You are here: Home TV Studio
^Back To Top
“Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”—C.S. Lewis
This is an all-out psy op at this point with bizarre claims of “double agents” and future attacks in the works. Having been caught with their pants down–where the younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, was photographed at the scene with his backpack, which was completely different than those used in the bombings, and spent his week as a normal college student–now they are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, including fantastic stories of him and his brother, Tameran, as “double agents”, which is nearly as ludicrous as the original story.
What we know is that Craft International was doing this for the DHS and that the operation was botched badly, where the internet has a blizzard of reports that take it apart, piece by piece. The agenda appears to have been to smother news about the Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden administrations having been engaged in torture, the transfer of some of our most sophisticated weapons to Israel for use in an attack on Iran, the legitimization of the use of military forces to maintain law and order in violation of “Posse Comitatus”, and to create sympathy for Israel by suggesting that, “Now we know what they experience on a daily basis”.
That appears to have been the rationale for sending Israeli investigators and Israeli doctors to Boston, as though it were remotely necessary. Does anyone think they would know Boston better than local cops? or that Boston does not have abundant medical experts? Some were injured and killed, but consider the case of the man who lost his legs TWICE for the sake of a worthy cause. They apprehended the older brother and then later beat him to death. He was a boxer and his younger brother was a wrestler. Their parents and relatives are complaining that these were good kids, who were set up as patsies–and they appear to be right! Think “Ruby shoots Oswald”. Caught, they are trying to sow confusion on a massive scale. As “false flags” go, this was the Original Amateur Hour and the toothpaste is out of the tube.
As Gordon Duff has observed in Press TV and VT, this is the most obvious “false flag” attack in US history:
This week’s terror attack in Boston is not the first incredible failure of intelligence and law enforcement America has suffered. By “incredible,” I mean exactly that, “not to be believed.”
Before the smoke had cleared, the Israel Lobby and DEBKA had identified “domestic terrorists with Mid-East connections” as the guilty parties. This, alone, was taken as a confirmation that a very real conspiracy was involved, this time the most obvious false flag terror attack yet.
Highest sources “weigh in” on Boston bombing
During 9/11, NORAD and the entire United States Air Force “vaporized” just like the FBI, DHS, and Boston PD security did. We’re getting used to it, being lied to and, frankly, being murdered as well.
Within minutes of the Boston attack, America’s intelligence and Special Operations community put their back-channel “round-robin” into motion. This is how America’s top intelligence operatives informally share sensitive information on threats.
Those with the highest access to both human and signals intelligence, those tasked with tracking and killing terrorists came to a very startling conclusion.
“An American agency was involved, our first guess is that it is the FBI.”
Had I asked this question three years ago and I did, I would have been called a “conspiracy theorist,” and, in fact, I was. Now I am told, “Duff, you were right all along, we feel like such idiots.”
Not only has CSPAN and The Washington Journal been inundated with calls from ordinary citizens raising concerns that the Boston bombing was a “false flag” that was designed to undermine our civil rights, but we have overwhelming proof that the young men accused of the crime were innocent, not only from their parents and relatives complaints they were being framed but from photos that show the younger brother leaving the area, probably wearing his back pack over his right shoulder:
We now have reports and video showing that the older brother, was captured alive and then beaten to death or run over by a car, while his younger brother, Dzhokhar, was shot in the throat, which means that he can no longer speak. How convenient! The older brother, Tameran, was a boxer and the younger a wrestler, who was active in school, including the drama club. Their parents are protesting loudly that they are innocent and have been framed, which is provable. This has become such a huge boondoggle that the feds want to shut down any further discussion about the Boston bombing:
In that video, he is obviously alive and well. He has been stripped naked and is being placed into a police car. When he is subsequently found dead, the claim is even being made that his brother ran him over with a car, which is about as absurd as it gets. A witness reports that he was run over by the police in an SUV, which would have to have been after his apprehension. His body is badly bruised and he appears to have suffered from a savage beating. Here is a photograph of Tameran, which contradicts the stories that the public is being sold:
In addition, we have a series of photographs showing how the alleged victim who lost his legs was faked by several accomplices. If this is not the most amateurish production in American “black op” history, I cannot imagine what comes close. There can be no doubt that the authorities want to claim the case is closed before more Americans wake up and smell the stench. It is embarrassing that an event of this clumsy character should be swallowed by any American–not to mention the blatancy of the hoax being promoted by all of our television networks, without exception. This is a major scandal, where no one should be taken in:
That the brothers appear to be patsies and that the bombing was staged does not appear to have inhibited Republicans from demanding that the surviving brother be treated as an enemy combatant and be denied his rights as a United States citizen. Even Alan Dershowitz has observed that denying the suspect his Miranda rights jeopardizes any case that might be brought against him, assuming, of course, that any semblance of due process remains in this nation.
The fallacies that are being committed in the frenzy to convince the public that this was a “terrorist attack” and not a “false flag” include the selective use of evidence (known as “special pleading”), taking for granted that they were responsible (called “begging the question”) and tacitly endorsing the use of torture, even though it diminishes this nation and corrupts our moral standing in the world, which, in the past, has been our greatest safeguard against bona fideterrorist attacks.
G.O.P. Lawmakers Push to Have Boston Suspect Questioned as Enemy Combatant
WASHINGTON — Some Republican lawmakers want President Obama to declare the surviving Boston bombing suspect an enemy combatant in order to question him without a lawyer and other protections of the criminal justice system, intensifying a recurring debate over how to handle terrorism cases arising inside the United States.
But while the suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a naturalized American citizen, is a Muslim, there is no known evidence suggesting that he is part of Al Qaeda. The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, not all Muslim extremists. As a result, the dispute is pushing beyond familiar arguments and into new territory.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, is among the earliest and most vocal proponents of declaring Mr. Tsarnaev an enemy combatant. Others include Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and John McCain of Arizona, as well as Representative Peter T. King of New York, all also Republicans.
The Obama administration has said it thinks terrorism suspects arrested inside the United States should be handled exclusively in the criminal justice system. It has indicated no intention to do otherwise in Mr. Tsarnaev’s case, but the issue is taking on political currency, underscoring a major divide on national security legal policy.
Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the laws of war did not apply to Mr. Tsarnaev and that there was so far no evidence that he was “part of any organized group, let alone Al Qaeda, the Taliban or one of their affiliates — the only organizations whose members are subject” to detention as a part of war.
“In the absence of such evidence, I know of no legal basis for his detention as an enemy combatant,” Mr. Levin said. “To hold the suspect as an enemy combatant under these circumstances would be contrary to our laws and may even jeopardize our efforts to prosecute him for his crimes.”
In an interview, Mr. Graham acknowledged that if no evidence were to emerge linking Mr. Tsarnaev to Al Qaeda, then he should not continue to be held as an enemy combatant. But he argued that given the need to swiftly find out if Mr. Tsarnaev knew of other planned attacks or terrorist operatives, the government could and should hold him as a combatant while it searched for any such links.
“You can’t hold every person who commits a terrorist attack as an enemy combatant, I agree with that,” Mr. Graham said. “But you have a right, with his radical Islamist ties and the fact that Chechens are all over the world fighting with Al Qaeda — I think you have a reasonable belief to go down that road, and it would be a big mistake not to go down that road. If we didn’t hold him for intelligence-gathering purposes, that would be unconscionable.”
One of the absurdities in this article is that the US is in collusion with Al Qaeda, which was a contrivance of our own CIA to assist in driving the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. We have lied so many times about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that the “official story” about 9/11 has become completely incoherent, where fake raids have been conducted to create the false impression that Osama was still alive in 2011, when he in fact died in Afghanistan in 2001. The public in the past has been gullible enough to buy this rubbish, but perhaps there is a chance that the Boston fiasco might awaken them from their dormant slumber, because, as John W. Whitehead observes, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance.
“Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”—C.S. Lewis
Caught up in the televised drama of a military-style manhunt for the suspects in the Boston Marathon explosion, most Americans fail to realize that the world around them has been suddenly and jarringly shifted off its axis, that axis being the U.S. Constitution.
For those like myself who have studied emerging police states, the sight of a city placed under martial law—its citizens under house arrest (officials used the Orwellian phrase “shelter in place” to describe the mandatory lockdown), military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices buzzing the skies, tanks and armored vehicles on the streets, and snipers perched on rooftops, while thousands of black-garbed police swarmed the streets and SWAT teams carried out house-to-house searches in search of two young and seemingly unlikely bombing suspects—leaves us in a growing state of unease.
Mind you, these are no longer warning signs of a steadily encroaching police state. The police state has arrived.
Equally unnerving is the ease with which Americans welcomed the city-wide lockdown, the routine invasion of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses. Watching it unfold, I couldn’t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:
It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
As the events in Boston have made clear, it does indeed work the same in every country. The same propaganda and police state tactics that worked for Adolf Hitler 80 years ago continue to be employed with great success in a post-9/11 America.
Whatever the threat to so-called security—whether it’s rumored weapons of mass destruction, school shootings, or alleged acts of terrorism—it doesn’t take much for the American people to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, even if it means submitting to martial law, having their homes searched, and being stripped of one’s constitutional rights at a moment’s notice.
As journalist Andrew O’Hehir observes in Salon:
In America after 9/11, we made a deal with the devil, or with Dick Cheney, which is much the same thing. We agreed to give up most of our enumerated rights and civil liberties (except for the sacrosanct Second Amendment, of course) in exchange for a lot of hyper-patriotic tough talk, the promise of “security” and the freedom to go on sitting on our asses and consuming whatever the hell we wanted to. Don’t look the other way and tell me that you signed a petition or voted for John Kerry or whatever. The fact is that whatever dignified private opinions you and I may hold, we did not do enough to stop it, and our constitutional rights are now deemed to be partial or provisional rather than absolute, do not necessarily apply to everyone, and can be revoked by the government at any time.
Particularly disheartening is the fact that Americans, consumed with the need for vengeance, seem even less concerned about protecting the rights of others, especially if those “others” happen to be of a different skin color or nationality. The public response to the manhunt, capture and subsequent treatment of brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is merely the latest example of America’s xenophobic mindset, which was also a driving force behind the roundup and detention of hundreds of Arab, South Asian and Muslim men following 9/11, internment camps that housed more than 18,000 people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, and the arrest and deportation of thousands of “radical” noncitizens during America’s first Red Scare.
Moreover, there has been little outcry over the Obama administration’s decision to deny 19-year-old U.S. citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his due process rights and treat him as an enemy combatant, first off by interrogating him without reading him his Miranda rights (“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…”).
Presently, under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, if law enforcement agents believe a suspect has information that might reduce a substantial threat, they can wait to give the Miranda warning. For years now, however, the Obama administration has been lobbying to see this exception extended to all cases involving so-called terror suspects, including American citizens. Tsarnaev’s case may prove to be the game-changer. Yet as journalist Emily Bazelon points out for Slate: “Why should I care that no one’s reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights? When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.”
The U.S. Supreme Court rightly recognized in its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona that police officers must advise a suspect of his/her civil rights once the suspect has been taken into custody, because the police can and often do take advantage of the fact that most Americans don’t know their rights. There have been few exceptions to the Miranda rule over the last 40 years or so, and with good reason. However, if the Obama administration is allowed to scale back the Miranda rule, especially as it applies to U.S. citizens, it would be yet another dangerous expansion of government power at the expense of citizens’ civil rights.
This continual undermining of the rules that protect civil liberties, not to mention the incessant rush to judgment by politicians, members of the media and the public, will inevitably have far-reaching consequences on a populace that not only remains ignorant about their rights but is inclined to sacrifice their liberties for phantom promises of safety.
Moments after taking Tsarnaev into custody, the Boston Police Dept. tweeted “CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won.” Yet with Tsarnaev and his brother having been charged, tried and convicted by the government, the media and the police—all without ever having stepped foot inside a courtroom—it remains to be seen whether justice has indeed won.
The lesson for the rest of us is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government. Increasingly, those on the left who once hailed Barack Obama as the antidote for restoring the numerous civil liberties that were lost or undermined as a result of Bush-era policies are finding themselves forced to acknowledge that threats to civil liberties are worse under Obama.
Clearly, the outlook for civil liberties under Obama grows bleaker by the day, from his embrace of indefinite detention for U.S. citizens and drone kill lists to warrantless surveillance of phone, email and internet communications, and prosecutions of government whistleblowers. Most recently, capitalizing on the nation’s heightened emotions, confusion and fear, government officials used the Boston Marathon tragedy as a means of extending the reach of the police state, starting with the House of Representatives’ overwhelming passage of the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which opens the door to greater internet surveillance by the government.
These troubling developments are the outward manifestations of an inner, philosophical shift underway in how the government views not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but “we the people,” as well. What this reflects is a move away from a government bound by the rule of law to one that seeks total control through the imposition of its own self-serving laws on the populace.
All the while, the American people remain largely oblivious to the looming threats to their freedoms, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us—whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster or even a flu epidemic. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes, we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.
John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.