wrote about on their website around 1998 in order to bring about a Pax Americana in the Middle East. Signing on to this were some familiar names like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and more. Also interesting, from the same culprits, was a letter to then President Clinton urging him to invade Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein and secure Iraq's oil fields for the oil industry.

emphatic "No!" to the idea of having another war against the people of Iraq. Within a very short time after the President was issuing this "No!" -- the Monica Lewinsky affair came to light, and he was soon after that, charged with grounds for impeachment.

The Big Boys have a way of making a person fall in line, or else, taking a major hit for refusing to do so.

It's time The Hague put them on trial.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

Most people, especially here, scoff and ridicule this because the alternative would rock their world view. So they live in the land of denial. While the bombing and invading go on and on. Trillions ripped off from the American People because they couldn't or wouldn't pay attention.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm



Calling the Kosovo Humanitarians to Account
by John Pilger
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=4136

Don't forget what happened in Yugoslavia
by John Pilger
http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/08/pilger-kosovo-war-nato-serbs

...and the MIC's fear.

- They have become the very antithesis of freedom.

(that "we" spyed on) it might include some who are connected to 9/11.

Maybe we can have a new investigation. A really thorough investigation.

Which is why we haven't been able to find any victims yet, besides the taxpayers who are funding this scam.

Oh, I know the sky is going to light up in brilliant hues when Glenn fires off his rockets in three months, or whatever the business plan calls for. But I predict a big, fat letdown. Americans care far more about money than power, which is a good thing. If you want to know what the inverse looks like, check out Eddie's new home.

Similar invasions of privacy occurred when the British entered the businesses, homes and even ships of early Americans without warrants describing in detail the places to be searched, and took what they wanted.

Second, the Constitution is being rendered meaningless.

John Hancock owned a ship called the Liberty. John Adams represented John Hancock in a case in which Hancock claimed that the British had searched the cargo of the Liberty. John Adams' defense of Hancock was based on part on the fact that the British searched without a warrant that contained the necessary specificity.

John Adams wrote a provision similar to our Fourth Amendment for the state of Massachusetts after the Revolution. Madison based the Fourth Amendment in our Constitution on the provision that John Adams wrote. Our Fourth Amendment is not precisely the provision that Adams wrote, but is very, very similar.

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/CLANCY/Clancy.%20ADAMS%20and%20Framers.PDF%20version.pdf

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Our Constitution requires that before the police or other government agencies can search your papers and effects, they have to have a warrant, based "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describint the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Supreme Court veered from that strict interpretation and allowed the government to obtain telephone records from the phone company without a warrant in the course of a criminal investigation.

Since that decision, the courts have gleefully decimated the Fourth Amendment.

In addition to the damage the courts have done to that fundamental protection to our personal freedom, modern technology has made our lives increasingly vulnerable to invasive surveillance. It is conceivable that in the future we could have drones flying over our homes with the capacity to view and monitor our sex lives, our marital arguments or the number of calories we eat without our knowing it. Technology is moving at such a fast pace. Things I thought to be science-fiction in my childhood are now reality.

I do not think that John Adams or Madison would approve of the NSA spying. They would hate it.

So I ask you, what is left of the Fourth Amendment in a world in which the government can acquire enough knowledge about you and your friends just from looking at records of your electronic correspondence without ever entering your home?

We would never have realized just how far from the Fourth Amendment and the concerns of John Adams and Madison our government has strayed, had Snowden or someone like him not stepped forward and produced the proof, the documents.

So that's why Snowden is a big deal.

It doesn't work. The Boston failure is unbelieveably egregious.

This should calm people down, but Snowden, while failing to identify a single victim to date of NSA surveillance and acknowledging the agency routinely whiffs on the rare occasions it is needed, also says we have sacrificed our way of life for it.

This is a massive disconnect. If you ever wonder why Snowden is an Internet cafe issue and nothing more for the vast majority of people, there it is.

Communism employed various techniques to place people under surveillance.

As a result, people in Communist countries whispered about their discontentment in life, their distrust of the government, their fear of ostracism, lest they suffer perhaps loss of income, loss of opportunity for themselves and their children due to some slip of the tongue, some unacceptable opinion they might have expressed, some small indiscretion that was picked up by an informant.

The NSA spying is far more intrusive than the spying the Communists did.

Who knows how many people have lost their jobs because of the spying?

We have no way of knowing. And we have no way of knowing how many people could lose a job or be viewed as dangerous by the NSA and your local police who will, if they do not already, get information from the NSA.

Government spying is a waste of time and money. We agree on that. But many people are employed as government spies by the NSA. Since what they do brings no reward to our country, how are they to justify the expense and time spent on it?

Here's how: they will find new, very practical uses for the information they discover -- like informing employers of disgruntled employees.

Truman signed the NSA into law in 1952.

"Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Truman in 1952."

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

I quote this:

It (The NSA) was very quickly assigned the task of intercepting and collecting "foreign intelligence from foreign communications or foreign electronic signals" and entered into "'a secret arrangement' with ITT, RCA Global Communications, and Western Union" to gather millions of cables sent by Americans to foreign recipients.

Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen Power, Inc. (Macmillan 1976) page 376.

At that time, according to Mintz and Cohen, the NSA was collecting millions of cables "which had been sent by American citizens in the reasonable expectation that they would be kept private." Mintz, Power, Inc., age 376.

The NSA set up a watch list of American citizens with suggestions for inclusion on the list from the Bureau of Narcotics. General Lew Allen, Jr. stated that when he took responsibility foe the NSA in 1973, he got rid of the watch list.

Mintz and Cohen at pages 376-377.

Congress finally ended the collection of the international cables (supposedly) in 1975.

"The NSA has the capability 'to monitor anything' Senator Church . . . warned. That capability 'could be turned around on the American people,' he said. 'And no American would have any privacy left. There would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capability that the intelligence community has given the Government could enable it to impose total tyranny.'"

Mintz and Cohen, at page 377.

But here we are. The program either did not end or was revived. (Was Cheney's presence in the executive branch in the Nixon and Bush administrations just a coincidence? Did the NSA conduct surveillance on virtually all international communications with the US after it was instructed to stop? I don't know.)

Today, we are more dependent on electronic communications than ever before. Therefore, the NSA activities intrude on more of our communications and into our private lives more than ever. This is particularly true because the collection of our communications is now arguably being done within the US. And the collection of metadata is most definitely being done in the US.

We need to make sure that Congress is exercising adequate oversight on NSA activities. And we need to curtail and open up to the public more about what those activities are.

The secrecy of the NSA programs since the beginning of the agency is quite troubling. Sen. Church was right in 1975 and is right today.

American citizens should, in my opinion, be protected regardless of where they are in the world. But that is my opinion.

The NSA is out of control is my guess.

Some good legislation has been proposed to get the NSA under control. But we tried that before and it did not work. We already have the CIA and the defense intelligence agency. We need to prevent the intelligence system from becoming the enemy of the people. I don't think they are that yet, but the potential is there. And that is a dangerous matter.

THAT got even Diane Feinstein's attention and got her into a fight with the CIA. Normally she's a total apologist for the NSA, but I guess she never thought they might spy on HER.

He named ALL OF US. The entire population of the US! What kind of country spies on its entire population?

Hard to name just one out of 300 million.

I am a victim, my phone company was among those named as handing over data to the government.

That's enough for most people, which is why most people support him.

Our best defense would be to quit doing things that make people want to kill us.

Pearl Harbor followed closely after we placed sanctions on Japan, preventing them from being to obtain oil. Sanctions definitely work, but they don't always do what you think they are going to do.

issue. Since he's exposing Bush misdeeds as well as the president's

According to you? Give me a break!

how hard is that to understand?

So I guess I'm a bit slow today.

I seem to recall reading that here. We didn't have smart-phone metadata back then, but every email and internet transaction had fingerprints on it pre-9/11.

...Frank Keating, in 1991. Keating's brother Martin predicted a plane flying into a building, the World Trade Center bombing, and TWA bombing. The central villain's name was Tom McVey, pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Name of the book "The Final Jihad." I read it quite a few years ago.

Frank Keating, of course, was previously the head of the ATF and an FBI op.

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

other feel the same way.

We know. From all the xxxx, to the non-news story of the 10,000 9/11 families' twelve-year xxxxxxx, to the ongoing case down in Xxxxxxx, not to mention Senator Bob Xxxxxx'x xxxxxxxxx. You don't even need to promote the Xxxxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxxxx. Just the denied FOIAs alone is xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx. Take that with the 28 xxxxxxxx xxxx, the pre-xxxxxxx outline, the clear statements by the Co-chairs that "Xxxx xxxxxx xx x First Draft xx xxxxxxx", and there is way more xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx. But Democrats are supposed to be timid.

Lao Tzu

The source of the taped interview was of course NBC and although they only aired one hour, I believe they made it all available.

A number of different sections of the NBC taped interview were posted on the YouTubes. One that included Snowden's discussion of 9/11 was posted by InfoWars. And none of us support InfoWars. That YouTubes video (with NBC as the source) was posted in DU and hidden because some said the source was InfoWars in lieu of NBC. The YouTubes section of the NBC interview had absolutely nothing to do with InforWars, and neither did the DU post. Before rushing to lock/hide because of the source, the actual article should be evaluated for it's content. In this case the content was taped by NBC. And we do not have a banned source list.

Some tried to label this discussion as CT. What Snowden said in this section of tape is right on the money and has been said a number of times before by others not having the "Snowden stigma".

The NSA/CIA didnt need more data to prevent 9/11, they needed to better handle what they had. Therefore, the NSA/CIA rational that allowing them to gather more and more data will make us safer is, not only wrong, but possibly counter productive.

...before I posted it. I know the trolls are out there. But you can defeat them with facts. It's like sunshine on a vampire's ass!

Of course the stupidity of anyone arguing ''source'' anymore had become pretty ridiculous. The MSM sources are driven by the dictates of the rich fockers that own them. Six corporations own 90% of the media. So getting any truth outta them is a wash.

And anyone complaining about other sources being weak or dubious, are simply blind and ignorant when they turn around and continue to believe the crap and lies being peddled by the MSM.

Of course, any source should be questioned, but not dismissed out of hand because the label don't look right. When shit from WAPO or NYT gets plastered on these pages, its swallowed whole pretty much always. That's just stupid for any source.....

-Where the hell do people think all the ''real journalist'' with integrity are leaving to, if the MSM has turned to shit!?!?! Blogs, mostly.

stifle points of view they dont support.

And sometimes I'll put up a story or fact from the top of my Google search without realizing its not on the "approved" list only to get pummeled because I've failed to use one of the approved sources.

If you go back and change your source, it still makes the DU gawds angry that you didn't select a source from the approved list in the first place - even when the story or fact is exactly the same.

Its kind of an annoying quirk of DU.

In this case, I'm sure the original OP was really locked because those folks hate Snowden for articulating what we've ALL been saying anyway, rather than a protest over the source.

Either way, I didn't know this about Snowden and 9-11. I'm glad the video has finally found its way to DU with an approved source and everyone can watch it themselves.

decide for themselves. But some abuse the lock&hide system to stifle discussion of ideas they dont agree with. They are unable to make their case by discussion.

forums like this is to attack the source. It's an old trick and it never works, because they more they try to HIDE something the more people search to find it.

Whoever is running these operations is not very bright.

want to smite all those that dare point to the disaster.

As far as attacking the source, the other day a will known poster here alerted and got a thread hidden because he didnt like the source. The funny thing was the page that was linked by the thread was completely anti-Right-Wing. Some here want to lock& hide because it's a power trip for them.

Well, all 'good' things must come to an end, they've had a pretty long run sadly. Hopefully their desperation IS an indication that it isn't going to last much longer.

And hopefully many of them will be brought to justice for the crimes they have committed.

that's why I linked to the author and didn't mention infowars. But I knew it was a matter of time before the thought police would call the thread out as Alex Jones Conspiracy babble and have it locked.

Enough people saw it before it vanished. To be fair, it was suggested to me by a mod to repost without reference to the original source but I didn't get around to it.

Also, as when I posted it originally, it would have been wrong not to mention the person that wrote the story. They deserve the credit.

Alex Jones is right more than most of the junk media that is rammed down peoples throats and he dares to question accepted reality. I won't be shamed out of saying that by anyone. There is more truth spoken in one hour of an Alex Jones show than all week on MSNBCFOX. It's just a fact.

Esquire does Alex Jones
http://www.esquire.com/features/alex-jones-interview-0913

It's an interesting read.

Based on Edaward Snowden's own claims, the NSA should have been able to prevent 9/11. Edward Snowden has said the NSA is watching, and listening to everything we do. He said they can even read our minds! Which is it? He can't have it both ways.

I know not stopping 9/11 is one of the favorite talking-points of the Snowdenwald crowd (even though they hate it when NSA defenders use 9/11 to defend the NSA), but the NSA didn't fail to prevent 9/11. Bush failed. Bush was warned that Osama Bin Laden was poised to strike in the U.S., and did nothing. The government also had intelligence that terrorists were plotting to use planes as bombs. The NSA's job is only surveillance, and to gather intelligence. It's not the NSA's fault if they give an incompetent president, and his administration information, and they fail to heed their warnings.

After all the hard work NBC did hyping Snowjob's interview, less than 6 million people watched it. More people watched a re-run of 'C.S.I.' NBC's own scientific poll (not the Twitter nonsense) said Edward Snowden didn't change any minds, and the majority of Americans still oppose his actions.

And, for the DU commenter who previously defended Edward Snowden's poor poll numbers, by saying that people who don't support him are old people who don't support change: A) I'm a young person, I love change, but I don't support Edward Snowden, and never will, and B) Edward Snowden is young, and supports Ron Paul, who is a racist, and supports states' rights. It's Snowden who associates himself with people who don't support change. So, there you have it.

Bye.

understand is this, MOST PEOPLE don't watch TV much anymore, but MILLIONS, billions in fact, get their news on the Internet or on their phones.

You are behind the times if you think that the TV audience is where to get news.

Six million is pretty impressive though these days for a TV interview, though..

With something like this, people know that they will see only part of it on TV. It isn't possible to fit the entire interview into one hour.

By now people all over the world have watched it, read the much longer transcript, and more will be reading it as time goes by.

Sorry to disappoint you. But facts are facts.

Yes he claims the NSA is gathering a large amount of data. But you left out that he said that they dont need more data but improve how they handle the data they have. With all their data they failed to prevent 9/11. Now you want to excuse the NSA for the failure. OK for that to be possible, the NSA/CIA would have had to present Bush with the data indicating the attack was going to happen and he chose to ignore it. Now that is a Conspiracy Theory. There is no evidence showing that the NSA was aware of the impending attacks. Snowden along with a number of other people, state that the NSA had enough data to prevent 9/11 but didnt put it all together. The NSA/CIA failed to prevent the attack on 9/11.

I find the attacks on the person of Snowden very interesting. Snowden basically told the American public that there were things about the NSA/CIA that we needed to know. He isnt alone making that statement. If doesnt matter what his character is like to believe that there are things about the NSA/CIA that we need to know. They work for us. Ok, so why the personal attacks on Snowden himself? He only pointed at the NSA. Do those that are personally attacking him want us to forget what he said? Why? Let's see if there is anything we need to know about the NSA/CIA. I can only think of two reasons people would try to divert attention away from the NSA/CIA and possible Constitution violations. One, they want to live in ignorant bliss, or two, they worship the authoritarian power of the NSA/CIA. If there is a different reason, someone please tell me.

Snowden is hardly an 'expert'. On anything. He failed to steal anything more than Sharepoint documents. He successfully trapped himself in Russia. He didn't understand that PRISM was a secure FTP transfer point. He has no future other than giving bimonthly interviews in which he tries to convince us he is smart.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

is. You dont have any idea how he got trapped in Russia. Why is it so important for you to demonize him?

A man who says, "I am not here to hide from justice" while hiding in Hong Kong strikes me as a trifle disingenuous.

I have no certain knowledge of what he stole but what's been released so far has been 99.9% regarding international spying, and no smoking guns, which leads one to conclude that the NSA was correct when they said he stole Sharepoint documents.

And since international spying is the NSA's primary job, I fail to understand why he thought it so important to convince of this that it was worth causing international incidents in his wake.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

THIS IS THE PURPOSE.

...your brain in-gear and thinking to reach such a conclusion. Have you been using your mind again? You know you'll grow hair from your ears if you do that too much.

- Course they have special clippers for us mind-users now. So there's not as much stigma attached anymore....

about 9-11.

is the ultimate persecution.

Education, a living wage, a decent place to live, are being removed in what some call, the pooring of America. It is torture to become worse off, day by day, ending your days, in a short life.

Remember that? It has been attributed to Karl Rove or one of his minions.

"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

historical disasters, other men like him who thought they were invulnerable.

I would like to know when this decision was made, that the US is no longer a democracy but rather an Empire.

Not that I disagree, we certainly act like an Empire. But who made this decision, Rove was never elected to anything, so it can't have been anyone like him.

Someone told me here on DU I believe, that we ARE an Empire and I should just stop whining about it!

Yes, the FFs would be horrified if they came back and saw what has become of this country.

Were they supposed to send the Deputy Director to Crawford with a cricket bat so he could beat a clue into Bush's thick head?

...was just to distract from the Monica/Impeachment thing.

Anyone talking about Middle Eastern Terrorism was considered to be a loyal Clinton appointee sticking up for their former boss. The word went out to shut up about the whole Terrorism thing. Richard Clark was demoted.

The whole crew was only interested in one thing, looting the Treasury. They felt every dollar that went into anything they thought of as
"Welfare" was a dollar STOLEN from the rich.

eom

The gobmit is suspect number 1 of those that behaved very unusually that day.

failed to warn us about an impending 9/11 attack. Let's be adults here people and stop scratching our heads as to why everything having to do with our security just up and failed that day.

What happened that day was very well documented in video, unlike the Kennedy assassination and other subjects which tend to attract wild speculation from the mentally unstable and paranoid crowd. We can all decide for ourselves if what we see with our own eyes looks like what we're told it is. Are gravity, localized fires and airplane crashes sufficient to reduce two skyscrapers to dust as if they never stood? Can planes really vaporize themselves out of existence like the one that hit the Pentagon apparently did? Should we start new evacuation protocols when fires and localized damage occurs in large buildings in the future, since there is a distinct possibility that it may just drop straight to the ground like building 7? These are some basic questions you should ask yourselves - they're not conspiratorial in the least.

Everything failed that day on purpose folks - trying to figure out why so many years later serves no purpose. There were some very powerful people around the world (some of whom, I think, were high enough in government to have control over select parts of the US military) who benefited immensely from the aftermath of that day and the American public's fear and reluctance to conclude what is so obvious was the beginning of the end for us.

Again, just my opinion. Call me a kook, tinfoil hat wearer, crackpot or whatever you want...

""We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were. The problem was not that we weren't collecting information, it wasn't that we didn't have enough dots, it wasn't that we didn't have a haystack, it was that we did not understand the haystack that we have." "

He is against collecting the metadata they started collecting because it was thought that might have led them to patterns which would have helped them figure out what was going on.

He was an activist and should not have anything to do with our national security.

Oh, yes, he is a new expert on every subject, a Constitutional expert, now a terrorist expert, a complete legend in his own mind. He is good stealing and running, he doesn't understand espionage and the reasons behind keeping his trap shut
He may even be the expert patsy.