedia, you can see how, all these years later, he is still deliberately obscuring key facts.



The resulting escalation in Vietnam went on for nine more years. It resulted in over 50,000 American troops dead, over 2 million dead Vietnamese, and finally, withdrawal with none of the ostensible objectives being achieved.

Starting to sound familiar? This clip makes the connections for you:



The media has always been a participant in this game, willing to be used to propagate the official line, not bothering to fact-check. The always reliable James Corbett of www.corbettreport.com provides a thorough and meticulously prepared reminder of how this has happened time and again.



Let's throw something else into the mix: Operation Northwoods. From ABC News:

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

And of course Wikipedia has an entry about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Here's a brief clip about it:



If this still sounds too conspiracy theory for you, follow this link
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501operationnorthwoods
for articles, interviews and links to the declassified documents. (Thanks again to www.wanttoknow.info for being such a valuable resource.)

CONNECT THE DOTS
The relevance for us today should be obvious and simple. Based on what is now public knowledge about our government's past actions, we have the right, perhaps even a duty, to regard the words and deeds of our leaders today with intense scrutiny, distrust and suspicion. With history as a guide, it is not hard to see why we think it so likely that we are being misled every step of the way, by people who are pursuing their own self-serving agendas, unrestrained by any ethical boundaries whatsoever. And history also shows us that if we don't reject the lies and demand the truth, the results are certain to be tragic, destructive and futile.


COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.

Boston: Further Along The Wrong Path

The aftermath of the Boston bombing is playing out in the manner of a genuine tragedy - the kind where the tragic end is foreseeable, preventable, but is not foreseen, not prevented. In the last decade we have taken many steps along the wrong path, even though its end point is known and feared. Now we have taken a few big ones.

WHY DID THEY DO IT? 

As always, the media gave us a minute by minute account of every false lead, every wrong turn, every politically motivated leak, every racist or ethnic innuendo, every bit of useless guesswork, surmise and supposition put forth by supposed experts in regard to what motivated the Boston bombers. And yet as far as the public is concerned, the story has coalesced very quickly into one predictable conclusion: Muslim extremists.

There are just a couple problems with going down that road. First, there are already cracks in the case that show prior FBI knowledge of the Boston suspects. As reported in the Wall Street Journal:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed suspected marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of the Russian government, but didn't find evidence of suspicious activity and closed the case, an FBI official said Friday...

...U.S.  counterterrorism officials have in recent years intensified warnings about the homegrown threat, though the threat has gotten less public attention because most of those plots, with the exception of the 2009 Ft.  Hood shooting in Texas, have been disrupted or botched.

What the article fails to mention is how so many of those "homegrown" plots have been enabled, supplied and even created by the FBI through various undercover "sting" operations. So if you want to say that Muslim extremists were behind the Boston bombing, then it would be naive not to be suspicious about FBI involvement in the incident. Here's some links to help understand this totally screwed up situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html

http://www.fox19.com/story/21997600/reality-check-did-the-fbi-know-about-boston-bombing-beforehand 

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-fbi-agents-responsible-for-majority-of-terrorist-plots-in-the-united-states/

For a no-holds-barred commentary with extensive documentation on this, I suggest you read and watch James Corbett's well researched and fully referenced recent piece, "The FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists:"
http://www.corbettreport.com/the-fbi-fosters-funds-and-equips-american-terrorists/

LET'S SAY THEY WERE...

But let's just say for the sake of argument that the perpetrators were indeed Muslim extremists, acting on their own initiative, determined to attack and hurt Americans. If we agree to that, we immediately become trapped in a closed loop in which the only terms of discussion are in the form of extreme jingoism and propaganda. Any attempt at trying to understand to the attackers' motivations as human beings is met with immediate condemnation. (Just ask Tom Brokaw.) And heaven forbid one pursue the perfectly natural desire to compare the suffering of the Boston victims to the victims of violence elsewhere in the world. And don't even think of opening a discussion about the suffering inflicted on innocent Muslim civilians by our own country's military actions. Politicians and media must stay on point: The terrorists (read "Muslims") hate us for our freedoms. They are vile sub-humans who can't be reasoned with. They don't deserve any rights. They should be tortured until they reveal what they know, then they should be killed.

This is shallow, ignorant, heartless and irrational thinking, and should be unacceptable in public discourse. The fact that it actually is mainstream says volumes about how difficult to impossible it is to have a rational exchange of views on this subject. I must admit I am repeatedly astounded at how people who characterize themselves as Christians and/or patriotic Americans will so easily dismiss the values of both their faith and the Constitution when it comes to dealing with Muslims oops, I mean "terrorists."

Jon Stewart has done his usual fine job of thoroughly deconstructing this kind of talk. Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel to ridicule Fox News, because they make such an easy target of themselves. But it is worth doing when such despicable talk goes beyond cable TV and enters the public discourse.



THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY

Another reason it is perilous to blame the Boston attack on Muslim extremists is you have to reckon with the long sordid history of the U.S.involvement in strategic alliances with Muslim extremists, including the very Chechens who are now the newest terror boogeyman. As a result, we have to at least consider the possibility that the Chechens are being set up to be convenient fall guys; or that the attack is blowback resulting from the inevitable failure of such alliances. For an excellent analysis, read this article by former FBI agent and famed whistle blower Collen Rowley:
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/19/chechen-terrorists-and-the-neocons/

And here's some background from the Guardian, from 2004, entitled "The Chechens' American Friends - The Washington neocons' commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia

WHO BENEFITS?

If the facts about the Boston perpetrators and their motivations are now understood as complicated and murky, it seems clear that there have been some definite winners as a result of the Boston attacks.

With almost 12 years gone since 9/11, there have been many steps taken down the road of turning our society into one in which citizens have become acclimated to massive increases in surveillance, increasing operation of government in secrecy, a continual state of external warfare, and increasing militarization of internal law enforcement. We have seen a whole new version of the military-industrial-complex arise: the military-corporate-government-intelligence complex, as documented in the Washington Post's series Top Secret America.

Now, thanks to the attacks in Boston, we see that the public is ready to go a few more steps. Here's what was accomplished, all under the pretext of finding one bad guy:

• Precedent established: locked down an entire big city; achieved universal compliance without it even being mandatory.

• Precedent established: house to house warrant-less searches by fully armed SWAT teams backed up by military style armored vehicles.  Homes invaded, entire families rousted and ejected from their own homes for hours. The intimidation factor ensured that even if one wanted to complain, one would certainly think better of it.

• Universal public support for police action, even after the lockdown and neighborhood searches failed to produce a result. Suspect was found after the lockdown/search action was called off, by a citizen who went out to look at his boat. In fact, the massive manhunt had somehow skipped this street, even though it was within their designated search perimeter. Nevertheless, citizens unanimously praised the police, and when the suspect was finally caught, crowds chanted "USA, USA."

• In light of events, Boston police commissioner Ed Davis called for the city to acquire drones. Little doubt he will get what he wants. Local paper the Boston Herald clarified the inevitability in an editorial entitled "Bring On The Drones:"

"...surveillance drones can be a useful tool for law enforcement, and like it or not they’re coming to a city near you. It is important that their use be restrained, with proper oversight to prevent abuse. But in an emergency situation, there may be no more useful tool."

• New York mayor Bloomberg took the opportunity in a press conference to tell New Yorkers: 

“But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

Anyone with a differing view is given one sentence of coverage, and marginalized as a "civil liberties advocate" or someone with "privacy concerns."

The mainstream media did their part to make sure everyone got the message. For example, the day after the attack, Tom Brokaw helpfully explained that "beginning tomorrow morning, early, there are going to be much tougher security considerations, all across the country, however exhausted we may be by them. We're going to have to learn to live with them, get along, and go forward and not let them bring us to our knees."

And a CBS reporter, gushing with admiration for the cop caught on camera delivering milk to a stranded family, expressed remarkable understanding, saying, "as a mom, I know what that can be like, you know, you're in lockdown, the kids are miserable, you don't have any milk..." Sure, anyone can relate to that...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50145388n

The only public figure that I know of that has been willing to speak out critically about this is Ron Paul, who published a very provocative essay on the subject. Is he just trying to make headlines, or is he perhaps sincerely trying to get people to consider the question, "who benefits?"




COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.

The Slippery Slope Continues

What do you call it when law enforcement agents invade your home, terrorize your family and hold you captive for hours, for what turns out to be no cause? When you find that their actions were pre-approved by a judge? When they refuse to show you any evidence to justify this needless assault on your privacy, your property and your liberty?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article318665/Evidence-for-search-of-Leawood-home-called-flimsy.html

This is the world we live in. The Harte's, a quiet upper-middle-class family from Leawood Kansas, buy hydroponic equipment so they can start growing organic vegetables indoors. But in this insane post-911 paradigm, law enforcement is given carte blanche to respond to minor offenses and even completely innocent behavior as if they were dealing with dangerous terrorists. Local police take notice of the family's activity. Buying hydroponic growing supplies is apparently enough cause to suspect them of growing marijuana. Their home is put under surveillance, their trash sifted. The police extract loose tea leaves from the garbage and wrongly identify them as marijuana. The police conclude that the Harte's are indeed growing the horrible weed. And so, as a result of a police investigation that can only be described as either inept or corrupt, a SWAT team is dispatched, the family's home is raided. The children are forced to watch as their house is torn apart for two hours as their father is forced to lie face down on the floor while an officer of the law stands over him with an AR-15 pointed at his head. The police find nothing illegal growing: only tomatoes and squash. It was just one of a series of raids on that day across two states that was declared a success at the time after police reported confiscating a total of 43 plants and one pound of pot.

http://gardnernews.com/joco-sheriff-participates-in-marijuana-raid-during-440/

The problems here are painfully obvious: they indicate a new paradigm of ever expanding secret surveillance, and militarization of law enforcement, that should make us all re-think what's going on in this country, how we got here and where we are headed. I wrote about this in an earlier blog post, "The Slippery Slope: Surveillance:"

The slippery slope has already become an avalanche. The issue of encroachment on the civil liberties of ordinary citizens is further compounded by the increasingly overt militarization of many police forces, again encouraged and supported by Dept. of Homeland Security, leading directly an increasing frequency of highly aggressive actions by police in response to non-terrorist, even non-criminal situations. Add to that the NSA's vast expansion of its domestic surveillance capacity and the government's insistence that it has the right to operate such programs in secret. This has led to a situation right out of Kafka, in which the Justice Department denies any challenge to the legality of being subjected to surveillance unless the subject can prove the government was spying on him, but that can't be proven because the government classifies that information as secret. 

If an ordinary family could have their life turned upside down by local police over something as trivial as marijuana, what do you think the CIA, FBI, NSA and the rest of the Dept. Homeland Security are capable of? Is there any reason to trust that any of us couldn't be put under surveillance, attacked or imprisoned, based on bogus evidence that more than likely will be politically motivated?

Of course, we live in a fair society. The victims have filed lawsuit against the police, and perhaps they will have their day in court. Justice is wonderful if you can afford it. But what of the many others who have been or will be victimized in similar fashion, but don't have the energy, resources or courage to go up against their own government?

UPDATES:

November 2013: Leawood couple files lawsuit filed over mistaken marijuana raid

December 2014: Leawood couple helps change search warrant law



COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.

The Slippery Slope - Surveillance

The subject matter of this post is intensely provocative, so I have packed it with as many links as possible from recent mainstream sources to help illustrate that the statements made are based on fact, and are happening now. Click on the orange highlighted parts to learn more.

Ever since 9/11/2001, we have been sliding down the slippery slope on the issue of domestic surveillance, towards an ever more pervasive, and invasive, surveillance state. The current scandal over the General Petraeus affair would never have gained the attention it has if the FBI hadn't made use of the vastly expanded powers it has been quietly acquiring over the last eleven years. Before 9-11, we would not have seen a complaint from a well-connected socialite about supposedly harassing e-mails trigger a full-scale cyber-investigation allowing the FBI to hack into private e-mail accounts, read thousands of e-mails and expose personal activity that was neither criminal nor a security risk. But now in today's post-9/11 total surveillance environment, it is problematic to even suggest that the FBI (or the NSA, or the CIA, or your local police department for that matter) ought not to be exercising such power over American citizens.

Under the all-purpose justification of "fighting terrorism," surveillance technologies have been developed and rolled out, like a steamroller, at a rapid pace. Typically, the technology is first introduced for military applications on the battlefield, i.e. not anywhere around here. For example, drones. First, we are shown how successful they are in a war zone at giving the good guys greater ability to detect the bad guys. In the case of drones, they can not only detect but also kill the bad guys, efficiently and safely (for the good guys). The mainstream news media helpfully airs lots of programming/promotion to help us get used to the new technology.



Then, with little fanfare, drones are introduced domestically, for use by government agencies. Of course the purpose of the new technology is at first entirely anti-terrorism, but soon that is expanded to drug dealers, illegal immigrants, search and rescue, and of course, catching cattle rustlers.

From there it trickles down to local law enforcement, and next thing you know, big cities are getting a supply of drones, developed and marketed by military contractors, and often acquired with financial aid from the Department of Homeland Security. Everyone can appreciate how great the drones are at enhancing surveillance of criminals while allowing the officers to remain safe. We are assured that the drones used by local police will not be weaponized, except that it quickly becomes obvious that they will be. They won't be used for spying on citizens, except that they will be.

Again, mainstream news is there, basically passing along press releases from the companies that make the drones, reassuring us that this is all cool stuff that we will love, and don't worry, your privacy concerns are being addressed.



The slippery slope has already become an avalanche. The issue of encroachment on the civil liberties of ordinary citizens is further compounded by the increasingly overt militarization of many police forces, again encouraged and supported by Dept. of Homeland Security, leading directly an increasing frequency of highly aggressive actions by police in response to non-terrorist, even non-criminal situations. Add to that the NSA's vast expansion of its domestic surveillance capacity and the government's insistence that it has the right to operate such programs in secret. This has led to a situation right out of Kafka, in which the Justice Department denies any challenge to the legality of being subjected to surveillance unless the subject can prove the government was spying on him, but that can't be proven because the government classifies that information as secret.

And we haven't even gotten into RFID tracking and fingerprinting of children, cell phone tracking, vehicle tracking, the amassing of biometric databases, and of course the security cameras which seem to be in use everywhere in spite of their dubious value; and the list goes on.

Where are we going with all this? We are now seeing official, taxpayer-funded surveillance and data mining of ordinary citizens expanding to stunning, unprecedented levels. There is not even a pretense anymore of using the terrorism threat to justify such radical departures from what our society used to be.

Who benefits? Who decides? We can only say for certain it is not you or me.

Here comes the typical comment: Why should I care? It doesn't affect me. I have nothing to hide anyway.

Answer: #1: Ask General Petraeus.

Answer #2: Think about someone besides yourself, who feels their privacy is important, and with good reason, say a victim of domestic violence, or a political activist.

Answer #3: Information is power, and power corrupts. We're only part way down this slippery slope. The U.S. is descending into a vast surveillance state in which privacy and civil liberties are disappearing. Do you really want to see us go all the way?

----------------------------------------------------------

Further reading:
Bob Koehler "The Buzzing Wasps"

----------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY, 
or SIGN IN AND START A CONVERSATION!
Your thoughts and questions are are always welcome. Please leave a comment below. You can comment anonymously as a guest, but if you take a moment to register, you'll be able to exchange comments with TruthDots or others, and be notified when people respond to your comment.

SHARE!
Feel free to share this post using any of the buttons below.