.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Showing posts with label Ch. Bollyn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ch. Bollyn. Show all posts

Monday, August 11, 2014

911 - The Mystery of WTC 6

The Mystery of WTC 6
June 23, 2009

Christopher Bollyn


The 8-story WTC 6 lay between the North Tower and WTC 7.  WTC 6 was evidently damaged before either tower fell and had an unexplained crater that went to the lowest basement level.  The basement of the building appears to have experienced an explosion at the exact moment the South Tower was hit by a plane.  In this photo the rubble of the North Tower is on the left and the remains of WTC 7 are on the lower right.


The destruction of WTC 6 is one of the many unexplained questions of 9-11.  This 8-story building suffered a huge crater in its center which went all the way down to sub-basement levels.  What caused the huge crater in the middle of WTC 6?


This infrared image shows the large and deep crater in the center of WTC 6 (lower left).  There is no explanation for the deep crater that goes into the sublevels of the 8-story building.

WTC 6 was damaged prior to the collapse of the South Tower; damage that can be seen in photos taken by Bill Biggart.  In 2002, I asked CNN about the timing of the explosion indicated by the light plume rising in the lower left hand corner of the photo below and was told that it occurred at 9:03 a.m.   Although the archivist had no reason to lie, it seems that the CNN footage was taken as the South Tower collapsed.  The footage can be seen in its complete context at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBhWRzt-aA


The mystery plume seen rising over WTC 6 evidently occured as the second tower began collapsing.  It appears to be a sandy-colored plume rising from the area of the crater seen in WTC 6.  The plume appears to be rising from the exact area of the huge crater.  The same explosion probably caused the secondary light plume seen in the second photo by the late Bill Biggart, seen below.


A photo shows the damaged WTC 6 on the left of the North Tower.  WTC 6 lay between the North Tower and WTC 7, Larry Silverstein's 47-story building that mysteriously collapsed in a controlled demolition at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11.

The fact that the WTC 6 building was severely damaged before the first tower collapsed can be seen in photos taken by Bill Biggart, a photographer who was killed on 9-11 when the North Tower collapsed.  His digital photos were salvaged from his camera.  The website StagedTerror.com has an excellent analysis of his photos.


This photograph by Bill Biggart, who died when the North Tower collapsed, shows what appears to be a damaged and burnt WTC 6 on the left, in front of the North Tower.  This photo was taken as the South Tower was demolished with super-thermite, which caused the super-pulverization of the concrete.  Whatever caused the scorched damage to WTC 6 clearly happened before the first tower collapsed.


This photo shows the collapse of WTC 2 with a mystery plume of light smoke rising from the street beside WTC 6.  This secondary plume of sandy-colored dust is similar to the larger plume seen in the CNN footage rising above WTC 6. 

Both of these plumes are light and sandy in color and appear to be of another composition than the concrete dust clouds of the pulverized tower.  This plume is clearly rising from below the street and is not part of the pyroclastic cloud coming from the demolished WTC 2.  It is rising from below the street and obstructing the Quebec-New York.com sign seen behind it on the walkway, while the pyroclastic cloud has not yet reached the walkway.  These images suggest that a powerful explosion may have occurred below WTC 6 at the exact time WTC 2 collapsed.  
=============
The following articles are my early articles about the WTC 6 mystery.  Please note that these articles were written in 2002.

Video Evidence of Unexplained Explosion in WTC 6
July 2, 2002

Images of unidentified aircraft and missiles photographed during the attack on the World Trade Center suggest that 9-11 was the "highly planned, covert, special-operation," which some astute observers have claimed from the beginning.

The awful moment when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center is an event captured on film and videotape from many angles. Among the archive of photographic and video evidence are distinct images of unidentified aircraft and missiles that appear to have played significant roles in the attack. The fact that the leading federal agencies involved in the criminal investigation of 9-11 deny any knowledge of these photographs lends credence to those who maintain the attack was "a domestic, covert, special operation."

Although millions of people have watched on video the horrible spectacle of the second hijacked plane plunging into the smooth facade of the south tower, very few have seen the mysterious white aircraft that accompanied it on a nearby parallel path slightly to the north. While viewers' attention was focused on the crash and subsequent fireball, few noticed the missile streaking toward 6 and WTC 7 at the edge of the screen. The blurred streak that appeared from behind the smoking north tower disappeared in the wink of an eye into the lower right hand corner of the screen.

Frame-by-frame analysis of that video shows what appears to be an incredibly fast streaking missile, headed toward 6 or WTC 7, at the precise moment the plane exploded in the south tower. Six WTC was an 8-story building, which was left with a huge unexplained crater at its center while WTC 7 burned and collapsed late in the afternoon on 9-11, for no apparent reason. Fire engineers are baffled as to what caused the 47-story building, built by Larry Silverstein in 1987, to collapse.

"Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, 'We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?'"

"EVAPORATED" STEEL BEAMS

Sections of the steel beams in WTC 7 seem to have "evaporated", according to a New York Times article of November 29, 2001. "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Jonathan Barnett said."

Engineers are investigating whether intensely hot fires resulted from thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in the building. While one tank held 6,000 gallons of fuel to power the mayor's command bunker on the 23rd floor, another set of four tanks held as much as 36,000 gallons just below ground level on the building's southwest side for emergency generators.  "The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."

Two firefighters, Deputy Chief James Jackson and Battalion Chief Blaich, said that the southwest corner of WTC 7 near the fuel tank was severely damaged and that the tanks might have been breached. Jackson said that about an hour before the building's collapse, heavy black smoke, consistent with a fuel fire of some sort, was coming from that part of the building.

DID A "BUNKER BUSTER" MISSILE HIT WTC 6?

The streaking missile seen in the video could have pierced the heavy masonry that protected the diesel storage tanks. The missile is obviously traveling extremely fast, at an estimated 5,000 feet per second (3,400 mph). The U.S. military has a LOSAT (line-of-sight anti-tank) missile that travels that fast with a range of 4 miles that can be guided by laser or Global Positioning technology. The LOSAT Kinetic Energy Missile uses its velocity rather than explosives to destroy tanks, buildings, and bunkers. No other military is known to have such a missile.

In the WTC video the black streaking object travels an estimated 1,000 feet in the space of 4 frames, each frame taking 1/30 of a second. Although a video might not capture an image of the missile, experts say the rapidly dissipating exhaust of a LOSAT can be captured on film if the lighting, angle and background conditions are suitable.

I asked Matthew Heyman of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the agency investigating the structural collapses at the World Trade Center, if the investigation would examine the photographic evidence of a missile and the crater in 6-WTC. "Yes", Heyman said, but only if evidence of a missile is presented, adding that the 2-year investigation will only study the collapses of the twin towers and WTC 7.

Although numerous images of unidentified aircraft and missiles are accessible in the public archive of WTC video footage and have been scrutinized frame-by-frame by Internet sleuths, federal investigators and the mainstream media pretend to be completely ignorant of their existence. Spokesmen for the federal agencies engaged in the 9-11 investigation all feigned ignorance of the aforementioned video images when contacted by this reporter on July 1, 2002.

When I asked James Margolin, spokesman for the New York City office of the FBI, about the video images of unidentified planes and missiles on Sept. 11, Margolin said, "It's the first I've heard." William Shumann, spokesman for the FAA said, "I'm not aware of any such videos." When asked about the radar tapes that could have recorded such objects, Shumann said, "We're not saying anything." The 9-11 radar tapes from New York City had been turned over to the FBI, Shumann said.

Denial of the existence of these photographs by the federal agencies at the forefront of the 9-11 criminal investigation is troubling because it indicates an inability to respond to evidence that has been in the public domain since September 11. It is incredulous that the FBI and FAA are denying knowledge of photographic evidence, which has been openly published and discussed in the Japanese mass media.

"A DOMESTIC COVERT OPERATION"

The agencies' denial of this evidence supports the unconventional thesis of political observers such as Lyndon LaRouche, who was interviewed by Jack Stockwell of KTKK-AM ("K-Talk") in Salt Lake City as the horror of September 11 unfolded. Before either tower had collapsed, LaRouche said: "Well, largely, this is a domestic covert operation, which we had word of beforehand." Shortly after the south tower collapsed, LaRouche said, "This is obviously a highly planned attack by a very capable agency."  LaRouche rejected that the attacks were "an Islamic national operation" saying they lacked the capability. Instead he blamed "people who want the U.S. to go to war against the Arab world."

"It's a geopolitical provocation!" LaRouche said. "It's run by people whose intentions coincide with those of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States."

"Somebody obviously intended to enrage the U.S. into going in full-force in support of a launching of the Israeli Defense Forces against neighboring Arab nations," he said.

The next day, LaRouche told listeners of Woody Woodland on New Hampshire's WGIR: "This is not a terrorist operation. This is a covert, strategic, special-operations operation, which has characteristic similarities to the militia operation against the Oklahoma City center some years ago."

Woodland asked, "Are you saying that this might have been some people within our own country?"

LaRouche said: "In part, it had to be people within our own country … it was primarily a domestic, covert, special operation, by people with very high-grade military special-operations backgrounds. It could not have happened otherwise."

Finis
========

What Caused the WTC 6 Crater?
July 10, 2002

Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at 6 World Trade Center. This unexplained blast at the Customs House has never been investigated or reported in the mainstream media.

Despite the fact that the horrible events of September 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout. A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated WTC 6, the 8-story U.S. Customs House, although no national newspaper or media outlet has said a word about it.

The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m. The explosion at WTC 6 was shown afterwards on CNN. Because it not broadcast as it happened there has been some confusion about when it actually occurred. The large amount of smoke seen cascading around the South Tower in the video led some observers to mistake the blast for a dust cloud from the subsequent collapse of the tower.

TIMING CONFIRMED

I contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed. CNN's Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist who could not give his last name, said, "That's correct."  When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that clearly reached 550 feet, soaring higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said, "We can't figure it out."

The affected space between WTC 7 and the North Tower was occupied by the 8-story U.S. Customs House building, also known as WTC 6. The building primarily housed the offices of some 760 employees of the Customs Service, a department of the U.S. Treasury. A number of other federal agencies reportedly had offices in the building, including the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms, although the agencies failed to return calls about the matter.  A spokesman for the Export-Import Bank of the U.S., which had an office with 4 employees on the 6th floor of the Customs House did confirm the time of the explosion and said the employees had survived and been relocated to another location in the city. One private company, Eastco Building Services, Inc., reportedly leased space in the building.

Some 800 workers from WTC 6 were safely evacuated within 12 minutes of the first plane hitting the North Tower at about 8:46 a.m., according to a Washington Post article by Stephen Barr, "Knowing the Drill Saved Lives at New York's Customs House" dated 18 September 2001. The Barr piece is the only known article published about WTC 6, however, Barr failed to mention the explosion that apparently devastated the building just minutes after the workers had escaped with their lives.

AVOIDING THE SUBJECT

Although the Customs House apparently exploded at 9:04 a.m., the government-sponsored investigation was steered away from looking into what had actually happened. The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers, however, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City's Dept. of Design and Construction (DDC). Kenneth Holden is Commissioner of the DDC, having been appointed by the former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani on December 7, 1999.

Regarding the investigation of WTC 4, 5, and 6, FEMA's "Building Performance" report says, "WTC 5 was the only building accessible for observation," but it adds, "The observations, findings, and recommendations are assumed to be applicable to all three buildings." A spokesman for FEMA told me that because the building was considered by DDC to be "very dangerous," there was "no data collection" from WTC 6. Dr. Gene Corley, one of the engineers who led the investigation, told me that concerns about loose gold bullion and cash prevented investigators from entering WTC 4.

The FEMA report says, "The buildings [4,5,6] responded as expected to the impact loadings." Although the report says, "most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors" it adds, "damage was consistent with the observed impact load." The Customs House had a huge crater in its center.


The crater in WTC 6 went into the sub-basement levels.  The damage to WTC 6 occurred before the first tower collapsed and does not appear to have been caused by falling debris.

"INTERESTING PHOTOS"

I contacted Corley about the CNN photos. Corley said he had not seen the photos before and said, "These are interesting photos." Corley, like others, thought the damage at WTC 6 was caused by the collapse of the North Tower, however, not one of the experts could recall seeing the CNN footage before. A spokesman for the Customs Service said, "It did not blow up. When the tower collapsed it caved in."

Corley said he had not seen the photos of the extremely high-speed missile-like object seen streaking toward WTC 6 from behind the North Tower as the second plane impacted the South Tower. He noted that parts of the plane's landing gear and an engine passed through the South Tower, and landed several blocks away. These objects, however, had a distinctly different trajectory from the streaking missile-like object. Jonathan Barnett, another investigator that I spoke to, said, "The debris from Tower 2 hit Building 5, not 6."

Finis

What Exploded at WTC 6?
July 12, 2002

There has been some confusion about when the CNN video showing the mysterious explosion of 9-11 was filmed. In order to clarify the timing, I contacted CNN archives in Atlanta.  The most senior archivist available, who could only reveal his first name, Andy, said that the footage showing the mysterious explosion had been shot as the second plane crashed into the South Tower, about 9:04 a.m.

There has been some doubt about the large amount of smoke seen around the south tower in the background. Most television viewers did not see the debris and smoke that fell around the South Tower after the plane crashed because tall buildings were in the way. A series of photos by Carmen Taylor, however, show that the amount of smoke and debris, and the way that if fell, match the image from CNN, which is taken from the opposite side of the towers.
----------



The Carmen Taylor photos

Carmen Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was visiting New York City and caught on film the moment United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.  Taylor was vacationing in New York when she spotted an airplane flying toward the World Trade Center, which had been struck by another plane minutes earlier. The second plane struck the Trade Center's second tower, and Taylor captured the event in an astonishing series of digital photographs that aired on the local ABC affiliate, Channel 40/29.

Taylor was just about to board the Staten Island Ferry to see the Statue of Liberty when the first explosion happened.  She turned her camera on, and started shooting. As she did, she caught the explosions after the first plane struck. Then, she captured the second plane just before it hit the tower. 

"There had been helicopters circling," Taylor said. "And then, this big plane comes up, and I thought 'OK, there's a plane going by.' Within seconds, it went straight into the other tower.  "We were just standing, looking at the World Trade Center, and all of a sudden, it lit up like massive fireworks," she said.

Finis

Sources and Recommended Reading:

The damaged 6 World Trade Center building, StagedTerror.com
http://www.stagedterror.com/Pages/WTC6.htm

Reader Comments:

Hello, I was just reading your article about building 6, and saw that you have a caption of the plume over wtc6 and it says that this occurred just as the second plane impacted.  I found the original clip on youtube.  Here it is:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBhWRzt-aA

Freeze it at 0:26 and its the exact same frame as the picture in your article. The plume occurred just after the south tower collapsed not just after the second impact.   It seems to be the pyroclastic dust cloud from the collapse of the South Tower.

- See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/the-mystery-of-wtc-6/#sthash.KXhoRSZp.dpuf

Friday, August 10, 2012

Christopher Bollyn-Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand That Rules Britain and the United States


Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand That Rules Britain and the United States
By Christopher Bollyn
20-Dec-2007
For all practical purposes, the United States and Britain are Zionist-occupied nations. Because the American and British people are generally ignorant of what Zionism is, the meaning of this statement is not widely understood or appreciated.
The lack of understanding by the public, however, doesn't change the fact that these once great nations have become Zionist-controlled states. The evidence is clearly seen in the self-destructive foreign policies these nations have pursued for the past 40 years or so.
The Anglo-American "leadership" positions in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and their support of the costly Zionist fraud known as the "War on Terror" is further proof that Zionists control these nations – as if any were needed.
How did these powerful and independent nations become Zionist controlled? Unlike Palestine, where Eastern European Zionist immigrants used brutal terrorism to ethnically "cleanse" and conquer the land, in Britain and the United States the Zionists gained power gradually through "dumbing down" and effectively disenfranchising the native populations.
In Britain and the United States, the Zionists saved the use of terrorism for later, after they already controlled the media and the levers of power and government.
Americans today still believe they are free because the media tells them so and because they don't see the restraints and are able to move around and buy things. Americans are, indeed, free to work and shop, but they have virtually no real political power whatsoever. A good example is that while an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population is against the war in Iraq, the war and the huge spending bills to support it go on unchallenged by their representatives in Congress. Why don't the Congressmen vote to stop the disastrous war that has consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and taken more than 3,000 American lives?
Most Americans in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" are completely unaware that they have lost the most cherished democratic franchise, i.e. the citizen's fundamental right to vote and count their votes. They think their vote counts and don't have a clue that they lost their democratic franchise years ago. They are unaware of this situation simply because the media has not told them.
"If the media doesn't talk about, it must not be a problem" is the American way of thinking.
For the Zionist-controlled media, the absence of any citizen oversight of the vote-counting process and complete lack of transparency in American elections are simply non-issues, just like many other very important subjects of vital importance to the survival of the republic.
As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." This aptly describes the difficult condition Americans face at the beginning of the 21st Century.
Zionists, a marginal minority of Polish and Russian Jewish immigrants, were able to gain control of these great English-speaking nations by obtaining control of two fundamental institutions: the media and academia. This is not to say that they don't control other key institutions, but these two are of essential importance because they largely define the intellectual life of a nation.
Having worked in the media and studied Middle East history at an American university, I know what I am talking about here. History of the Middle East and Europe, and virtually every other subject taught at American universities, is viewed only through the Zionist prism.
For example, when I studied the Middle East at the University of California at Santa Cruz, the head of the department was a professor named Edmund Burke who had studied under the famous British Jew, Bernard Lewis, at Princeton. Burke was always recommending the books of Bernard Lewis, which I avoided like the plague.

Bernard LewisAmerican historian Joel Beinin called Lewis "perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community."
"Terry" Burke spent 1990 "on sabbatical" with Lewis at Princeton. He returned to Santa Cruz in the late summer, just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in January 1991. I remember Burke giving a speech in August or September at the federal building in Santa Cruz as the conflict was heating up. The very first words out of his mouth were "Balkanization," something that amazes me to this day. He was unwilling to explain his choice of words when I called him about a year ago.

Edmund "Terry" Burke of UCSCAlthough my main interest was Israel and Palestine, Burke recommended that I read a book about Yugoslavia. Balkanization, the breaking up of nations into ethnic statelets, is the Zionist plan for the entire Middle East, articulated by Oded Yinon of the Israeli foreign ministry in the early 1980s.
During the many lectures and courses I studied on the Middle East, never did I hear a critical word about Zionism or its brutal history in Eastern Europe and Palestine. This is primarily because the professors of Middle Eastern studies and European history are usually Jewish and strongly inclined to support Zionism.
If a professor were to openly criticize Zionism as the racist and violent ideology that it is, he would probably find himself unemployed in very short order.
I understood this and endeavored to present the anti-Zionist perspective at the university. I brought speakers like Ralph Schoenman, the author of The Hidden History of Zionism (1988), to the campus and led a tour of photojournalists to the West Bank and Gaza Strip shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Despite a great deal of effort and years of experience in the region, Burke did not give me "honors" with my degree, most likely because of my anti-Zionist views.
The media in the United States is controlled in the same way as the universities. The editors and journalists are prevented from investigating and discussing the real history of Zionism because the news outlets are usually owned by people who are themselves dedicated Zionists. The takeover of CNN by Gerald M. Levin of AOL Time Warner marked the fall of the last major non-Zionist media network.

Gerald LevinToday, all major news outlets in the United States and Britain are strongly Zionist. There were a few good newspapers, such as the Christian Science Monitor, that provided some balance to the pro-Zionist "mainstream" networks, but even they have now fallen.
The result is that the populations of the United States, Britain, and Australia are largely ignorant of Zionism and what it has done in the past in other countries -- and what it is doing now -- in theirs.
NON-ISSUES
Selecting issues and non-issues for coverage is the primary method employed by the Zionist-controlled news networks. Issues get a lot of coverage while non-issues get none.
Here are a few examples of issues and non-issues in the Zionist-controlled media:
• Iran's legal and monitored efforts to develop nuclear energy are an issue; Israel's illegal and secret nuclear arsenal is not.
• Discussion of the alleged role of Muslims in terrorist acts is an issue; solid evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11 and the London bombings is not.
• The two-year long fake presidential campaign with a host of Zionist-controlled candidates is an issue; how our electronic "votes" are counted by mysterious "private" foreign companies of unknown ownership is not.
I don't know if any other American journalist and 9-11 researcher has been attacked, TASERed, and had their elbow broken by an undercover tactical squad in front of their family in the United States, but I know that when it happened to me in August 2006 it was very much a non-issue with the controlled media.
WHO ARE THESE FOREIGN MINISTERS?
The position of foreign minister, or secretary of state in the United States, is a very important position, second only to the president or prime minister. Since foreign policy is the only policy coming out of Washington or London these days, these positions are of crucial importance and speak volumes about who is really controlling the government.
In the United States and Britain we have very strange people with odd backgrounds in these high-level appointed positions. The current British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is a 42-year-old politician named David Wright Miliband, the son of the Belgian-born Marxist, Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband.

David MillibandThe U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a 53-year-old former professor, holds the comparable position in the American government.
What is most peculiar -- and telling -- is that the backgrounds, loyalties, and ideologies of these two high-level appointed officials are never discussed in the Zionist-controlled media; clearly this is a non-issue.
WHO IS DAVID MILIBAND?
It goes without saying that both Miliband and Rice are dedicated Zionists, they are, after all, serving in extremely pro-Zionist governments. But why are their personal and family histories not discussed by the media? Don't the American and British people have a right to know the person who is overseeing the implementation of their national foreign policy?
David Miliband, who only became a Member of Parliament in June 2001, was recently in Basra, Iraq, when the British officially stepped back from their failure and turned over control to Iraqi authorities.
Although Miliband and other British officials have tried to put a good face on the disastrous results of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation, the fact that it has been a complete failure is painfully apparent to all.
As a senior Iraqi military officer told ABC News, "The British legacy in Basra is criminal gangs, a corrupt and infiltrated police force, and borders open to all."
Major-General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander in Basra, told the Times of London: "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world."
Yousif Nassar, one of Basra’s most famous composers, is also disappointed at what the British did to his city. "The British Forces created chaos and failed to deliver what they promised," he said, as reported by the Times of December 17, 2007.
The Times article was entitled "Crumbling services and violence on the streets, but hope follows British pullout."
"We congratulate all of those who have helped achieve this, most notably British and Coalition military and civilian personnel," Defense Secretary Des Browne and David Miliband said in a joint statement when the pullout was announced. How could these senior British officials congratulate anyone for their achievments in Basra? The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is nothing but an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps that was the plan all along?
Knowing who David Miliband is and what he represents is key to understanding the real power behind Britain's foreign policy. This is certainly the reason the Zionist-controlled media keeps the British population – and the world – ignorant of the Miliband family's roots – in Brussels.


David MillibandDavid Miliband is the son of Ralph Miliband, born Adolphe in Brussels in 1924, and Marion Kozak. Ralph was a well known Marxist political theorist. Ralph, who died in 1994, is buried in Highgate Cemetery close to his idol, Karl Marx.


Miliband and his father, the Marxist Ralph Milliband at his spacious home in a comfortable part of LondonDavid's brother, Edward Samuel Miliband, is also a member of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet where he has been chairman of the Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, which directs the UK's long-term economic planning.
Beyond that, the family history gets confusing and misleading, on purpose I'm sure.
The online biography of Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband says he was born in Brussels of Polish-Jewish emigré parents and that both his parents lived in the Jewish quarter of Warsaw, before his father, Samuel "Sam" Miliband, joined the Red Army in the Polish-Soviet or Bolshevik War (February 1919 – March 1921).
Sam Miliband is said to have left Poland after the First World War, which ended in November 1918. He supposedly became a leather worker in Belgium and then returned to Poland to join the Red Army under the command of Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) in 1920.
The commanders who served under Trotsky in the Bolshevik War against Poland were Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Aleksandr Yegorov, Joseph Stalin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky.
Nikolay Bukharin, writing in the Soviet newspaper Pravda, urged the Bolsheviks to carry on beyond Warsaw "right up to London and Paris."
General's Tukhachevsky's order of July 2, 1920 read:
To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to world-wide conflagration. March on Vilno, Minsk, Warsaw! Onward to Berlin over the corpse of Poland!
Why would a poor leather worker in Belgium give up his work and travel all the way to Poland to fight with the Bolshevik Red Army against the Polish Republic and the West? If this is true, Samuel Miliband must have been a very dedicated communist.
This is, however, most certainly not the whole truth. The family tree of the family of David and Edward Miliband clearly indicates that their grandfather Samuel Miliband was also born, like their father Adolphe, in Brussels in 1865. In this case, Brussels-born Sam must have been an extremely dedicated communist. There is another possible explanation. Perhaps Sam was a Zionist emissary on a mission to bring support and funds to the Red Army in their attempt to conquer Poland. If the family tree is correct that Sam Miliband was born in Brussels, there is something more to the Miliband story.
The Miliband family tree provides the names and dates of birth of Samuel's 11 siblings, his parents, and even his grand-parents, data which supports it as a credible source. Why then has the Zionist-controlled media obscured the Miliband family history and pretended that David's father was born in Warsaw, when his family records indicate he was born in Brussels?
This is information about the Miliband family that the Zionist-controlled media had evidently decided that the public does not need to know. It also suggests that the preferential treatment and promotions that the Milibands have received since coming to Britain have more to do with their high-level connections than with their abilities.
Their connections and loyalties are evidently to the highest levels of the Zionist "Communist" International in Brussels, which is the only reason they are in the positions they are in. Their loyalty is clearly not to the British nation or people.
WHO IS JOSEF KORBEL?
The same is true of Condoleezza Rice, who was mentored at the University of Denver by the Czechoslovakian Jewish immigrant, Josef Korbel, the father of the previous secretary of state, Marie Jana Korbelova, a.k.a. Madeleine Albright.


Marie Jana Korbelova with her father, Josef Korbel - 1943One might think that this amazing coincidence would be newsworthy but it has generally been ignored by the controlled media as well. This is probably because the obvious question, "Who is Josef Korbel?" is a question the Zionist-controlled media does not want to address.
Josef Korbel (1909-77) was a Czechoslovakian diplomat in the London-based "government" in exile of Edvard Benes, which took power in Prague after World War II. Korbel was the father of Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the mentor of George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. What a coincidence – or is it?


Condoleezza Rice and Zippy Livni, the Israeli foreign minister.
Livni is the daughter of the former head of operations of the Irgun, a Zionist terror organization.Korbel was also a thief. Korbel stole paintings which belonged to German industrialist Karl Nebrich, whose property in Prague was confiscated as part of the post-war Benes decrees. Like the more than three million other ethnic Germans from Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia, Nebrich and his family were expelled from the country under the postwar decrees, which oddly remain in force to this day.
Would any European nation that banned Jews and confiscated their property be allowed to be a member of the European Union? Why are such racist laws permitted against Germans?
Korbel's stealing of property and art is just the tip of the iceberg. Korbel was involved in the United Nations partition of India and Pakistan and the illegal arming of the Zionist fighters in Palestine until the end of 1948.
When the communists came to power in 1948, Korbel was charged and sentenced and fled to New York where he lived in the cottage house of a very large mansion in Great Neck, New York. He was eventually given a teaching position at the University of Denver.
The Korbel's move to New York is described in Seasons of Her Life, A Biography of Madeleine Albright:
The Korbels settled into a home just outside New York City. One of Joseph Korbel's colleagues at the United Nations had helped the family rent a small gardener's cottage at 149 Station Road in a woodsy section of Great Neck, a prosperous and developing suburban community on Long Island's North Shore.
Korbel clearly played a key role in the Zionist-Israeli weapons pipeline from Czechoslovakia, which was the main supplier and base for the nascent Israeli Air Force. The Zionist air bridge from Czechoslovakia, known as Operation Balak, was the essential weapons supply line and is regarded as one of the Israeli Air Force's most important achievements. Czechoslovakia provided weapons, ammunition, and the first fighter airplanes to the Zionist forces in Palestine.
The would-be Israelis even operated their own airbase and pilot training school in Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia played an important role as the main transit point for arms shipments going by sea and a refueling stop for the Israeli and Zionist pilots flying fighter aircraft from Czechoslovakia to Palestine – which became the State of Israel after May 1948.
Korbel, an avowed anti-communist and senior member of the Benes government, became the Czech ambassador to Belgrade at this time, although he hated the socialism of Tito. Korbel was the ambassador in Yugoslavia because he was playing another more important role: the key Zionist point man in the illegal weapons transfers to Jewish forces in Palestine. The people, such as Shimon Peres, who were involved in the illegal weapons smuggling to the Haganah and the Irgun terrorist gangs in Palestine have been at the top of the Zionist hierarchy since 1948.
There is, of course, much more to the sordid Milliband, Korbel, and Rice histories. This material is provided simply to illustrate the high-level Zionist connections of the people who shaped and taught the current foreign ministers of Britain and the United States. Because this information is not provided by the controlled media in these two great nations, I am providing this research to help my fellow Americans and British friends realize who is controlling their foreign policy – which is nothing short of disastrous.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Christopher Bollyn - Iran Bashing, Terrorism and Who Chose The Chosen People, Anyway?

Iran Bashing, Terrorism and Who Chose The Chosen People, Anyway?


Christopher Bollyn

April 1, 2012
Anthony Lawson’s latest video “Iran Bashing, Terrorism and Who Chose The Chosen People, Anyway?” is excellent.  It is certainly very timely and important viewing.  One of the subjects of the video is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who is desperately striving to start a war between Iran and the United States.  Such a war would be a great disaster for the United States, Iran, and the whole world. 
Netanyahu is the Israeli politician who told the New York Times that the terror attacks, in which tens of thousands were thought to have been killed, were “very good” for U.S.-Israeli relations -- on September 11, 2001.

Netanyahu is the leader of the Likud, the party of Zionist extremists created by the former terrorist leader Menachem Begin.
Netanyahu, it should be noted, is considered one of the senior architects of the false-flag terrorism of 9-11, according to the thesis I explain in Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World. Netanyahu is a Zionist fanatic of the most dangerous kind and should be arrested and prosecuted for serious crimes, including his role in the planning of 9-11. 
That Benjamin Netanyahu is a liar and a cheat is certainly not news to anyone who follows the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Joe Lockhart, spokesman for the Clinton administration, said exactly that - in plain English:
"Netanyahu was one of the single most obnoxious individuals you're likely to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He would open his mouth and you would have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth."
- Former Clinton White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart in The Truth about Camp David: The untold story about the collapse of the Middle East peace process by Clayton E. Swisher, Nation Books, 2004 (p. 8)
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the same:
"I can't stand him, he's a liar," said Sarkozy.
"You're fed up with him - I have to deal with him everyday!" replied Obama.
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy venting his frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in what was supposed to be a private conversation with Barack Obama. “Sarkozy overheard telling Obama: Netanyahu's a liar,” by Jessica Phelan, November 8, 2011
Lawson’s video points out that the corrupt politicians in the U.S. Congress, bribed and bought with Zionist funds, gave "Netanyahu the Liar" 29 standing ovations when he addressed a joint session of Congress in May 2011. History will show that these craven and venal politicians were applauding a dangerous sociopath and terrorist.  They were giving standing ovations to one of the most deceptive mass murderers of our time.
One of the characteristics of a sociopath is that he is a pathological liar. One of the central lies of Netanyahu’s dangerous worldview is that he has a biblical claim to Palestine, as he told the United Nations on September 23, 2011:
We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they're ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel's security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.
I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That's like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we're called "Jews"? Because we come from Judea.
In my office in Jerusalem, there's a -- there's an ancient seal. It's a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there's a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That's my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin -- Binyamin -- the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Samaria 4,000 years ago, and there's been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.
- Benjamin Netanyahu speech at the United Nations, September 23, 2011
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/netanyahus-un-speech_594122.html?page=1
Netanyahu told the United Nations that his vision is that Palestinians should be neither citizens nor subjects of Israel, which is to say that he wants Israel to be a Jewish-only state in Palestine -- without Palestinians.  Who could support such a falsely-constructed tribal/racist state in the 21st Century?  Although Netanyahu's vision violates the basic priciples of American democracy, the assembled members of Congress seem to think he is wonderful. 
The most revealing lie is what he says about the name Netanyahu and his relationship to that name. The point is that although Netanyahu may be his last name, it was certainly not the name of his father from Poland, who was born Ben-Zion Mileikowsky in Warsaw to the Zionist writer and activist Nathan Mileikowsky. The Mileikowsky family migrated to Palestine, where it was a common practice for the Zionist immigrants to adopt a Hebrew name. Like most of the ruling families of Israel, the Mileikowsky family is from Poland, not from Palestine.  The fundamental Zionist lie is that the Jews of Poland and Russia have a legitimate claim to Palestine.  They do not.  Like Jacob in the Bible, they are using deceit to claim something to which they have no right.  
As an article from 2009 says about the family name:
In the beginning, the prime minister's father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu, emigrated from Lithuania to Palestine before the birth of the Jewish state in 1948. His family name was Milikovsky, but like many Israelis, the family chose a Hebrew name. They chose Netanyahu, which in Hebrew means "God's gift."
Some cynics quip that the name says much about how members of the family see themselves.
Benjamin Netanyahu: A Man Shaped By His Family, May 2, 2009http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/benjamin-netanyahu-a-man_n_181918.html

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

911 - Christopher Bollyn - 9-11 and Alvin Krongard - Israel's Agent at the CIA

9-11 and Alvin Krongard - Israel's Agent at the CIA

Christopher Bollyn


March 27, 2012
To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the "put" options [related to 9-11] - where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall - on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, now executive director of the CIA. Until 1997, Mr Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by Deutsche Bank. His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust - Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.
- Chris Blackhurst, “Mystery of Terror 'Insider Dealers'”, The Independent (UK), October 14, 2001

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 [2001] as part of a strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter…which recommended these trades.
- 9/11 Commission Report, W.W. Norton, 2004, footnote on p. 499

Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard was Executive Director of the C.I.A. from March 2001 until November 2004.  Previously he had served as a consultant to C.I.A. Directors George J. Tenet (1997-2004) and Robert James Woolsey, Jr. (1993-1995).  
The informed insider trading of stock options carried out by people with prior knowledge of the terror attacks of 9-11 is once again in the news.  Max Keiser of the Keiser Report recently interviewed Lars Schall, a German journalist who has written extensively on the "terror traders" of 9-11.  In the center of the discussion of the informed trading done by people who evidently knew the attacks were coming stands one very conspicuous individual, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, then Executive Director of the C.I.A..  Krongard would be considered a "person of interest" in any proper criminal investigation of 9-11 or the insider trading that preceded it.
Krongard has been suspected of being connected to the suspicious trading since October 2001.  In one of my first articles about 9-11, "The Profiteers of 9-11", I wrote the following:
Investigations into the unusually high number of "put" options, betting that the price of United Airlines (UAL) and American Airlines shares would fall, have revealed that Alex Brown Inc., an investment banking firm, purchased many of these option contracts. Alex Brown Inc. was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now the executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. Krongard, 64, former head of Baltimore-based Alex Brown, America's oldest investment bank, joined the CIA three years ago as a counselor to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. Krongard switched careers shortly after helping engineer the $2.5 billion merger of Alex Brown and Bankers Trust New York Corp., gaining $71 million in Bankers Trust stock in the process.

President Bush appointed Krongard executive director of the Central Intelligence Agency on March 26. From February 1998 until March 2001, Krongard served as counselor to the director of central intelligence. Until 1997 Krongard was chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown, having previously worked in various capacities at Alex Brown. Krongard was quoted on the relationship between Wall Street and the CIA in a Washington Post article. If you go back to the CIA's origins during World War II in the Office of Strategic Services, Krongard told the Post, "the whole OSS was really nothing but Wall Street bankers and lawyers."
WHO IS BUZZY KRONGARD?
The hypothesis of my book Solving 9-11:  The Deception that Changed the World is that the terror attacks were a false-flag operation planned and carried out by Israeli military intelligence with the assistance and support of Zionist agents in high positions in the U.S. government.  These Zionist agents would include people like Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon and Michael Chertoff, then Assistant Attorney General, who was responsible for the federal investigation and prosecution of the crimes of 9-11.  In this position Chertoff managed the federal "non-investigation" of 9-11 in which the crucial evidence was confiscated and destroyed without being properly examined.
My hypothesis is not that 9-11 was an "inside" job, but that it was an Israeli-planned false-flag operation.  The Israeli operation was facilitated by highly-placed Zionist agents within the U.S. government, military, and intelligence spheres.  If Buzzy Krongard is a suspect in the crimes of 9-11, the question that needs to be answered is:  Was Krongard acting as an agent for Israeli military intelligence at Alex Brown and the C.I.A.?  The evidence indicates that he served as an agent for Israel in both positions. 
Alvin Bernard Krongard, born 1936, is the son of Raphael Harris Krongard and Rita Keyser Krongard.  Both his mother and father were born in Baltimore to Jewish immigrant families from Poland/Russia.  His first wife, Patricia Lion, was also Jewish.  While Krongard's Jewish roots are never mentioned in the various articles about him, his Jewish ethnicity clearly plays the key role in his efforts to support Israeli enterprises in the United States.  When a high-level person like Krongard conceals his Jewish roots while actively serving the state of Israel it indicates that he is seeking to hide his true identity and loyalty to a foreign state.  For such a person to be the administrative chief of the Central Intelligence Agency says a great deal about the degree of Israeli penetration of the U.S. intelligence community.  
 
Alvin Bernard Krongard at Princeton, 1957
Krongard's paternal grandparents immigrated from Lowicz, Poland, to the United States in 1904.  The family name and first names were changed.  Krongaard is a Scandinavian name that his grandfather took after they arrived in the United States.  Krongaard means land or property of the "crown".  The immigration records indicate that his grandfather Morris Krongard did not enter the U.S. under that name. 
Krongard's mother, Rita (Rebecca) Keyser, was born in Baltimore to Abraham and Ethel Keyser, Russian Jewish immigrants who had also arrived in the U.S. in 1904.  She was raised in Washington, where she attended high school and graduated from Strayer Business College.  She worked as a legal secretary for a Washington maritime lawyer before her marriage to Raphael Harris Krongard in 1931.  The Krongard's lived in Ashburton, Maryland, and had three children:  Alvin, Howard Joel, and a daughter, Marilyn, who died in 1946.

Alvin Krongard graduated from Princeton and went on to serve on "active duty" in the U.S. Marine Corps in the Mediterranean from 1958-1961.  Although the details are not given it seems likely that he served in Lebanon where the U.S. Marines were sent in 1958.  He returned to the United States and married Patricia Lion.  He worked at her family business, Lion Brothers, from 1961-1969.  After a two year stint at Bache/Stern Brothers Boyce he joined the Baltimore investment bank of Alex Brown in 1971.  After twenty years, Buzzy Krongard became C.E.O. of Alex Brown in July 1991. 
ALEX BROWN AND ISRAEL

As C.E.O. of America's oldest investment bank, Krongard was well placed to assist companies spawned by Israeli military intelligence.  Under Krongard, Alex Brown became a leading U.S. partner for these Israeli companies.  In May 1996 Krongard and Mayo A. Shattuck went to Israel on a three-day trip during which they met with then prime minister Shimon Peres.  As the Baltimore Sun reported shortly before their trip to Israel:
A. B. Krongard, Alex. Brown's chairman and chief executive, and Mayo A. Shattuck III, president and chief operating officer, are to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Dov Lautman, the prime minister's special emissary for economic development...
"Obviously, this is a trip of some significance," Mr. Shattuck said.  "We want to be perceived as the premiere underwriter and adviser for high-tech and health care companies in Israel. The time has come to build stronger affiliations at the senior management level."

The meeting with Mr. Peres was arranged through Giza Group, one of Israel's leading private investment banking firms, Mr. Shattuck said.

When Alex. Brown officials meet with Mr. Peres, they expect to talk about how the company can link Israeli firms to U.S. capital markets, Mr. Shattuck said.

Alex. Brown, which had $809 million in revenues in 1995, is known worldwide for its expertise in taking high-tech and health care companies public. Last year, it managed 64 initial public offerings, tops in the United States.

R. William Burgess Jr., head of Alex. Brown's technology investment banking group, compared Israel to Silicon Valley in California and Route 128 in Boston, which have spawned some of the world's largest high-tech companies.

"My hope would be to do several initial public offerings a year for Israeli companies and several mergers and acquisitions," said Mr. Burgess, who will also make the trip.

Alex. Brown has been doing business with companies in Israel for at least five years.
In 1996, Alex Brown was serving as the financial advisor for Scitex, an Israeli company connected to military intelligence.  Yair Shamir, the son of Yitzhak Shamir, the Zionist terrorist who killed Folke Bernadotte before becoming prime minister, was general manager of Scitex.  Krongard's three-day visit to Israel and meeting with the prime minister was arranged by the Giza Group, a Tel Aviv-based investment banking firm. 

At the time of Krongard's visit, Aviv Boim was a vice president of Giza Ltd.  Boim remained at Giza for two more months, until August 1996, and then joined Krongard's company as an associate of Alex Brown from August 1996 to February 1998.  Aviv Boim worked with Alex Brown's technology group in London, where he managed initial public offerings, mergers, and acquisitions concerning Israeli companies.    
On October 2, 1996, the Baltimore Sun reported that Krongard was "still bullish on Israel."  Krongard had addressed the Maryland/Israel Development Center the previous day.  "There is great market demand for Israel's products," Krongard said. "Israel has the brain power. Its human capital is exceptional."

The Maryland/Israel Development Center was started in 1992 as a nonprofit group to form business partnerships between Maryland and Israeli companies.  The article noted that just the week prior to his speech at the Maryland/Israel Development Center, Krongard and Alex Brown had taken the Israeli company Orckit Communications Ltd. public.  "Tel Aviv-based Orckit makes systems that enable telephone companies to provide high-speed voice and digital transmission," the Sun reported.  Yair Shamir was a director of Orckit.
ORCKIT AND UNIT 8200 OF ISRAELI MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 
Orckit is a company that was created by the former commander of Unit 8200, the signal intelligence branch of the Israeli military, as Efi Landau reported in Globes (Israel).
Even Orckit’s win in the large tender of the US telephone company GTE, one of the eight largest telephone companies in the world, did not persuade company president Yitzhak Tamir to grant an open, on the record, press interview. However, cracks can be seen in the shrouds hiding the company from the media, contributing perhaps to the recognition that the company’s most precious asset is its workers, and it cannot hurt if more is known about them.

Orckit was established in 1990 by Military Intelligence electronic unit 8200 graduates Eric Paneth and Yitzhak Tamir. The unit has provided Israeli high-tech a significant proportion of its engineers and managers. Paneth was commander of the unit, replacing Zohar Zisappel, chairman of the RAD-Bynet group.
Orckit (and Tikcro) are not your usual companies.  These are typical Israeli military "dual-use" companies.  They have hidden military and intelligence functions but are presented as normal commercial enterprises.  With companies like Orckit, Buzzy Krongard and his team at Alex Beam certainly must have been aware that they were investing in companies closely tied to the Israeli military.

In February 1998 Buzzy Krongard joined the C.I.A. as a consultant to director George Tenet.  In a bizarre move, Krongard left his $4 million a year job as head of Bankers Trust (BT).  He had just completed the BT merger with Alex Brown in the fall of 1997 and suddenly he was leaving.  Aviv Boim also left BT Alex Brown in February and joined Orckit as Chief Financial Officer.  The merger between Bankers Trust and Alex Brown, the first between a bank and a securities brokerage since the Depression, however, went sour shortly after Krongard left the company.  The newly merged company reported a record loss in 1998 and was soon taken over by Deutsche Bank.  Mayo Shattuck stayed on at Alex Brown but resigned suddenly the day after 9-11.
While it is clear that Krongard jumped ship because he knew that the BT Alex Brown merger would soon fail, why did he go to work for the C.I.A.?  What we do know is that Krongard had worked closely with computer companies spawned by Israeli military intelligence.  After he joined the C.I.A. as counselor to the director, Krongard soon became engaged in setting up the C.I.A. venture capital firm called In-Q-It (In-Q-Tel) that was supposed to keep the agency abreast of computer technology.  How much Israeli software do you think found its way onto the C.I.A. computer network under Buzzy Krongard's reign? 
In October 1999, the Washington Post reported on the genesis of In-Q-Tel:
A lot of people wondered what CIA Director George J. Tenet had in mind a year and a half ago when he brought in Wall Street heavyweight A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard to serve as his "counselor." Now they know-- part of the story.

The man who helped underwrite Microsoft and AOL as head of Alex Brown & Co. has done it again, helping Tenet & Co. start up a CIA venture capital firm called In-Q-It that's supposed to keep the agency abreast of computer technology.

But Krongard's influence at Langley extends well beyond this foray into Silicon Valley. "George will say, 'Make this happen,' " said Krongard, 61, explaining in a telephone interview exactly what it is he does for the director of central intelligence.

"The idea is for In-Q-It to fund promising technologies..."

"The idea for the venture-capital fund was hatched in conversations between the new CIA director, George Tenet, and a former investment banker named A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who joined the agency in February 1998 as counselor to the director.
The director of the C.I.A. is often little more than a mannequin who gives a name and a face to the agency while the day-to-day operations are managed by the executive director like Krongard.  George Tenet is similar to Leon Panetta.  Both are sons of immigrants who owned diners, one in Little Neck, New York, the other in Monterey, California.  What is it about Tenet and Panetta that made them suitable to be directors of the C.I.A.?  They are clearly not leaders of men or strong thinkers.  Could it be that they were men who were known to be weak and amenable, and who could easily be controlled by people like Krongard? 
Krongard became the Executive Director of the C.I.A. in March 2001 and remained at that position for more than three years, until November 2004.  He was responsible for getting C.I.A. security contracts for Blackwater in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Later, his brother Howard (a.k.a. "Cookie"), as Inspector General of the State Department, denied knowing that Buzzy sat on the board of Blackwater during Congressional hearings into his obstruction of the investigation of contract fraud and crimes carried out by Blackwater.  The Congressional investigation did not result in any criminal charges being laid against either of the Krongard brothers.
"Krongard exhibited the requisite secretiveness when asked to explain his interest in intelligence and how he came to land a job in [George J. Tenet]'s inner circle," the Washington Post reported on March 17, 2001, the day after he was named Executive Director of the C.I.A. "If you go back to the CIA's origins during World War II in the Office of Strategic Services, he explained, "the whole OSS was really nothing but Wall Street bankers and lawyers."
Krongard was the chief operating officer, the day-to-day administrative leader of the C.I.A. from March 2001 until November 2004.  In this position he was certainly aware of the plane-into-building drill planned for September 11, 2001 at the National Reconnaissance Office, a sub-agency of the C.I.A.  Although Krongard is probably not an architectural level planner of the terrorism of 9-11, the evidence indicates that he served as a highly-placed manager who served as an important conduit linking Israeli military intelligence with the C.I.A.

Alvin Krongard, his second wife Cheryl, and Jim Kimsey.  Cheryl Gruetzmacher was raised in Iowa and married Edward S. Gordon in May 1992.


The Krongard house sits on a 80 acre wooded estate off 1400 W Seminary Avenue in Lutherville, just north of Baltimore, Maryland.

Howard Joel Krongard, Alvin's brother, as Inspector General at the State Department, blocked investigations of massive fraud by military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.  At Congressional hearings, Howard feigned ignorance that his brother was a director of Blackwater, one of the key contracts being examined.  Buzzy had awarded the C.I.A. contract to Blackwater. 
Selected Sources:
Atkinson, Bill, “Alex. Brown chief bullish on Israel despite violence,” Baltimore Sun, October 02, 1996http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-10-02/business/1996276060_1_israel-krongard-peres
Berger, Joseph, “A Diner That Was the Special of Every Day,” New York Times, December 3, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/nyregion/04metjournal.html?_r=1&scp=26&sq=%22John%20Tenet%22&st=cse#
Blackhurst Chris, “Mystery of terror insider dealers,” The Independent (UK), October 14, 2001http://www.oilempire.us/put-options.html
Chief Steps Down At Alex. Brown, New York Times, September 15, 2001http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/business/chief-steps-down-at-alex-brown.html
Directors and Senior Management at Orckit, SEC Filing for 2002http://mayafiles.tase.co.il/RPdf/74001-75000/P74584-00.pdf
Flocco, Tom, “Profits of Death – Insider Trading and 9-11,” FromtheWilderness.com, December 6, 2001http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html

Gaffney, Mark H., “Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 11, 2011
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/11/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side/

Landau, Efi, “Orckit Expands Sideways,” Globes (Israel), May 3, 1998http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=367254
Ruppert, Michael C., CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard Managed Firm that Handle “Put” Option on UAL, FromtheWilderness.com, October 9, 2001http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html
Schall, Lars, “Insider trading 9/11 ... the facts laid bare,” Asia Times, March 21, 2012http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html
Schall, Lars, “9-11 Insider Trading and Germany’s Elusive Gold Reserves,” LarsSchall.com, March 24, 2012http://www.larsschall.com/2012/03/24/9-11-insider-trading-and-germanys-elusive-gold-reserves/ 

Monday, March 19, 2012

INCREDIBLE:The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil



The Indefinite Detention Bill (the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act) DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

Updated December 17, 2011

WILL OBAMA SEND U.S. CITIZENS TO GUANTANAMO?
'It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration.'
- Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch on detention laws in NDAA 2012
I have never understood how so many Americans accepted the torture of Padilla - an American citizen on U.S. soil, and not even a foreigner held at Guantánamo - without recognizing that, although a Latino Muslim convert was today's "enemy combatant," tomorrow it might be some other demonized American. I was also astonished when no one cared that Padilla's torture was not mentioned in his trial, and he received a sentence of 17 years and four months for little more than a thought crime.
- Andy Worthington, "It Could Be You: The Sad Story of Jose Padilla, Tortured and Denied Justice"

“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
- Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R.-SC)

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress gives the military the power to detain American citizens in its gulag prisons like Camp Delta in Guantanamo, Cuba.


Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was held in solitary confinement in a military prison in South Carolina for nearly 4 years - without being charged.

IT COULD BE YOU
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen from Chicago, was arrested in 2002 at O’Hare International Airport on suspicion of plotting to set off a radioactive “dirty bomb” and held for nearly 4 years - without criminal charges - in solitary confinement in a military prison. Dubbed an "enemy combatant" by George Bush, John Ashcroft, and Michael Chertoff, Padilla was kept in complete isolation for three and half years with prolonged sensory deprivation (seen above). According to a psychiatrist who spent 22 hours with Padilla in 2006, "What happened at the brig was essentially the destruction of a human being’s mind." Although the government had claimed that Padilla was suspected of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb", he was neither charged nor convicted for having done so.


U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke

In January 2006 Padilla was transferred to Miami, Florida, to face criminal conspiracy charges. In August 2007 he was found guilty and sentenced by Judge Marcia G. Cooke to 17 years in prison. During the trial, Judge Cooke, who had been appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2003, barred any mention of the three and a half years Padilla had been held in a legal black hole, sidestepping the fundamental question of whether the government has the legal authority to detain U.S. citizens without charges. From 1999 to 2002 Cooke had served as Chief Inspector General for the State of Florida under Governor Jeb Bush, where she was responsible for promoting accountability, integrity, efficiency, and ethical behavior in the agencies under Bush's jurisdiction.
A good presentation of the conflicting claims about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the power it gives the military to detain U.S. citizens without due process can be read on the Washington Blog under the title "The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil":
DON'T BE FOOLED
The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens

Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.

Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court, Chris McGreal writes in the Guardian article "Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial."

Sources and Recommended Reading:
The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil, Washington Blog, 14 December 2011http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-american-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

Keneally, Meghan, "Will Obama send U.S. citizens to Guantanamo?" Daily Mail (UK), 16 December 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074576/President-Obama-signs-law-detain-terror-suspects-indefinitely.html#ixzz1ghs0Ywzu
McGreal, Chris, "Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial", Guardian (UK), 15 December 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama?newsfeed=true

Vladeck, Stephen, "The lost Padilla verdict," Los Angeles Times, 17 August 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-vladeck17aug17,0,4813258.story

Worthington, Andy, "It Could Be You: The Sad Story of Jose Padilla, Tortured and Denied Justice", Truthout, 3 October 2011
http://www.truth-out.org/it-could-be-you-sad-story-jose-padilla-tortured-and-denied-justice/1317399537
-------------------------------------------

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

“Don’t Be Fooled”: The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens

Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.
The bill is confusing. As Wired noted on December 1st:
It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.
The ACLU notes:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so: [VIDEO NOT FOUND]

  Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor – John McCain – said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aUHh1iqe43w

 
U.S. Congressman Justin Amash states in a letter to Congress:
The Senate’s [bill] does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad. The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.
Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:
One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – General Colin Powell’s chief of staff – says that the bill is a big step towards tyranny at home.  Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.
Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:
Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
***
They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.
Update: Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley writes:
Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
***
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
And see this.

Thursday, Dec 15, 2011 11:31 AM EET

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

VIDEO
Barack Obama
President Barack Obama speaks to troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011.  (Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(updated below)
In one of the least surprising developments imaginable, President Obama – after spending months threatening to veto the Levin/McCain detention bill – yesterday announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual, of course, who unequivocally vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom[s],” only to turn around – once he had the nomination secure — and not only vote against such a filibuster, but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct). As a result, the final version of the Levin/McCain bill will be enshrined as law this week as part of the the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I wrote about the primary provisions and implications of this bill last week, and won’t repeat those points here.
The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “President Truman had the courage to veto” the Internal Security Act of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.
There have been several persistent myths circulating about this bill and President Obama’s position on it that need to be clarified once and for all:
First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean). That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the White House both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers President Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.
I’m embedding the video below of the segment I did last night on Cenk Uygur’s TV program where I elaborated on this point: this is not to mitigate how heinous this bill is, as there are real dangers to codifying these powers in law with bipartisan Congressional support as opposed to having the President unilaterally seize them and have some lower courts recognize them. Instead, it’s a reflection of how horrible the civil liberties status quo has become under the Bush and Obama administrations. This is the reason why civil libertarians have been so harshly critical of this President. It’s the reason civil liberties groups have been saying things like this even when saying them was so unpopular: it’s because Obama has, for three years now, been defending and entrenching exactly the detention powers this law vests, but doing it through radical legal theories, warped interpretations of the 2001 AUMF, continuities with the Bush/Cheney template, and devotion to Endless War and the civil liberties assaults it entails. See the newspaper excerpts below for more proof of this.
Second, as I documented at length last week, Obama’s veto threat was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.
Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The White House’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.
Even the one substantive objection the White House expressed to the bill — mandatory military detention for accused American Terrorists captured on U.S. soil — was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that — the definitive, conclusive proof — is that Sen. Carl Levin has several times disclosed that it was the White House which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted U.S. citizens from military detention (see the clip of Levin explaining this in the video below). In other words, this was an example of the White House demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraints (the prohibition on military detention for Americans captured on U.S. soil). That’s because the White House’s North Star on this bill —  as they repeatedly made clear — was Presidential discretion: they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.
Any doubt that this was the White House’s only concern with the bill is now dispelled by virtue of the President’s willingness to sign it after certain changes were made in Conference between the House and Senate. Those changes were almost entirely about removing the parts of the bill that constrained his power, and had nothing to do with improving the bill from a civil liberties perspective. Once the sole concern of the White House was addressed — eliminating limits on the President’s power — they were happy to sign the bill even though (rather: because) none of the civil liberties assaults were fixed. As Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer explained:
This morning I wrote that by making the mandatory military detention provisions mandatory in name only, the Senate had offered the administration an opportunity to see how seriously it takes its own rhetoric on civil liberties. The administration had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamental American principle. But the administration has decided that fundamental American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over. 
That’s because, as Serwer explained in a separate post, Congress — in response to the veto threat — made changes “addressing the security concerns, but not the ones related to civil liberties and the rule of law” (by “security concerns,” the White House means: don’t restrict what the President can do). That the White House cared only about the former (presidential discretion), and not at all about the letter (civil liberties), is proven by its willingness to sign the bill when only objections to the former have been addressed. For more proof on this point — and the perfect encapsulation of it — see this comment here.
Third, the most persistent and propagandistic set of myths about President Obama on detention issues is that he tried to end indefinite detention by closing Guantanamo, but was blocked by Congress from doing so. It is true that Congress blocked the closing of Guantanamo, and again in this bill, Congress is imposing virtually insurmountable restrictions on the transfer of detainees out of that camp, including for detainees who have long ago been cleared for release (restrictions that Obama is now going to sign into law). But — and this is not a hard point to understand — while Obama intended to close Guantanamo, he always planned — long before Congress acted — to preserve Guantanamo’s core injustice: indefinite detention.
I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then  re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start.
-------------------
ACLU

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law


CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.  While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.  The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”


Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.


“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”


The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

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

Indefinite Detention, Endless Worldwide War and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act

February 22, 2012
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s  dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.   

The breadth of the NDAA’s worldwide detention authority violates the Constitution and international law because it is not limited to people captured in an actual armed conflict, as required by the laws of war. Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way.  The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal.  Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate around whether the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States.   
Although President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the NDAA’s detention provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use them, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The provisions – which were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review – are inconsistent with fundamental American values.
Both Congress and the president need to clean up the mess they have created. No one should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.   The NDAA’s detention provisions must be repealed.