The Government’s Pretexts for Arresting Virtually Anyone

The US government has developed massive surveillance capabilities to monitor communications, travel and financial transactions in this country and abroad. But, even the government cannot monitor everything Americans do—not directly, anyway.  Thus, it created the Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program to enlist your friendly local businesses as spies for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The CAT program, funded by the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training program (SLATT) is described as a “tool to engage members of the local community in the fight against terrorism.� The program interprets “local community� to mean businesses, and only registered businesses may access the program’s flyers listing “potential indicators� of terrorist activity.

Each flyer is designed for a particular kind of business. For example, this list was prepared for owners of internet cafes. Unquestionably, someone planning a terrorist attack has engaged in one or more of the “suspiciousâ€� activities on that list. But so, too, have most of the estimated 289 million computer users in this country. Read more È

The Words in Obama’s Coming Victory Declaration: “Freedom” & “Democracy”, but certainly not “Pipeline”

With the US war in Iraq supposedly having reached a good conclusion (or halfway decent … or better than nothing … or let’s get the hell out of here while some of us are still in one piece and there are some Iraqis we haven’t yet killed), the best and the brightest in our government and media turn their thoughts to what to do about Afghanistan. It appears that no one seems to remember, if they ever knew, that Afghanistan was not really about 9-11 or fighting terrorists (except the many the US has created by its invasion and occupation), but was about pipelines.

President Obama declared in August 2009: “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.” Read more È

This is Part III of our interview series on the Makings of a Police State. You can listen to previous segments here.

Philip Giraldi joins us to discuss the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act-NDAA, the claim by the White House that it will only use this new power carefully and with due process, and contrasts that to the well-established trend of law enforcement and security agencies, which is to expand on powers granted, not to rein them in or limit them. He provides us with his assessment of the recent case of former CIA operative John Kiriakou, and discusses President Obama’s horrendous track record on civil liberties- broadening its definition of war powers, silencing critics and government whistleblowers through the repeated exploitation of the state-secrets privilege, abuses of National Security Letters, continuation of Guantanamo Prison, supporting numerous dubious terrorism prosecutions.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA and DIA counter-terrorism officer, member of the American Conservative Defense Alliance, and contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine. He has a regular column, Smoke & Mirrors, at Antiwar.com.

Listen to the preview Here

Here is our guest Philip Giraldi unplugged! (Subscribers only)

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

It is More Like ‘Them’ vs. ‘You’

The Decision-Makers-of-Wars have decided to end one in 2013. That is, after twelve years, after they made the decision to make that war in the first place. No talk of terrorists, wins, or liberation – no more. At least on that one. Same as the other one. The one that they ended with no WMD, no terrorists, and no democracy; only with added massive civilian casualties, fallen and injured soldiers, and loss of billions of dollars- leaving behind a civil-war-torn nation in rubbles. And it looks like the Decision-Makers-of- Wars will be announcing another war to make. Just like the other ones, and the ones before that. And then there is you, my friends- my loyal patriotic American veterans and all those-that-are-yours.

I want you to take a few minutes and take a look at those involved in making decisions to make wars and continue those wars. Please do it. You don’t have to place them under a microscope or analyze them for hours. Just engage in a cursory evaluation. They are alive and well. They still have their legs. Yes. They all possess two legs. They still have their arms; and, their eyes, ears, and all ten fingers. They still get to see and be with their sons and daughters- that is, fully alive offspring. And their children too have their arms, legs, eyes, ears, and all ten fingers. Their wallets are thick, very thick, and have been getting thicker; nonstop. They are all much richer than they were before each one of these wars. Read more È

Time to Rename the Defense Department the War Department?

The U.S. Congress created the Department of War in 1789.  One hundred and sixty years later, in 1949, it became the Department of Defense.  The various factors involved in the name change likely included fatigue with death and destruction after World War II.  But these factors may also have included salesmanship among the dogs of war, soft-selling their wares.  Two years after the name change, President Truman and friends took the nation to war with the newly named Department of Defense, albeit without a formal declaration of war by Congress.  He called Korea a “police action.� History has taken him to task on that one, and it is now commonly called the “Korean War.�  We’ve had lots of wars since then, as well, but not a single formal declaration of war since World War II.

In November 2002, a new entity arrived when the Department of Homeland Security was established.  The DHS had seemingly laudable goals, on the surface.  But the question arises — if we already had a Department of Defense, why did we need a Department of Homeland Security?  Back in 2003, I asked this question of a top political historian, and he responded “Bill, don’t be silly.  We need the Department of Defense to protect our troops overseas!â€� Read more È

How does power function? What are the effects of power? Is it necessary? This episode seeks to introduce the listener to some thoughts on the concept of power, in both the concentration of it on one hand, and the lack of it on the other. Power can be concentrated in both institutions and individuals, but if we seek to solve the big problems of our time, we cannot focus simply on changing those individuals, or abolishing specific institutions. We must, instead, come to ask questions about the nature of power, itself, and thus, how such institutions and individuals are able to exist in the first place.

Listen to the podcast show here:

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Revealing Desperation of the Establishment’s Jokers

Update: Well, we did it. iWatch News corrected the order. Now Ron Paul is third from the top-as he should always have been. Not only that, they were ‘forced’ to correct the numbers as well, and use the correct quarter.The only thing left: changing that picture!

Update: Thanks to vigilant readers and their pressure, iWatch News has been scrambling since 3:00 PM EST, and the numbers on the post have been mysteriously changing …of course not the ‘order’ of listing, or the picture selection, or any explanation for such colossal belligerence …

Yesterday, as part of my daily news comb, I visited “iWatch News,â€� one of several dozen websites on my list of news outlets on government related scandals-revelations. I usually skim the headlines and stories to see whether anything gets my attention as coverage-worthy. Well, their top headline yesterday fit what I was looking for: “Candidate Super PACS.â€� It was brief, but boldly showcased data on how much money each major presidential candidate has raised and how much each has spent to date. I was happy to find an important but quick and hassle-free read without too many embellishing words or subjective spicing. So I began reading the list. Starting from the top they had the number 1 candidate based on money raised and spent: Read more È