When The S*** Hits the Fan

We Found a Preview of the 28 Redacted Pages — and It’s a 9/11 Game-Changer

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed a document published by the National Archives that appears to offer a glimpse into potentially damning information contained in the so-called ‘missing’ 28 pages concerning the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Those 28 pages are “an entire section within the official report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks … Conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, its 838-page report was published in December 2002.”

Over the past several weeks, discussion has reignited debate over the need to release the redacted section for several reasons — the most striking being a bill to allow the families of 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia over its potential involvement in the attacks. In what cannot be considered a coincidence, also on Tuesday, the Senate voted to approve that exact legislation — called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) — in direct defiance of vows from Pres. Obama that he will summarily veto the bill should it land on his desk.

“I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto,” stated Sen. Charles Schumer on the bill’s passage.

Separate legislation, which coincides with JASTA — S.B. 1471, Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims and Survivors Act of 2015 — would require the president to declassify those currently-redacted pages. This would almost certainly be imperative for JASTA to have the teeth necessary for affected families to pursue justice.

Tuesday’s disclosure from the National Archives appears to show why those families might, indeed, have a justifiable reason to hold the Saudis at least partly responsible for damages — despite its contents only hinting at information potentially contained in the 28 pages.

Former member of the 9/11 Commission, John Lehman, came forward in the past week calling for a new and thorough investigation into Saudi involvement in the attacks. In measured and precise language, Lehman noted that “we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization” — but also stressed “our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

Perhaps, as Lehman suggested, the institution of the Saudi government did not play a role; however, as found in the document in the Times, at least a partial connection already stands.

A shady cast of characters are briefly outlined in the document under the heading, “A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11th attacks” — and simply in context it appears a number of notable associations may have been made.

Omar Al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national, encouraged two of the hijackers to move to the San Diego area where he was located. As the document describes:

“Al-Bayoumi has extensive ties to the Saudi Government and many in the local Muslim community in San Diego believed that he was a Saudi intelligence officer. The FBI believes it is possible that he was an agent of the Saudi government and that he may have been reporting on the local community to Saudi Government officials.”

Osama Bassnan “received considerable funding from Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa, supposedly for his wife’s medical treatments. According to FBI documents, Bassnan is a former employee of the Saudi Government’s Educational Mission in Washington, D.C.”

Though some officials privy to the redacted section have claimed any connection to kingdom officials is tenuous, at best, one solid link already stands. Fahad al-Thumairy, a former diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, associated himself with al-Bayoumi in San Diego before the revocation of his visa and his subsequent return to Saudi Arabia in May 2003.

In fact, the document lists a pilot for the Saudi royal family who ferried Osama bin Laden back and forth between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia during his “exile.” A number of others are listed with less than questionable ties to either the Saudi government, the royal family, or both.

But perhaps most telling are the questions the document appears to be proposing for the investigation — or, more specifically, what seems to be implied in those questions.

“1. How aggressively has the U.S. Government investigated possible ties between the Saudi Government and/or Royal Family and the September 11th attacks?

“2. To what extent have the U.S. Government’s efforts to investigate possible ties between the Saudi Government and/or Royal Family and the September 11th attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?”

On their own, such questions seem basic, obvious, and even mundane as so essential to the investigation to be needless to state — but taken with the details of this outline and the context of what their answers may constitute in those redacted 28 pages, the repercussions become apparent. If, for instance, the U.S. decided not to thoroughly pursue avenues of investigation due to economic interests in Saudi affairs, that would show fealty to another country over the best interests of the victims of those attacks.

Perhaps that murky obstruction is best seen in the document’s discussion of an FBI informant located in San Diego. Buried among other questions, the document asks: “Why did the FBI, Department of Justice, and White House refuse to allow the Joint Inquiry to interview or depose the informant?”

With the firestorm swirling once again around the redacted 28 pages, this basic outline of a document offers a serious glimpse into what might prove to be a fundamental shift in the narrative of 9/11 the U.S. government has spoonfed for over a decade.

As U.S.-Saudi relations have recently deteriorated to an arguable new low, perhaps it remains just a matter of time before we all know the truth.

This article (We Found a Preview of the 28 Redacted Pages — and It’s a 9/11 Game-Changer) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

The #FBI Has 80,000 Documents on #Saudi Ties to 9/11 It Tried to Suppress

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) The classified 28-pages of the 9/11 report have made global headlines lately as a handful of lawmakers battle to release them to the public. Those pages are believed by activists and members of Congress — who have seen them — to expose the role of Saudi Arabia, including government officials, in the terrorist attacks.

But according to a new report based on years of investigative journalism, it turns out there are far more than 28 classified pages on Saudi Arabia and 9/11 — there are 80,000 kept secret by the FBI. And though not all 80,000 are expected to concern the Saudi family — and the FBI insists their investigation of the documents came up empty-handed — journalists, at least one lawmaker, and heavily-redacted documents suggest otherwise.

As the Daily Beast reported, the discovery of the 80,000 pages came when Irish investigative journalists Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan were contacted by an unnamed counterterrorism official in 2011. The reporters were preparing to publish a book on the 10th anniversary of the terror attacks and were told  by the source that a Saudi family who had been living in Sarasota, Florida, prior to the attacks had connections to the attackers. Specifically, they were linked to Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian terrorist widely recognized as the ringleader of the attacks.

The unnamed official’s tip conflicted squarely with the FBI’s prior conclusions on that family. Abdulazzi al-Hiijjii, his wife Anoud, and their three small children lived in an upscale Sarasota community, along with Anoud’s father, Esam Ghazzawi, a financier and interior designer, who owned the home, and Ghazzawai’s American-born wife. The FBI had received multiple calls from the family’s neighbors expressing concerns over erratic behavior. Two weeks before 9/11, they left the house in a huge hurry, leaving dirty diapers and toys strewn about, a fully stocked refrigerator, and three cars in the driveway.

Though the FBI opened an investigation in April 2002, it still insists it never found any significant connection between the family and Atta. The agency acknowledged they had suspected a connection, but “not until after the Tampa field office opened an investigation that claimed to find ‘numerous connections’ between the family and the 9/11 hijackers,” the Daily Beast explained. The 80,000 classified pages in question stemmed from that investigation.

The FBI says “the bureau’s own agents did initially suspect the family was linked to some of the hijackers.” But “on further scrutiny, those connections proved unfounded, officials now say.”

But Summers and Swan contacted Dan Christensen, a veteran Florida reporter, and together they published an exposé on these connections in Sarasota in September 2011. As they reported, following the 9/11 attacks:

“[L]aw enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights — including leader Mohamed Atta — in discoveries never before revealed to the public.”

They were also never revealed to lawmakers. The 2011 story caught the attention of Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who has since led the campaign to release the 28 pages on the Saudi connection, which are said to contain information showing Saudi government officials were involved in orchestrating the attack.

At the time, he said the journalists had “open[ed] the door to a new chapter of investigation as to the depth of the Saudi role in 9/11.” Graham attempted to view some of the documents, and told the Daily Beast (for a forthcoming article) they did show a connection between the family and three hijackers. He was soon after confronted by then-deputy director of the FBI, Sean Joyce. According to Graham, he said, “Basically everything about 9/11 was known and I was wasting my time and I should get a life.”

Christensen filed a Freedom of Information Act request in the hopes of either confirming or refuting their original reporting. Thomas Julin, his lawyer, said the FBI initially denied having any records. When Graham said he was willing to testify he had seen some, the Department of Justice conveniently admitted to having 35 relevant pages. They released them, but they were heavily redacted. In spite of the overt censorship guarding that information, they reportedly still made clear the FBI had suspicions about the family — and that they had found several connections between them and the hijackers. The pages also include the FBI’s dismissals of those suspicions.

U.S. District Court Judge William Zloch, who presided over the Freedom of Information case, was unconvinced and demanded the FBI conduct another search of its records. This time,“the FBI found some additional responsive documents which it produced,” Juline told the Daily Beast. “But it also found 80,266 pages of material in the Tampa Field Office of the FBI which had been marked with the file number for the FBI’s PENTTBOM investigation.”

PENTTBOM was the FBI term for its investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Though the New York Post had previously reported on these 80,000 pages, the DoJ’s small release of documents clarified suspicions. Zloch ordered the FBI to hand over all the documents in May 2014 — and he is still going through them to determine which pages can be released. He has given no indication of when he will be finished.

The Daily Beast explained “Zloch’s task is made all the more painstaking by the strict security rules governing review of classified documents, even for a sitting judge. The files are kept in a secure facility, and he can only remove a portion at a time.”

It remains unclear how many of the 80,000 pages pertain directly to the Tampa FBI field office’s investigation of the family in Sarasota — and their ties to the attackers. Though Christensen says he’s ready to be proven wrong, he believes “those files will reveal the underlying reasons for the FBI’s early suspicions.”

As the Daily Beast laid out:

“The FBI, for instance, says that phone records searches showed no links to the house and the hijackers. Christensen’s confidential source says the opposite is true. If the FBI is right, Christensen asks, then why not just release the information and put the dispute to rest?”

The FBI has attempted to discredit the pages, claiming the agent who filed the first reports on the family and their potential connection to the hijackers was “not a good writer and should not be taken as the last word,” according to Graham. However, that agent was promoted shortly after 9/11, casting doubt on assertions they were incompetent.

In a similar evasion of accountability, President Obama vowed to block a legislative effort to release the 28 pages amid pressure from the Saudi Arabian government, which threatened to remove $750 billion in American assets should the legislation pass. The president cited concerns that allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue a foreign government could, in turn, open the United States government up to prosecution, itself. The White House has since indicated it intends to release part of the 28 pages.

Though Julin says the 28 pages likely aren’t linked to the Sarasota Saudi family, he hopes their eventual release “might help Judge Zloch see the wider significance of the events in Sarasota and persuade him that some or all of the records have not been properly classified.”

Last week, a former member of the 9/11 commission said he believes six Saudi officials supported the 9/11 hijackers. John F. Lehman said Wednesday, “There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” he said. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

The FBI’s trove of documents also requires further examination. Julin dismissed suspicions Judge Zloch is intentionally lagging in his investigation of the 80,000 pages. “I believe this is not a stalling tactic at all,” he said. “The judge is doing what he has to comply” with the stringent rules surrounding the release of the classified documents. “But I would urge him to speed it up,” he said.

This article (The FBI has 80,000 Documents on Saudi Ties to 9/11 It Tried to Suppress) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

5 Huge Stories the Media Ignored While Arguing Over Which #Bathroom to Use

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) Americans are prone to obsessing over seemingly frivolous headlines. Over the past year, we’ve seen the media drive emotional feeding frenzies on everything from the Starbucks red cup scandal or the superficial Confederate flag saga that ultimately glossed over the true foundations of racism in the U.S. Regardless of what the subjective opinion may be, the United States populace tends to feel inclined to indulge in heated, dramatic conversations about the morality of apparently inanimate objects.

But sometimes, they focus on more substantive issues.

One consistent subject that repeatedly riles up the masses is the subject of transgender rights. Last year, America (and the world) erupted in glee, rage, and overall chaos after Caitlyn Jenner debuted her new identity on the cover of Vanity Fair. More recently, many Americans have zeroed in on the ongoing controversy over transgender bathroom rights — sparked by North Carolina’s recent LGBT law. Some champion equal rights for all; others lament the destruction of American values. Headlines have detailed high-profile boycotts against North Carolina, the viral petition condemning Target for allowing transgender people to use whatever bathroom they prefer, and now, the topic is trending again amid news of President Obama’s call on Friday for public schools to respect transgender bathroom rights.

As important as these developments may be — no matter your views on the subject — as tends to happen, other highly important stories have fallen by the wayside. Though they have not been wholly blacked out by the corporate media, they have implications of equal, if not more , importance than America’s obsession with transgender issues — and most Americans will likely never hear about them.

Here are five stories you might want to review before diving back into the transgender imbroglio:

1. Hillary’s Conflicts of Interest Continue to Mount: As we reported, it was revealed this week that employees at the Department of Justice — one of the agencies tasked with investigating Clinton’s allegedly improper use of private email servers — gave $75,000 in donations to the presidential front-runner. “Hillary’s donations from the Department of Justice completely swamp those of the other candidates, in fact, as Sanders’ total from 51 donors was just $8,900 and Trump garnered an inconsequential $381,” we reported. David Bossie, president of watchdog group, Citizens United, argued “Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security. This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”

As our own Claire Bernish explained, “Critics have previously pointed to Lynch personally donating over $10,000 to Democratic candidates as evidence of her lack of impartiality — and sufficient reason she should not be charged with overseeing the investigation of Clinton’s emails.” Further, Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed Russia has obtained some 20,000 emails from Hillary’s personal server — and is debating whether or not to leak them publicly. Ultimately, this conflict of interest represents deeply-rooted, systemic glitches in American democracy, where accountability is often flouted to protect the oligarchy. This reality does not mean the transgender conversation is unimportant — however, it does provide a sad commentary on whom Americans will accept as their ruler while they trade insults over bathroom rights. In this case, it’s a corrupt career politician whose misdeeds have thus far failed to thwart her designs on power.

2. Somebody was finally arrested for voter fraud, but it wasn’t the people committing it: This week, Anti-Media also reported on a Florida-based hacker, David Michael Levin, who exposed security flaws in the website of the Lee County Elections Office and the Division of Elections in Tallahassee. He shared them with authorities in the hopes of fixing the problem, but instead was arrested and charged. “According to the somewhat redacted police report, Levin’s associate, Daniel Sinclair, sent a security report about the SQL vulnerability — including details of the security flaw and a screenshot — to ‘an employee within the Department of State, Division of Elections,’” we reported. Shortly after, a special investigation was launched and Levin was arrested. “Levin’s foray into the elections data had not been undertaken with the appropriate permission — and because he didn’t alert the authorities as soon as he discovered vulnerabilities, law enforcement is required to be blind to his good intent,” we noted. He spent six hours in jail, even though he complied with all searches and confiscation of electronic devices.

Sinclair is running for a seat on the Lee County elections board, drawing some suspicion the hack was a publicity stunt, but as we noted, “with rather overt fraud disenfranchising voters across the country, arresting the one hacker who attempted to help secure elections seems oddly ironic.” Here’s a list of the many irregularities plaguing the electoral process this year.

3. Former Facebook employees revealed how the site censors news stories: Last week, Gizmodo published an in-depth story on how journalists working for the “Facebook Trends” feature of the social networking site were mistreated and quarantined from the rest of the staff. This week, Gizmodo published a follow-up piece documenting allegations from former employees that curators of the trending section excluded stories from conservative outlets and deliberately failed to include conservative topics from the IRS discrimination scandal to Rand Paul. Though these exclusions appeared to be unintentional displays of bias from individual employees, they dominated coverage of the story. But other manipulations of the feed were more deliberate. One official policy of the department included censoring stories about Facebook from trends.

“When it was a story about the company, we were told not to touch it. It had to be cleared through several channels, even if it was being shared quite a bit. We were told that we should not be putting it on the trending tool,” said one former employee. Further, in another official policy, employees were allowed to artificially inject stories into that trending pool, even if they were not trending on Facebook — as long as they were covered by mainstream outlets.

Though Republican lawmakers demanded answers from Facebook, perhaps the real story is Facebook’s complicity in perpetuating corporate media narratives; Facebook has long-partnered with corporate outlets (and the U.S. government), and has also been accused of censoring stories critical of Hillary Clinton, while blocking grassroots groups supporting Bernie Sanders. While Facebook is ultimately a private company that can make its own decisions, its users would do well to take the revelations as an opportunity to decide whether they trust the outlet to responsibly and equitably provide them with information.

No matter one’s view on Facebook’s rights as a private institution, the news of their practices runs in direct violation of their assertion the feed is comprised of “topics that have recently become popular.” The whistleblowers expressed hope that with the increased use of algorithms, Facebook Trends will be less subject to human bias and manipulation. In case that doesn’t happen, sign up for the weekly Anti-Media newsletter to get information unfiltered by Facebook.

4. Rat DNA, Human DNA, and Pathogenic Germs… in your hamburgers: According to an independent analysis conducted on over 250 burger brands in the United States — ranging from fast food to frozen food, and even vegetarian products — America’s love for burgers faces some snags. Though the report by Clear Labs, a California-based food industry researcher, praised overall improvements in the hamburger industry, they noted severe shortcomings, particularly with product labeling and the presence of germs. Rat DNA was found in three vegetarian burger samples while human DNA was found in one — but those were not the most concerning findings, the researchers noted, because though their presence is revolting, they are not necessarily considered dangerous to humans.

More worthy of alarm, they explained, was the mislabeling of vegetarian products, the presence of meat in some of those purportedly meatless burgers, and the total absence of black beans in a black bean burger. The report notes “23.6% of vegetarian products showed some form of discrepancy between product and label, compared to the 13.6% of all samples. We found pervasive issues in food quality and end-product consistency in these non-meat samples.”

Further, they found pathogens known to cause illness in 11 samples, four of which were found in vegetarian burgers. Though their tests could not determine whether the pathogens were alive or dead, their presence at all should raise eyebrows. Another top concern of analysts was the finding that “nearly 81 percent (38 of 47) of the fast food burgers tested contained more calories than reported in the product’s nutritional information,” and that“these discrepancies are potentially worrisome for customers who make decisions about what to order based on calorie counts and other available nutritional information.”

Though food contamination in the United States is nothing new, these findings are relevant not only because they document ongoing issues with food quality, but because they represent an attempt by a private organization to pick up the FDA’s slack. As Anti-Media pointed out, “Perhaps most telling is Clear Labs’ subtle, if not unintentional, commentary on the failures of the FDA to keep food safe for consumers; they stress their goal is to improve the safety and quality in hamburgers — ‘regardless of whether or not they are acceptable according to FDA guidelines,’” ultimately providing a silver lining to the unsettling report.

5. American foreign policy continues to have unintended ramifications: Americans have by and large accepted aggressive militarism as a linchpin of U.S. policy, and though the overwhelming civilian casualties and military failures are widely-known, this week Anti-Media reported on another consequence of the longest war in U.S. history: the war in Afghanistan has turned a generation of children into heroin addicts.

“The psychological damage of war, together with the flood of cheap heroin, has led to a doubling in addiction rates over the last five years. In the Channel 4 documentary, Unreported World, Ramita Naval explores a harrowing escalation in child addiction. In the ravaged country, where access to drug treatment is severely limited, she visits a rehabilitation centre where children as young as four or five — haunted by horrors they have witnessed — attempt to regain lost childhoods,” Anti-Media noted.

A Kabul-based doctor told Naval rates of addiction had jumped 60 percent in the last two years at the only treatment center in the city that helps children. Naval spoke to a thirteen-year-old boy whose parents were killed by shelling when he was eight. He ended up working as a guard for drug dealers, eventually becoming addicted to opium himself. He said he prostitutes himself to be able to maintain his habit.

Another young boy’s addiction began when, “after witnessing a suicide bomb attack in Kabul, he went to stay with relatives in the countryside. While he was there, U.S. forces bombed his village, killing dozens of people; he described seeing bodies scattered everywhere. The young boy and other villagers had to pick up the body parts and put them in plastic bags. Claiming the war breaks his heart — and making his descent into drug use more understandable — he said, ‘I’d rather not live, than live through this war.’”

“What’s happened in Afghanistan over the last 13 years has been the flourishing of a narco-state that is really without any parallel in history,” Kabul-based journalist Matthieu Aikins told Democracy Now back in 2014.

Afghanistan now produces 90 percent of the world’s opium, and even the CIA has been linked to key players in that trade. Clandestine operations aside, however, a generation of children lives in a country where opium is cheaper than food — and where unrelenting violence chronically traumatizes their young psyches, driving them deeper into addiction.

Of course, it is possible to care about transgender rights and political corruption, censorship, contaminated food, and the unintended victims of the Afghanistan War. As Facebook highlights transgender rights and Americans preach from the bully comment thread pulpits, however, it’s important to remember the broad view of current affairs.

This article (5 Huge Stories the Media Ignored While Arguing Over Which Bathroom to Use) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Here’s Why Ron Paul Just Said #Hillary Could Have Run as a #Republican

by

Former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, Ron Paul (TX), made some interesting comments in an interview with Fox Business Monday.  Paul insisted the neoconservative Republicans could actually back Hillary Clinton, instead Trump.

“Hillary is a Wall Street person and she is a neocon and she wants to spend money on the military. So, a lot of them will go there. They’re not going to get Romney to run. I think it will shift a lot of people over to Hillary because I’ve always argued that Hillary could have possibly run as a Republican with some of her positions.”

From theantimedia.org Team

#Obama Admin Denies Saying “No Boots on the Ground” in #Syria After Saying It 16 Times | #TRUMP

by

Claire Bernish
April 29, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — What does a government do when it’s caught in a flagrant lie? If you are the U.S. government, you simply tell another lie — and laugh at anyone who tries to call out your hypocrisy.

Setting aside his oft-parroted no-boots-on-the-ground imperative, President Obama announced Monday the U.S. would be quintupling the number of special forces troops deployed to Syria to fight Daesh (the so-called Islamic State). In fact, the announcement was made later on the same day Obama claimed to have “ruled out” the deployment of ground troops.

Though this reneging on stated foreign policy has become somewhat par for the course, State Department spokesman John Kirby not only missed the hypocritical move, he flatly and bafflingly denied the Obama administration’s repeated claim there would be “no boots on the ground.”

In fact, instead of taking responsibility for initiating military maneuvers the public might find displeasing, the Obama administration has developed an apparent affinity for nitpicking semantics.

In a press conference, this farcical denial of reality reached stupefying proportions when Kirby was asked by an Associated Press reporter about this stark reversal of policy. All emphasis has been added to highlight the absurdities.

“I’m just curious if this is, like, part of some kind of devious grand strategy to say one thing and then do the complete opposite of it,” the reporter queried.

“I just — I don’t see it that way,” Kirby responded. “There was never this ‘no boots on the ground.’ I don’t know where this keeps coming from.”

Pressing the point, the reporter expounded, “For months and months and months, the mantra — from the President and … everyone else in the Administration — has been ‘no boots on the ground,’ and now —”

“That is not true,” Kirby interrupted.

“What?!” the reporter exclaimed — apparently as baffled as the rest of the press, heard murmuring in similar disbelief around the room.

“It’s just not true,” Kirby persisted, appearing almost smug, leaning on the podium. “It’s just not true.”

Of course, it is true — and Kirby’s semantic gymnastics to justify such a brazen lie added an Orwellian twist to the already Kafkaesque press conference. And that truth is written in black and white — even on the White House website, at least as far back as August 2013, when Obama stated:

“[I]n no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground; that would involve a long-term campaign.”

On August 31, 2013, Obama asserted from the Rose Garden:

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets … We would not put boots on the ground.”

Then, on September 10, 2013 — once again, as found in print on the White House site — he reiterated:

“First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war?

“My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.”

On September 3, 2013, he again said:

“[The U.S. involvement in Syria] does not involve boots on the ground.”

September 9, 2013, brought the same statement from the president, in an interview with PBS Newshour:

“Tomorrow, I’ll speak to the American people. I’ll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We’re talking about — not boots on the ground.”

Again, Obama repeated on September 7, 2014, as the Intercept noted:

“In Syria, the boots on the ground have to be Syrian.”

Though after the last statement, Obama’s characterization of ‘no boots on the ground’ began a subtle shift in language — evidencing mission creep — he sustained the narrative troops would not be deployed on the ground.

At the White House on February 11, 2015, reported USA Today, Obama remarked:

“The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.”

It’s arguable the United States populace could handle an honest statement outlining policy many may not agree with — such as the deployment of boots on the ground — if the plan were forthrightly presented.

But for Obama and other officials to repeatedly claim as much, and to then have the State Department act as if the people, themselves, have collectively lost their minds when pointing out the mendacious gaffe, is downright laughable — if not profoundly insulting.

It has become clear the United States mission to fight Daesh — with the secondary goal to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — will involve boots on the ground. But it’s questionable whether the Obama administration with ever manage to admit to as much.

This article (Obama Admin Denies Saying “No Boots on the Ground” in Syria After Saying It 16 Times) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Afghanistan Matters. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Watch #Comedian Rip #US Government Over 9/11 and 28 Pages in Under 4 Minutes

by

Claire Bernish
April 28, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) While President Obama recently vowed to veto a bill offering families of victims of 9/11 the chance to seek justice from foreign governments that may be complicit, outrage largely centered on the families — for the most part ignoring what the veto intimated. Though designed to lift immunity from the litigation traditionally provided to parties culpable in terror attacks — specifically, attacks on U.S. soil, and specifically in this case, Saudi Arabia — the bill could feasibly expose the U.S. to the same.

And therein lies the problem. Because, as Lee Camp wryly highlighted on Redacted Tonight recently, the United States government nefariously meddles in global affairs — often employing terroristic tactics or direct acts of terrorism for hegemonic, imperialistic goals.

To wit, Camp’s critique of U.S. violent hegemony includes a rundown of 30 examples — a telling figure in itself — but his list constitutes an exceedingly limited overview of the stultifying hubris of American foreign policy, past and present. Is there any doubt why Obama and a bipartisan Congress sought to withhold potential justice for loved ones of victims from September 11, 2001?

Sure, the Saudis threatened to yank three-quarters of a trillion dollars in U.S. assets from the already fragile economy should Obama pass the bill — but, in consideration of the aforementioned meddling, this political and economic blackmail appears an awfully convenient excuse for a veto.

As indicated in the length of the following far-from-complete list, the number of violent interventions the United States government would have to explain makes apparent Obama’s desire to veto this bill.

This article (Watch Comedian Rip US Government Over 9/11 and 28 Pages in Under 4 Minutes) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Why #US Govt. And #SaudiArabia Don’t Want Americans Knowing the Truth About 9/11

by

 

Anti-Media Staff
April 21, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) In a rare show of bipartisanship, President Obama and top Republicans in Congress have come together to shield Americans from knowing the truth about who was behind the 9/11 terror attacks, which took the lives of 2996 people in 2001. However strange it is for neoconservative members of Congress to agree with Obama on anything, there is no doubt the issue must be serious if it warrants this level of partnership.

The issue at hand is the classified, 28-page section of the 9/11 commission report, which many experts and politicians with knowledge of the documents have said point to Saudi Arabian government officials’ direct role in the terror attacks. This is why the Saudis put out a stern warning several days ago threatening to dump up to $750 billion in U.S. assets if Senate Bill 2040 becomes law; S.B. 2040 would make public the 28 pages and also allow for victims of 9/11 to sue foreign governments found responsible.

The Saudis’ warning seems to have worked, with Obama now in the nation to “mend ties” with the monarchy and top Republicans sounding the alarm about the 9/11 bill. In an interview with Charlie Rose, President Obama claimed:

“If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries,” apparently referencing the U.S.’ own attacks overseas that have taken the lives of countless civilians.

Currently, Saudi Arabia enjoys “sovereign immunity” with the U.S., meaning even if the 28 pages proved Saudi officials were indeed behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would not be able to seek justice for their losses. The new 9/11 bill would change that, and the Saudi response to the legislation moving through Congress reinforces suspicions the kingdom is somehow behind the 9/11 attacks.

The video below further explains why both Saudi Arabia and members of the U.S. government don’t want the 9/11 bill to pass:

This article (Why US Govt. And Saudi Arabia Don’t Want Americans Knowing the Truth About 9/11) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Robert J. Fisch. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

The Video That Could Bring Down #Hillary #Clinton’s Campaign

by

 

Claire Bernish
April 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) After New York’s stunningly disorganized and questionable primary results proved, yet again, our elections are rigged to ensure establishment darling Hillary Clinton garners the Democratic nomination, a new video from Abby Martin’s Empire Files could topple Clinton’s entire campaign.

Evidence of said rigging isn’t difficult to find — it’s written directly into the electoral process in superdelegates, whose 700 “unpledged” votes remain uncommitted to a candidate until the nomination. This is “to ensure nominees are hand-picked party insiders,” as Martin explains in the video.

“The single vote of a superdelegate is worth thousands of ours,” Martin notes. “Many of these people are current and former members of Congress, and dozens more are literally corporate lobbyists working on behalf of every industry from healthcare to private prisons.”

In fact, the employment of superdelegates was initiated precisely for situations when the people’s choice doesn’t align with the establishment’s — such as the current overwhelming popularity of Bernie Sanders.

But the web of corporate media executives and insiders contributing directly to Hillary Clinton’s campaign couldn’t possibly explain the extreme bias, lack of criticism, and virtual media blackout on Sanders’ success, right? And her campaign, dripping with corporate lobbying cash, wouldn’t concern the American voting public, even though lobbyists literally act as superdelegates — would it?

Watch Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents to see the proof the establishment doesn’t want you to discover.

This article (The Video That Could Bring Down Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Hiding money in #London

by

 

Michaela Whitton
April 14th, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — The City of London has long been known as a tax bolt-hole, facilitating money laundering, welcoming dirty money, and turning a blind eye to the investment of dodgy foreign capital. Long before the Panama Papers leak and its resulting embarrassment, stampedes to buy property in the British capital eliminated locals from the market. Last year’s reports highlighting the purchase of over £100bn worth of London property by foreign investors through shady offshore firms were met with little more than sighs and apathy.

In contrast, the leaked documents linked to Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, have propelled ministers to the podium in a race to prove who will crack down on tax dodging the hardest — a bit like a small child who has been caught with a hand in its mother’s purse.

Leading a debate on tax avoidance and evasion, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said London is seen as the tax haven at the centre of the worldwide system, designed to help the super-rich avoid paying taxes. Urging ministers to go further than the allocated £10 million for a taskforce to investigate the leak, McDonell has called for an independent public inquiry into the Panama Papers.

Claiming shady operations like Mossack Fonseca are being aided by “supposedly reputable” accountancy companies in London, the Shadow Chancellor named four major London firms, accusing them of aiding and abetting the systemic abuse of the tax system — some on an industrial scale. In addition, he named two banks, RBS and HSBC, claiming they have been “particularly proficient” in directing funds through Mossack Fonseca shell companies.

“We should be clear about this: the City of London is now being viewed by many as a tax haven in the middle of a dense network of havens created for the super rich to avoid the taxes the rest of us must pay,” he added.

As the capital braces for another massive anti-austerity protest this week, which will also call for the resignation of David Cameron, Britain has been reprimanded by UNICEF for lagging behind poorer nations in reducing inequality. Meanwhile, the public scandal emerging from the Panama Leaks is due to continue for some time. In the world’s dirty money laundry, however, few will hold their breath waiting for the U.K. government to prove it is serious about tackling tax evasion.

truth-cancer-ad

This article (While You Pay Taxes, the Rich Hide Their Money In This City To Avoid Paying Theirs) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Whistleblower Says #CIA Behind #PanamaPapers Leak

by

 

Carey Wedler
April 12, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) A former Swiss banker-turned-whistleblower has accused the CIA of playing a key role the Panama Papers leak, which implicated numerous foreign leaders, companies, organizations and individuals in offshore tax evasion, among other offenses. Bradley Birkenfeld, a former American banker for Swiss firm UBS, told CNBC  “the CIA I’m sure is behind this, in my opinion,” in an interview conducted Tuesday from Munich.

Birkenfeld originally blew the whistle on American tax evaders using Swiss bank accounts to divert their funds away from the reach of U.S. authorities. He served two-and-a-half years for his involvement and was released from prison in 2012. Pursuant to whistleblower policy, Birkenfeld was awarded $104 million of the $780 million settlement UBS was forced to pay as a result of his cooperation with authorities. Since his release from prison in 2012, he has said he wants “to force the government to explain why it was so aggressive in prosecuting him, but let nearly everyone else involved in the scam get off with light penalties or none at all.”

Focusing on the CIA on Tuesday, Birkenfeld was careful to note his comments were his “opinion,” but nonetheless offered strong observations on the scope of the data leak, which is the biggest in history.

“The very fact that we see all these names surface that are the direct quote-unquote enemies of the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, Argentina and we don’t see one U.S. name. Why is that?” Birkenfeld said. “Quite frankly, my feeling is that this is certainly an intelligence agency operation.”

Asked why a U.S. spy agency would release information that damages U.S. allies, like David Cameron, Birkenfeld said he was likely “collateral damage” in the purported overarching scheme to smear American adversaries.

He suggested the CIA had a calculated role in the way the leak was presented to the public:

truth-cancer-ad

“If you’ve got NSA and CIA spying on foreign governments they can certainly get into a law firm like this,” Birkenfeld said. “But they selectively bring the information to the public domain that doesn’t hurt the U.S. in any shape or form. That’s wrong. And there’s something seriously sinister here behind this.”

Birkenfeld’s comments seem even more perceptive considering German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported Tuesday that “secret agents and their informants have made wide use of [Mossack Fonseca’s] services,”as translated by Raw Story. Sueddeutsche Zeitung originally received the leaked data from an anonymous whistleblower before handing it over to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

“Agents have opened shell companies to conceal their activities… Among them are close intermediaries of the CIA,” the German publication noted. Other individuals reportedly mentioned in the leaks included players in the infamous 1980s Iran-Contra scandal, in which the CIA was involved. The Iran-Contra scheme involved the U.S. selling weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages, then using the profits to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.

Though the CIA was not explicitly named in Sueddeutsche Zeitung’s report, their “intermediaries” were. Regardless, these revelations taken alongside Birkenfeld’s suspicions can mean one of two things: either Birkenfeld is wrong, or the CIA actually is involved with the Panama Papers and considered reports on their “intermediaries” to be “collateral damage,” as Birkenfeld suggested of Cameron.

Regardless, the Panama Papers leak has faced scrutiny beyond Birkenfeld’s. Wikileaks has called on the ICIJ to make all data from the 11,500 leaked pages available to the public.

Wikileaks also said, “If you censor more than 99% of the documents you are engaged in 1% journalism by definition.”

Gerard Ryle, Director of the ICIJ, has said, “We’re not WikiLeaks. We’re trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly,” and the ICIJ has noted it will not release all of the data. However, it will continue to release parts of the leak in the coming months.

Wikileaks also took to Twitter to accuse the ICIJ of being a “Washington DC based Ford, Soros funded soft-power tax-dodge” that “has a WikiLeaks problem.”

Further, the publishing organization accused ICIJ and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, with whom ICIJ shared the data, of launching an attack against Russian president Vladimir Putin:

“Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros,” Wikileaks tweeted. Another Twitter post later clarified the Panama Papers were not an “attack” against Putin, but that “DC organization [ICIJ] & USAID money tilt coverage.” USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, has been previously accused of corruption. Billionaire George Soros has been accused of influencing narratives in the mainstream media.

Regardless of who was behind the leak — and who may or may not be clandestinely pulling the strings on the flow of information — the CIA has faced similar accusations of media manipulation before. Otto Ulfkotte, the former editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine, a large German publication, said he was bribed by the CIA to write pro-American stories.

“It is not right what I have done in the past. To manipulate people and make propaganda,” he said in 2014. “I was bribed by billionaires, I was bribed by the Americans not to report exactly the truth.” Explaining how this relationship began, he said:

“Germany is still kind of a colony of the United States… And being a colony it is very easy to approach young journalists from transatlantic organizations.”

Noting that “all journalists from really respected and recommended big German newspapers” tend to be members of such transatlantic organizations, he said:

“They invite you [to see] the U.S. They pay for that, they pay all your expenses and everything, so you are bribed, you get more and more corrupt, because they make you good contacts. You won’t know that those good contacts are, let’s say, ‘non-official’ covers or officially people working for Central Intelligence Agency or other American intelligence agencies… so you make friends, you think you are friends, and you cooperate with them. They ask you, ‘Well, could you do me this favor? Could you do me that favor?’ And so your brain is more and more brainwashed.”

He said many reporters in countries around the world “play the [role of] respected journalists but if you look behind them you’ll find they are puppets on the string of the CIA.”

Though some may discount Ulfkotte’s account because it was not corroborated by a third party — and the interview aired on Russia Today, Russia’s state-funded news agency — the CIA has been known to work with other newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, to manipulate news stories in their favor.

Regardless of whether or not Birkenfeld is correct in his assessment of the CIA’s role in the leaks, his statements on CNBC provide, at the very least, cause for continued skepticism among the many interests and motivations driving the ongoing leak.

This article (Whistleblower Says CIA Behind Panama Papers Leak) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

3 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

#NASA’s #Propaganda Campaign Wants You to Embrace the Militarization of Space

by

 

Jake Anderson
April 11, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) We’ve seen quite a bit of NASA in the news recently. The latest photos of Pluto rattled up considerable excitement — and why not? The celestial body was dead not too long ago, heartlessly stripped of its 9th planet status. Now it’s back with a vengeance.

NASA made headlines again on Friday, when it announced a watershed mission to Europa, the icy moon of Jupiter that many scientists believe could harbor life in the oceans under its glacial surface.

Last year, coinciding with the cinematically poignant, if not propagandistic film, The Martian, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) unveiled its “Visions of the Future” project, a set of 14 posters meant to instill a new generation of Americans with a renewed interest in traveling to other planets and moons in the solar system and beyond.

The posters, made by the design company Invisible Creature, are fascinating. They depict a future in which advanced space travel has allowed humans to freely hop around the solar system; it is intrasolar space tourism of the highest order.

nasa-1-titan

The project saw NASA officials, scientists, engineers, public relations experts, and artists collaborating to imagine what the future of humanity could entail.

truth-cancer-ad

One particularly beautiful poster features humans in advanced hot air balloons touring Jupiter. The description reads:

“The Jovian cloudscape boasts the most spectacular light show in the solar system, with northern and southern lights to dazzle even the most jaded space traveler. Jupiter’s auroras are hundreds of times more powerful than Earth’s, and they form a glowing ring around each pole that’s bigger than our home planet.”

Other posters include an illustrative future history of Mars exploration; a journey through the clouds of Venus; a boat ride on Titan’s rivers and lakes of liquid ethane and methane; an undersea exhibit of the life forms under the ice of Europa; exoplanets with red vegetation; a dark orphan planet flying through the galaxy without a sun (“where the nightlife never ends”), and many more.

nasa-2-jupiter

The posters are undeniably inspired and sure to delight space buffs, science fiction fans, and children alike. More than a few people have noticed the strangely propagandistic feel of the posters. One writer even compared them aesthetically to the Atomic Age posters from the 20th century.

One of the artists responsible for creating the posters admitted the influence. “We were inspired by vintage travel posters, WPA-type posters from the 1930s and then all the way up to mid-century modern— 1940s, 1950s, 1960s,” he said.

There is certainly no denying that while these posters have an altruistic goal of getting a new generation interested in space travel, they are also greasing the wheels for new NASA budget proposals and the new age of the space-industrial complex. The agency, which many mistakenly believe has been on essential furlough since the moon landings, has actually been prolific in recent years, with unmanned missions to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars. Currently, NASA is running very exciting, groundbreaking projects, including JUNO, DAWN, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto, which garnered over 10 million visits to the NASA government homepage.

That said, there have been considerable budget cuts in the last decades, with more to come. Since 1966, NASA’s budget has fallen from 4.41 percent of the federal budget to just 0.5 percent.

Despite the recent fantastic recent discoveries and NASA’s robust social media presence, there has been the perception that the agency’s missions have become “boring.” Rocket launches barely even make the news these days, and, until this decade, the only space endeavors that truly got people talking were images from Mars and speculation about life there. Many believed space travel was dead.

That is the perception NASA wants to overcome. Movies like The Martian — which NASA influenced heavily — and the “Visions of the Future” space tourism posters can be seen as ambitious moves to get the public excited about space exploration again. An excited public is a powerful leveraging tool for requesting more funds.

Some have noted that efforts by NASA to infiltrate popular culture are nothing new. The agency launched an entire series of novels called “NASA-Inspired Works of Fiction,” for which they conscripted science fiction authors to produce novels amenable to the new eclectic age of federally sponsored space travel. One of these novels, William Forstchen’s 2014 science fiction novel, “Pillar to the Sky,” for example, argues that bureaucratic slashes to the NASA budget are one of the biggest threats to humanity.

For the record, this is a textbook example of a psychological operation (psyop) — or a planned operation by the government meant to manipulate public opinion. Specifically, this would be classified as a “white psyop,” which is an official statement or act associated with a government source. To put it bluntly, it’s the nicest form of propaganda, as contrasted with grey and black psyops, which use varying gradations of subterfuge and covert operations. There are thousands of psyops being conducted around the world, some acknowledged, some top secret with classified government budgets.

The release of both the “Visions of the Future” series and The Martian coincided with NASA’s request of $19 billion to fund a manned mission to Mars. The request comes at a time when NASA is increasingly partnering with private companies to bolster the United States space apparatus. Earlier this year, the agency issued massive contracts to three companies — SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra Nevada Corporation — that will complete six cargo resupply missions for International Space Station (ISS) by 2024.

SpaceX, of course, is run by Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk, who has openly said he wants the company to help enable the colonization of Mars. Last year, the company released its own Mars propaganda posters. Over the weekend, the company made headlines by successfully launching and delivering the first inflatable room for astronauts.

SpaceX-Valles-Mariners-4-12[Savy]

Orbital ATK is an American aerospace manufacturer and defense industry company that produces tactical missiles, defense electronics, and medium and large-caliber ammunition.

Sierra Nevada Corporation is an electronic systems provider and systems integrator specializing in microsatellites, telemedicine, and commercial orbital transportation services. In addition to the NASA contract, the United States Army contracted them to manufacture Mobile Tower Systems (MOTS) and help fund Gorgon Stare, a remotely controlled, aircraft-based Wide-Area Persistent Surveillance (WAPS) system. Since 2006, the United States military has awarded the company 65 contracts, totaling nearly $3 trillion.

That NASA’s functions are interwoven with the military-industrial complex should come as no surprise. Since its inception, the Pentagon has controlled the agency through an oversight committee, with the open goal of utilizing the space between Earth and the moon for strategic military operations. Space is widely considered to be the next frontier of warfare. The militarization of space in the coming decades will see tactical satellites capable of launching nukes, disarming weapons, and collecting vast amounts of surveillance data. Noam Chomsky calls it one of the biggest threats facing humanity.

How does this connect back to the “Visions of the Future” posters? To be fair, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with getting excited about space. We live in an incomprehensibly large universe with billions of galaxies, each one containing billions, and even trillions of stars. Our species has finally stepped off its front porch and is looking to venture out into the cosmos. While some might question whether the human species is safe — both to ourselves and others — leaving its home, we must colonize other planets in order to ensure the long-term survival of the species. We’re set to render our home planet uninhabitable, but that doesn’t mean splinter groups of humans might not someday live sustainably on a colony world (think big, folks!).

Though we are likely centuries away from traveling to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, there is a very real chance we will explore other planets in the solar system in the coming decades. As we rekindle our excitement about space, let’s keep in mind that NASA’s space technology will also allow us to wage wars and engage in planetary surveillance. With great promise comes great peril. As with artificial intelligence, biotechnology and countless other burgeoning fields with revolutionary potential, we must proceed with great caution. With space, especially, we must carefully consider the people to whom we’ve entrusted our explorations — or the human race could end up like George Clooney’s character in Gravity, metaphorically speaking.

This article (NASA’s Propaganda Campaign Wants You to Embrace the Militarization of Space) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: NASA/SpaceX. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

#Wikileaks Drops #Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

by

Michaela Whitton
March 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — On Wednesday, a major archive containing over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails were released. Though the State Department began releasing the emails in May last year — after a Freedom of Information Act request — it is the first time the messages have been made easily available in a searchable format, courtesy of WikiLeaks. Before the launch, the FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate’s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The archive contains over 7,000 emails written by Clinton herself.

The scary, albeit fascinating exposé on who’s in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The organization has accused the social networking site of censorship, saying Facebook is blocking users’ access to the latest Clinton dispatch.

wikileaks-hillary

As a result of the outing, Twitter users are calling Clinton wicked, a thug, and a hypocrite. The released emails uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.

wikileaks-hillary-2

For those who are fascinated but don’t have the time or inclination to sift through more than 30,000 documents, here is a snapshot of what Clinton’s emails revealed:

This article (Facebook, WikiLeaks and Clinton’s Warmongering Emails) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

#Netflix’ House of Cards Is Much More Realistic than We’d Like to Admit

by

Jake Anderson
March 19, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) — ***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Netflix original series, House of Cards, has never shied away from controversial storylines. The narrative has followed Frank Underwood’s rise to power from Congressional whip to Vice President to President. His meteoric ascent to power was always trailed by a dark shadow, though — one that perhaps mirrors the real life brutality, scandal, and corruption that accompanies the machinations of most high-level politicians.

House of Cards is particularly ruthless in this regard. Frank Underwood has personally killed two people. One, a journalist with whom he has been having an affair. She learns too much, and during a discreet subway station meeting, Frank takes advantage of a well-timed metro train to push the young woman into its oncoming path. Another Underwood victim is a ruined, alcoholic candidate for governor of Pennsylvania (who had become politically toxic for the Democrats). Late one evening, he passes out in his car, and Frank, who has driven him home, leaves the gas running and closes the garage door.

Frank, of course, has addressed the camera and been open about his Machiavellian philosophy of power. “For those climbing to the top of the food chain there can be no mercy,” Frank once said. At one point, he also stated, “I’d push [the Russian president] down the stairs and light his broken body on fire just to watch it burn if it wouldn’t start a world war.”

Season 4 of House of Cards picked back up in the middle of the savage Democratic primary, where  Underwood is pitted against an ethical judicial reformist, Heather Dunbar, who promises to restore dignity to the White House. Unfortunately, her brief inconsequential meeting with journalist-turned ex-felon Lucas Goodwin, who pleads with her to listen to his evidence of the president’s crimes, spells her end. After Goodwin attempts to assassinate Underwood, rendering him on the brink of death, Dunbar’s dalliance with Goodwin is a nail in her political coffin.

Season 3 also ended with Claire Underwood leaving the president, though she returns to him as the season progresses. While Underwood is the frontrunner on the Democratic side, he trails in the general election polls to a Kennedy-esque Republican by the name of Will Conway. After his recovery from the near fatal gunshot wound to the liver, Frank and Claire come up with an unprecedented plan for her to be his Vice President. This effectively reunites the two and makes them a formidable opponent against Conway, who is a war hero. He is also the user of a mysterious data analytics company deploying a proprietary data mining surveillance tool to gather voter information.

Underwood begins his own surveillance program, obfuscating its paper trail with a military strike that would necessitate surveillance. Here we start to see the full measure of Frank Underwood’s manipulative warmongering — Wag the Dog mixed with some black ops. Underwood, who is a moderate Democrat toeing the line with conservative policies (he proposed ending social security, as well as doubling down on foreign interventionist strategies), appears very much as a Clinton-like centrist ideologue who uses the military for nebulous political gains and geopolitical chess moves.

The real manifestation of this comes in the last few episodes of Season 4 of House of Cards. Underwood negotiates with ICO — a radical Islamic terrorist group clearly modeled after ISIS — for the release of a family held captive. The mother and daughter are released, and the Underwoods allow the kidnappers to speak with their imprisoned leader. When that goes awry, a federal raid turns up nothing, and a news story draws attention to his previous crimes, Frank begins to panic.

Claire, overwhelmed by emerging scandals from their past that threaten to dismantle their political dynasty, devises a sinister but calculated plan.

“I’m done trying to win over people’s hearts,” Claire says to a dejected Frank, insinuating the Underwoods should start a war to help win the election. “We can work with fear.”

The fear instilled in the public from terrorist attacks like ICO’s often serves as fodder for foreign intervention, and in the season finale, Claire realizes it can also serve as a distraction from their corruption.

This is more than a reflection of the times: this is political reality. Americans live in a militaristic empire that thrives on using fear as leverage to coerce the population into thinking war is a necessity. In reality, it is a boon for defense contractors… and the politicians who facilitate this wealth. Distractions abound as those in power execute hidden agendas in Washington D.C.

During an address to the nation in which Frank notifies the public he will not negotiate with terrorists — leaving the father of the family in the hands of the domestic extremists who kidnapped him — Underwood declares a merciless war on ICO. It is presumably declared without congressional approval. “We must move beyond reason, we must respond with force,” he says. “It will be a war more total than anything we have waged thus far in the fight against extremism.”

After the terrorists share video of them slitting the kidnapped father’s throat, the Underwoods share a moment together. Frank casts his characteristic gaze into the camera, readying to speak. Only this time, Claire is looking at us, too.

“We don’t submit to terror,” the president says. “We make the terror.”

House of Cards Season 4 ends.

This article (Netflix’ House of Cards Is Much More Realistic than We’d Like to Admit) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Ex-CIA Official Says Obama Doesn’t Follow Through on Promises Out of Fear of CIA

by

Claire Bernish
March 14, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) AcTVism Munich recently interviewed former CIA analyst-turned-activist, Ray McGovern, whose steadfast anti-torture stance led him to return his Intelligence Commendation Medal in 2006 — when the CIA sought official inclusion of torture in its methodology.

AcTVism’s Zain Raza asked McGovern to describe what led to his decision to return the medal.

“It was a time when the director of the CIA was openly pleading for an exception to legislation being drafted by Senator John McCain, prohibiting U.S. government officials from torturing people,” McGovern explained, noting he was aware torture had been practiced during CIA operations in Latin America. “But this was the first time the CIA was openly advocating for permission to be able to torture … and that seemed to me so abhorrent that I wanted to disassociate myself from the CIA for the first time since 1963 — because I didn’t want to be associated in any way, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture.”

McGovern also described Europe’s role in the torture campaign and his opinion on whether President Obama had followed through on campaign promises to hold officials accountable for their actions.

“The role of our ‘allies,’ in my view, is a scandal. Fifty-three other countries cooperated in the kidnapping — extraordinary rendition — of suspected terrorists to black sites, where they were administered ‘enhanced interrogation techniques … which, by the way, is a direct, literal translation of verschärfte Vernehmung, right out of the Gestapo manual. I have the manual, and the sad thing is that many of the techniques are exactly the same — with a few ‘enhancements’ by the U.S. since World War II. So the role of our European allies and others has just, really, disappointed me greatly.

“Now, why President Obama … decided not to hold the torturers accountable is another very sad story,” McGovern continued, saying the president “is afraid” of the CIA. “I never thought I would hear myself saying that the President of the United States is afraid of the CIA, but he is. He’s afraid of the NSA, as well.”

McGovern says this is evident because National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who lied under oath in a Senate hearing, and Director of the CIA John Brennan, who hacked computers involved in the Senate committee overseeing him, both remain on the job to this day.

“You know, it’s hard to say this,” he continued, “but I suspect that Obama is afraid either of blackmail potential or even worse; and he has referred to the killing of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. … saying, ‘Don’t you remember what happened to Dr. King?’”

Discussing the NSA’s overreach and domestic spying, as well as general tacit acceptance of surveillance by people in both the U.S. and Germany, McGovern warned against passivity. He strongly emphasized the need to protect against the gradual ebbing of liberties and human rights, comparing such programs to those of the Gestapo.

“This is terribly, terribly dangerous territory,” McGovern said. “And the passiveness, you know, the apathy, that’s not responsible citizenship. When I’m asked why am I an activist, I say, ‘well, that’s the rent that I pay for living on this planet,’ okay? … To the degree we pretend to be a democracy, we have a corresponding duty to be activists enough to prevent our human rights from being infringed upon.”

McGovern also discussed Edward Snowden, whom he met in Russia, and dispelled some myths and rumors surrounding the whistleblower many call a hero.

AcTVism Munich’s interview can be seen in full below, or at the link here. The independent media site has previously conducted interviews with Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, and many others, which are available in multiple languages. AcTVism Much relies heavily on crowdsourcing to fund such endeavors, which you can help by donating here.

This article (Ex-CIA Official Says Obama Doesn’t Follow Through on Promises Out of Fear of CIA) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team