Conspiracy of the week: 9-11
Hanuman
This is the story you *won't* hear in the major press about some very
strange things that happened on September 11.
Hanuman
================================
http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archives_fr.html
================================
What really happened on Sept. 11th? "9/11 -- Part 1"
For four months I've been waiting in vain for the North American media to
pursue questions about the startling events of September 11th. Here's what I
want to know:
The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the
morning. It's a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade
Center. But it's an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits -
that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that.
Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk
about her pet goat. Why?
It's another 25 minutes until he makes a statement, even as flight 77 is
making a bee-line for Washington, DC.
In the almost two hours of the total drama not a single U.S. Air Force
interceptor turns a wheel until it's too late. Why? Was it total
incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in
minutes?
Well, unlike the U.S. Air Force, I'll cut to the chase. Simply to ask these
few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The
more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that there's a
different explanation: namely, that elements within the top U.S. military,
intelligence and political leadership - which are closely intertwined - are
complicit in what happened on September the 11th.
Why U.S. complicity, you ask?
Well, to stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on
terrorism, to justify a war on Afghanistan for a future oil pipeline, the
grab for Middle East oil, big budget increases for the military, and the
general drive for global domination by the American Empire.
I know it sounds incredible.
But here's some historical context from this book, Body of Secrets. Its
author is James Bamford. Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative
Producer for ABC's World News tonight with Peter Jennings. I learned of this
book on ABC's website.
Bamford's information comes from interviews with, for instance, the former
dean of the U.S. intelligence community and from government documents. It
takes 80 pages to list Bamford's more than 600 information sources.
Here's the story. It's 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert
McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S.
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs
invasion of Cuba.
JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the
Cuban problem.
But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba.
Writes Bamford: "As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly 'go soft' on
Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade . quickly slipping
away. .attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead."
Continues Bamford: "Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one
option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the
American public and world opinion."
Lemnitzer comes up with Operation Northwoods.
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
indignation."
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in
other Florida cities and even in Washington."
An elaborate variation: create "an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft." "At a designated time the duplicate would be.loaded with.selected
passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual
registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled
unmanned aircraft]". "the destruction of (that) aircraft will be triggered
by radio signal."
The Cubans would be blamed.
Finally, another variation is described by Bamford: "On February 20th, 1962
(John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral.on his historic journey.
Lemnitzer "proposed . that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, 'the
objective is to provide irrevocable proof that.the fault lies with (Cuba)."
"by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic
interference on the part of the Cubans."
Thus, Bamford notes, "as NASA prepared to send the first American into
space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible
death as a pretext to launch a war."
The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable, according to
Bamford, "of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their
own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a (war on
Cuba)."
Can we be sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of
Sept. 11th is entirely out of the question?
Next week, a more precise look at the events of that fateful day.
And what about bin Laden? I'll have more on him too. And the arrests of
people named as terrorists around the world.
================================
What really happened on Sept. 11th? "9/11 -- Part 2"
Next, more troubling questions. Part 2 in my series of commentaries about
the events of September 11th.
As you've heard in the panel discussion, a common explanation as to why no
U.S. military interceptors took to the skies on September 11th until it was
too late, is that it was "simple incompetence."
Well, let me deal with the "incompetence theory" by first taking you back to
October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer
Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the official National
Transportation Safety Board crash report:
9:19 a.m.: the flight departs
9:24: The Learjet's pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic
control
9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot.
For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact.
9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did
not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United
States, or indeed anyone. It's standard procedure, followed routinely, to
call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is
lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those
lines occurs.
9:54 - 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and
conducts a visual inspection.
Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.
So what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for
dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All
personnel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines,
which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident
illustrates.
For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart
extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the
military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one
is speeding toward Washington, D.C.
It flies over the White House, turns sharply and heads toward the Pentagon.
Everyone - and I mean everyone - now knows these planes are very bad news.
It's been reported on all TV networks for more than half an hour that this
is a terrorist attack.
Now, Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It's home to Air Force
One, the President's plane. It's home base for two combat-ready squadrons of
jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews
is only 12 miles from the White House.
On September 11th the squadrons there were:
The 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, equipped with F-16s
The 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group,
Detachment A, equipped F/A-18s
This information was on the website of the base on September 11th. [POSSIBLE
(cuts)] On September 12th, Andrews chose to update its website. I find it
odd that after the update there's no mention of the F-16 and F-18 fighters.
The base becomes, according to the website, home to a transport squadron
only.
Yet at 6:30 the evening of September 11th NBC Nightly News, along with many
outlets, reported:
"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to
scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly .
a protective cover over Washington, D.C."
Throughout the northeastern United States are many air bases. But that
morning no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert
situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which have the longest lead
time and are 12 miles from the White house.
Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports,
to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence
Theory." Incompetence usually earns reprimands.
This causes me to ask - and other media need to ask - if there were "stand
down" orders.
Next week, bin Laden was a longtime close ally of the CIA, according to the
CIA itself. Why did he suddenly turn against them? Or did he?
================================
What really happened on Sept. 11th? "9/11 -- Part 3"
Osama bin Laden is not an easy subject. Characterizations of him vary
wildly. The most common, because it's the official narrative of cardboard
cutout simplicity, is that he's the world's number one villain, the
diabolical mastermind behind the events of September 11th. Another view:
Osama is ". the conscience of Islam."
Well, globally, Osama is like a Rorschach ink blot. His character and role
morph into what various publics project upon him, based on what they're led
to believe.
Take books. There's an adage "You can't tell a book by its cover" Maybe so,
but you can tell it by its index. "Bin Laden, the Man Who Declared War on
America" is by Yossef Bodansky, former senior consultant to the Pentagon and
U.S. state department. "Bodansky explains (a) vast global conspiracy." it
says in the foreword.
The index entries on bin Laden in this 440-page book run almost two pages.
But there are just four references to the CIA, mostly brief and reveal
nothing. Yet the decades-long eight-billion-dollar CIA covert operation in
Afghanistan was also its largest ever, according to numerous sources,
including journalist John Cooley in his book Unholy Wars: Afghanistan,
America and International Terrorism.
Contrast the Bodansky book with this one, "Taliban," by Ahmed Rashid. He's a
Pakistani journalist who's covered Afghanistan for 21 years. In his index
are eight entries about bin Laden and 11 about the CIA.
Now, back to bin Laden. What do most sources agree on? We know bin Laden is
born in Saudi Arabia in 1957. Okay we're not sure about the year. His father
becomes a close friend of the king, and "fabulously wealthy." Bin Laden
Corporation becomes one of the largest construction companies in the Middle
East.
In this business you're dealing with the Pakistani intelligence-the ISI,
Saudi intelligence, the CIA. With his family's blessing Osama becomes
closely associated with the CIA in the Afghan war against the Soviets. Bin
Laden Corp built major training camps for the CIA. "In 1986 he helped build
the Khost tunnel complex, which the CIA was funding as a major arms stoage
depot, training facility and medical centre for the mujaheddin." At this
point bin Laden's story, like Stephen Leacock's horse, "rides madly off in
all directions."
My questions: Did he turn against the CIA? Maintain ties while making
anti-American statements? Was he manipulated? "Former associates describe
him as deeply impressionable, always in need of mentors," Rashid writes.
You're forced to turn to a larger canvas. As in the final draft of this
to-be-published book "The War on Freedom, Causes and Consequences of 9-11"
by Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research &
Development in Brighton, England. He's an Oxfam campaigner who specializes
in writing international reports on human rights. News of his reports have
been carried by Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, The Independent,
the Jewish Chronicle and the London Jewish News.
Ahmed writes that bin Laden is merely a piece in a chess game. The stakes of
the game are the last of the world's oil reserves and ".the Bush
administration's "(consolidation of power) to pursue a drastic unlimited
militarization of foreign policy on a massive and unprecedented scale
required by long-standing elite planning, while crushing domestic dissent
and criminalizing legitimate protest."
I believe that if we shrink from testing Ahmed's overview and accept only
the headlines of the day we will fail to see the forest for the trees.
The USA helped recruit, train and equip thousands of killer mujahideen in
the anti-Soviet war. Ahmed's book and other evidence shows the recruiting
and training terrorists, including those in al-Qaeda, has continued for
years. The White House "went underground" with this aid.
This is detailed in the 1993 book "The Outlaw Bank, A Wild Ride Into the
Secret Heart of BCCI." BCCI stands for Bank of Credit and Commerce
International. It collapsed after exposure of its massive fraud and
corruption. The book's authors are Jonathan Beaty and S. C. Gwynne. Beaty
was an investigative reporter and senior correspondent for Time magazine;
Gwynne Time's economics editor and author of "Selling Money."
The book reveals the BCCI's connections with the CIA and "a Washington
coverup that .protected the BCCI.." The BCCI's 'Black Network' operating in
Afghanistan and other countries dealt in "drug deals and terrorism." The
authors describe what they found as "a disturbing criminal conspiracy."
Further evidence of the long and deep involvement of the CIA in terrorism is
found in the 1987 book The Crimes of Patriots, A True Tale of Dope, Dirty
Money, and the CIA, by Jonathan Kwitny. Kwitny at the time had been a Wall
Street Journal reporter for 16 years.
He wrote that neither the director of the CIA nor the deputy director "had,
in his career, shown any reluctance to shed American or foreign blood in
covert military operations as a means to carrying out their assignments."
The book details "how some of the biggest names in American defense and
intelligence were involved in an operation that promoted the dope trade, tax
evasion, and gun running."
Michael Springmann is a Washington lawyer. He worked for the US State
Department's foreign service for 20 years. He spent two years as chief of
the visa section at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. His
superiors repeatedly ordered him to issue visas to unqualified applicants.
It was illegal. He protested.
He's just written this article in the reputable Covert Action Quarterly of
Washington, D.C. and was interviewed by the CBC radio program Dispatches. "I
had not been protesting fraud. What I was protesting was, in reality, an
effort to bring recruits, rounded up by [the Agency and] Osama bin Laden, to
the U.S. for terrorist training by the CIA." He details numerous cases.
"The State Department did not run the Consulate in Jeddah. The CIA did. Of
the roughly 20 Washington-dispatched staff there, I know for a certainty
that only three people (including myself) had no ties, either professional
or familial, to any of the U.S. intelligence services."
What bugs me to no end is that mainstream media journalists operate as if
these books - written by the most professional of their ranks - they operate
as if these books don't exist! Fellow journalists, the dots exist. For
goodness' sake, connect them, while you can.
There are plenty of what we call in the news biz "pegs." Solid current
evidence. New dots. But these dots, past and present, are never connected.
Take this November 22nd front page story in The Globe and Mail. I almost
missed the startling information in this myself because the headline
indulges a stereotypical Canadian self-putdown: us stupid Canadians, we let
a terrorist -- one Ali Mohamed -- get away.
The real story is buried. "Mr. Mohamed . was a U.S. Army sergeant.but
trained bin Laden's bodyguards."
What?
"Ali Mohamed was in the Americans' good books." ".Ali Mohamed wasn't so
shadowy in those days. He was one of their guys."
A terrorist one of the FBI's "guys?"
The headline on this story might have read: "FBI Protected Top al-Qaeda
Operative." And it might well have been the banner.
Ahmed's own conclusion is that "the documentation. strongly suggests the
United States, or more precisely significant elements of the U.S.
government, military and intelligence, had extensive foreknowledge of the
11th September attacks, and were in various ways complicit in those
attacks."
All this and more must be considered when asking "What really happened on
Sept. 11th?"
And bin Laden? Journalist and former Los Angeles Police Department detective
Michael Ruppert quipped recently: "One guess is that he's in Switzerland
having his nails done."
Next week, George W. Bush and the Oiligarchy.
================================
"What Really Happened on Sept. 11th? "Part 5 (What Did George Bush Know and
When Did he Know it?" popularly known as "The Great Deception")
September 11th has brought mostly unpleasant changes, including
curtailment of civil liberties and threatened perpetual war. All rooted in
the official story of what happened on September 11th. Namely that one evil
man and his network are responsible. And that the U.S. military,
intelligence and political establishments were all caught totally off guard.
Millions of intelligent people accept this story as their own. "Any argument
about any aspect of the conduct of the war against terrorism," as Globe and
Mail columnist John Ibbitson puts it, "must begin with those airplanes
smashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And then it must stay
there and never move from that spot."
If it's that important -- and I agree it is -- then it's the duty of the
media and of intelligent citizens to inquire about any anomalies about
September 11th. Today's question: what did George Bush know and when did he
know it on September 11th?
[VIDEO CLIP] David Halton on CBC-TV in a story on the first anniversary of
George Bush's taking office (Bush is seen sitting in a classroom at Booker
Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida and Andrew Card comes to whisper in
Bush's ear):
TRANSCRIPT: "Bush was first informed of the suicide attack at an education
event in Florida, his face creasing into anxiety. The crisis transformed his
presidency..."
This image, embedded in the official story, has led the world to believe
that when Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card whispered into his ear at an
elementary school at 9:05 that morning, it was the first the U.S. president
learned that, in his words, America was under attack. But a growing number
of people including the careful researchers at www.emperors-clothes.com don'
t think so. Using verifiable publicly-available information, Ilarion Bykov
and Jared Israel, an intrepid Canadian, raise questions mainstream media
stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge.
Consider, Bykov and Israel say, the words of journalist John Cochrane, who
was travelling with the president on the morning of September 11th, on an
ABC Special Report. Cochrane is speaking to Peter Jennings:
"Peter, as you know, the president's down in Florida talking about
education. He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave,
reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his
ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New
York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later.
His first event is about half an hour at an elementary school in Sarasota,
Florida."
"So Bush knew," writes emperors-clothes, "about the first.incident before
leaving his hotel."
Take other evidence. By 8:20, according to its own official report, the
Federal Aviation Authority, the FAA, is fully aware of the unprecedented
emergency in the skies.
As Bycov and Israel point out, "The (president of the United States).
travels with an entire staff.(including) the Secret Service, which is
responsible for his safety. The members of this support team have the best
communications equipment in the world. They maintain contact with, or can
easily reach, Bush's cabinet, the national Military Command Center in the
Pentagon, the (FAA)."
In other words, around 8:46 at the absolute latest the Secret Service and
the President would have known of all four hijacked airliners and that one
had hit the World Trade Center.
That's two sets of proofs that question the famous whisper-in-the-ear at
9:05. Still not convinced? How about the typically garbled words of the
President himself? From the transcript of a Town Hall session in Orlando,
Florida on December 4th:
JORDAN (a third grader): ".how did you feel when you heard about the
terrorist attack?" [applause]
THE PRESIDENT: "Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan.I was sitting outside the
classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV
was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one
terrible pilot.. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to
think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief
of Staff.walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is
under attack.' And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first."
Wait a minute! The president tells us he saw the incredible image of the
first plane going in. He went ahead with an easily-cancellable appointment.
Why? He tells us he knew his country was under attack, yet he continued to
listen to a student talk about her pet goat, and such, for another 25
minutes. Why?
Where can you find that Town Hall transcript? On the White House web site.
Thanks to a viewer on the West Coast for drawing it to my attention.
In other words, no matter how you cut it, George W. Bush is acting right
here. There are many other facts, equally puzzling. At least for anyone
still clinging to the official story of 9-11. His schedule and whereabouts
had been publicly announced. Why did the Secret Service not whisk him away
for safety's sake?
Do you think there's anything here that mainstream media should follow up?
Have you noticed any such follow-up? Do you find this as incredible as I do?
What will it take to snap people out of the hypnotic trance of the official
story and start asking questions? Maybe you calling an editor and raising
hell.
Until the world finds out the truth about what really happened on September
11th, the world is held hostage to the so-called war on terrorism. And
surely it's time to recognize that for what it is: harsh final steps to what
the U.S. military terms "full spectrum dominance."
Next week the final installment of "The Great Deception:" Moral and
spiritual challenges that arise amidst fear and denial in a propagandized
society.
"What Really Happened on Sept. 11th?" Conclusion (What Did George Bush Know
and When Did he Know it?" popularly known as "The Great Deception")
Subject: Moral and spiritual challenges amidst fear and denial in a
propagandized society
The editors at the New York Times made the right judgment call, in my
opinion, by playing this story ["Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment
Abroad; Debate over Credibility; New Office Proposes to Send News or Maybe
False News to Even Friendly Lands," by James Dao and Eric Schmitt] at the
top of their front page recently. Because a campaign of government deception
is a moral issue.
But in a way, these headlines are laughable, including as they do phrases
such as ".readies efforts.?" And ".proposes to send.false news.?"
Are readers supposed to believe the Pentagon might. start lying?
Those who have seen the documentary The Panama Deception will find this
assumption impossible to swallow. [VIDEO CLIP from "The Panama Deception,"
Jeff Cohen of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) of New York City,
speaking]:
"The U.S. military said 250 civilians were killed. There isn't a single
credible source in Panama that believes that's true, whether it's ambulance
drivers, human rights monitors, people - doctors who worked in hospitals,
neighbours of bombed-out blocks. It's just clearly false. That story would
be so easy to tell for any journalist worth his or her salt. But they're not
telling it."
Back to the Times article. The odd thing about it is that you can go over it
with a divining rod and find that neither the writers, nor anyone they
quote, makes so much as a passing reference to the simple wrongness of
government lying. Not once are the words "moral," "morality," "ethics" or
such, used, let alone "lies" or "lying."
In my moral book, publishing a story with morality at its heart, without
mentioning the word, is committing the sin of omission.
The story also accepts foolish statements about Saddam Hussein and prints
them with a straight face, as it were. It's claimed he ".has a charm
offensive going on.' "
I don't know about you, but I've noticed the offensive part but not the
charm part.
" '.and we haven't done anything to counteract it,' a senior military
official said."
Well, if you don't count the U.S. government's all-out propaganda campaign
against the Iraqi leader for more than a decade, then I guess this guy's got
a point.
Readers are also misled to focus on side issues such as "public
perceptions," "strategy," "possible illegality" and bureaucratic turf wars.
This article - representing the crčme de la crčme of U.S. journalism -
symbolizes how disconnected the U.S. media and government have become from
moral questions, one might almost say, from reality.
To give credit where credit's due the Times ran an editorial terming the
Pentagon's proposed new Office of Strategic Influence "Orwellian." Yet the
editorial fails as well to question the fundamental justness of the
Pentagon.
Which brings me to my main point. The less people ask themselves questions
about deceit the more it clears the way for organizations such as the CIA to
continue to receive seemingly unending billions of dollars. Taxpayer money
used to train terrorists, as the CIA acknowledges it has. To destabilize
governments, as former CIA agent John Stockwell writes in his book In Search
of Enemies. And to inject toxic grey, white and black disinformation into
the world's information systems, as William Blum spells out in Killing Hope.
All with barely a whisper of dissent.
"The lie," wrote theologian Andre Dumas, "is biblically portrayed as 'the
first and most poisonous source of injustice.'" "Truth telling," he wrote
"is.absolutely essential to the very life and health of the whole
community."
Which is at the heart of the Great Deception, about what really happened on
September 11th. For the past five weeks I've asked questions: How could it
be that no U.S. Air Force jet interceptors turned a wheel on September 11th
until it was too late? Is it coincidence that the war on Afghanistan
triggered by September 11th will clear the way for petroleum pipelines of
huge interest to the White House? How to explain the virtual non reaction of
President George Bush immediately following the planes slamming into the
World Trade Center?
These marked-up passages are from my dog-eared copy of a gem of a book, The
Idea of Disarmament, Rethinking the Unthinkable, by Alan Geyer. Geyer, in
1982, writes: "The nuclear arms race has become this generation's severest
test of truth. It is zealously promoted with false words, deceptive jargon,
pretentious dogmatics, hateful propaganda, and arbitrary bars on access to
the truth. "No realm of public policy," he continues, "is more corrupted by
untruthful speech than national security."
Today the Big Lie of the so-called war on terrorism - itself firmly based on
the linchpin of the implausible official version of what happened on
September 11th -- is an even more severe test of truth, in my opinion. Under
the banner of the war on terrorism George W. Bush - with the aid of the
media -- zealously promotes perpetual global war in the service of resource
looting and permanent popularity for himself.
There's unprecedented militarism. The USA is spending more than half its
budget on wars past, present and future, according to the Center for Defense
Information.
As Christian humanist Geyer writes in words truer today, in my view, than
when written: "Demythologizing has become the indispensable theological tool
of peacemaking: it is the operation empowering the people of God to
understand the stratagems by which inhuman speech violates the Word of God.
Those stratagems include a relentless outpouring of myths about weapons,
strategy, security, enemies, history, and human nature - from government
bureaucracies and adjunct think tanks and co-opted media and electronic
theologians."
And in this gem of a book I find the perfect conclusion to this series about
what really happened on September the eleventh, about the Great Deception,
about moral and spiritual challenges amidst fear and denial.
In the 1930s there was a powerful peace movement. At that time a play by
Viennese poet Stefan Zweig was produced. The play's principal character,
Jeremiah, bursts forth with these words:
"Peace is not a thing of weakness.
It calls for heroism and action.
Day by day you must wrest it from the mouths of liars.
You must stand alone against the multitude, for clamor is always on
the side of the many.
And the liar has ever the first word.
The meek must be strong."
================================
For more, see here:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
--
One nation, under surveillance, with urine tests and wire taps for all.
In the land of the fee and the home of the slave.