1. Swine flu:
“If this is PNAC related, God help us… ( I am posting this because it appears to be exploding worldwide)
PNAC
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – A Summary
Blueprint of the PNAC Plan for U.S. Global Hegemony
Some people have compared it to Hitler’s publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over.
Swine Flu Is Deadly Mix Of Never-Before-Seen Viruses – Possible Rumsfeld Connection
http://911blogger.com/node/19938
Bird Flu in Chris Carter’s 1998 ‘Millennium’: “It was always about control, Frank.”
http://911blogger.com/node/19945
Fort Detrick disease samples may be missing
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19913
Swine Flu Tracker Maps
http://911blogger.com/node/19942
Now the Torture Issue is COMPLETELY off the news – local AND international.“
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19946
2. “Newly Released Memo: Government ‘Minders’ at 9/11 Commission Interviews ‘Intimidated’ Witnesses
A recently released 9/11 Commission memo highlights the role of government “minders” who accompanied witnesses interviewed by the commission. It was added to the National Archives’ files at the start of the year and discovered there by History Commons contributor paxvector.
The memo, entitled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,” complains that:
- Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”
- Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and
- Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”…
Intimidation through Physical Positioning
The three staffers argued minders should not answer questions for witnesses because they needed to understand not how the intelligence community was supposed to function, but “how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality.” However: “When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have preempted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses’ view of their roles and responsibilities.”
The memo also describes the minders’ conduct in detail: “… [M]inders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses.”
The staffers also worried about minders taking “verbatim notes of witnesses’ statements,” as they thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution.” They believed that “the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses.”
Another problem with the verbatim notetaking was that it “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”
3. Harmon:
“One dictionary defines treason as “disloyalty or treachery to one’s country or its government,” but Article III of the U.S. Constitution takes a narrower view, specifically limiting charges of treason to time of war “in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Federalist Papers reveal that this definition of treason was crafted deliberately to avoid politically motivated ex post facto exploitation of the only crime named as a capital offense in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew full well from their own personal experience that English kings had played fast and loose with the concept of treason, frequently trying and executing opponents without any actual evidence that a crime had been committed. Charges of treason intended to destroy political rivals would not be permitted in the new republic.
…
Once you are on the hook in an intelligence relationship, there is no getting off it. Had Harman done a favor for the Israelis and been rewarded in return, it would have been a skeleton in her closet forever. The Israelis might also have taped the incriminating conversations, presumably unaware that the FBI was also on the line. The Israelis would surely remind her of her crime whenever they need a favor, and she would be forced to pay the piper whenever called upon. What could have been better for Israel than owning the director of central intelligence or the head of the House Intelligence Committee? What could have been worse for the United States?
To describe Harman’s actions as unacceptable would be an understatement. Unless the contents of her telephone conversation have been totally misconstrued, she should salvage what self-respect she has left and resign her office. But one suspects that she is yet another politician on the make with no sense of country or dignity. Don’t expect her to do the right thing.“
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/04/26/some-might-call-it-treason/
4. Sure sounds like another act of war to me:
“An Iranian vessel laden with weapons bound for the Gaza Strip was torpedoed off the coast of Sudan last week, allegedly by Israeli or American forces operating in the area, the Egyptian newspaper El-Aosboa reported on Sunday.
Anonymous sources in Khartoum told the newspaper that an unidentified warship bombed the Iranian vessel as it prepared to dock on Sudan before transferring its load for shipment to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
These sources said they suspects U.S. or Israeli involvement in the attack, but neither Washington nor Jerusalem have released a statement yet on the matter.
 |
Advertisement |
The Israel Air Force, meanwhile, is suspected of attacking a convoy of Iranian arms that passed through Sudan en route to Gaza in January, according to reports released in March.
American officials confirmed the IAF involvement in that attack, The New York Times later reported, abd said they had received intelligence reports that an Iranian Revolutionary Guards operative had gone to Sudan to help organize the weapons convoy said the report.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081215.html
5. “We’re All Torturers Now
Will anything about the U.S. torture scandal ever scandalize us again?
We have become so casual about torture that we now openly debate its efficacy—something nobody would have dared do in the first days after Abu Ghraib. The fight playing out between the left and the right now isn’t “Did we water-board?” We already knew we did. It is barely even “Was it legal?” Virtually nobody seriously argues that it was. The fight we are having in America now is “Did it work?” And if we manage to persuade ourselves that torture does work, whether it’s legal or even moral will no longer matter. And such tactics will never be able to horrify us again.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2216792
6. Here we go:
“US military called in to fight swine flu”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13370
