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 .

This is Part II of our interview series on the Makings of a Police State. You can listen to Part I here.

Coleen Rowley joins us to share her views and thoughts on the state of the misleadingly named ‘criminal justice system’ in the United States today, and the extent to which the apparatus has been transformed into a police state. She discusses the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the implications of this law for American citizens, and the troubling fact that many Americans are not aware of the serious threats to their liberties and rights posed by this police state enabling new law. Ms. Rowley talks about the Obama Administration’s increasing control of all information outlets together with the constant use of fear-hate-greed-false pride and blind loyalty propaganda to manufacture consent for the war machine as well as a panoply of other government-corporatocracy crimes, the escalating retaliation against government whistleblowers and government secrecy, FBI abuses and Director Mueller’s quietly extended term, and more!

Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She came to national attention in June 2002, when she testified before Congress about serious lapses before 9/11 that helped account for the failure to prevent the attacks. She now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and on balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation.

Listen to the preview Here

Here is our guest Coleen Rowley unplugged! (Subscribers only)

We Need Your Support

Boiling Frogs Post is solely dependent on your support. This project is brought to you without receiving a single penny in corporate money or advertisement, without getting any support from agenda-driven corporate foundations, while defying all partisan and status quo boundaries. Here is how you can support Boiling Frogs Post:

Become a BFP Subscriber

You can sign up for our recurring annual subscription program for $50 or more, or if you prefer recurring monthly subscription payments you can sign up for monthly $5 or more. Your subscription will give you access to the following:

-Weekly Investigative Video Report ‘The EyeOpener’ with James Corbett

-Weekly Podcast Interview Series ‘The Boiling Frogs Show’ with Sibel Edmonds & Peter B. Collins

-Weekly Podcast Series ‘Empire, Power & People’ with Andrew Gavin Marshall

-BFP Exclusive Members’ Discussion Forum

-Members Monthly News Letter (Coming Soon)

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Donate to Boiling Frogs Post

You can make a one-time contribution to support our team and projects. Those of you who do not wish to subscribe to our multimedia projects or commit to recurring annual- monthly payments but want to support our team, all the daily news, editorials and other features provided by BFP can make a one-time contribution. Your donation will help us continue and expand upon the following daily coverage and features brought to you by Boiling Frogs Post:

-BFP Select Nightly News & Editorial Round Ups from Alternative Sources

-Select Editorials & Analyses by Independent and Nonpartisan Experts

-Weekly Political and Editorial Cartoon Series ‘Jamiol Presents’

-Open Access to All BFP Archived Video & Podcast Reports

-BFP Exclusive Investigative Reports & Exposés

DONATE NOW

This is Part I of our interview series on the Makings of a Police State.

Shahid Buttar joins us to discuss the continuous erosion of our civil liberties from illegal domestic surveillance to Guantanamo, NDAA and its discretionary detention provision authorizing the President to detain Americans accused by the government of supporting terrorism. Mr. Buttar talks about the many abuses committed by the unchecked Federal Bureau of Investigation, the extension of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s Term quietly and readily by Congress, its significance and troubling implications, the capacity of the FBI to be used for political purposes established since the Hoover days, the US media’s silence on this significant issue, and more!

Shahid Buttar is the executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the People’s Campaign for the Constitution (PCC). He received his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 2003, where he served as executive editor of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal and as Professor Lawrence Lessig’s teaching assistant for Constitutional Law. In addition to his work leading BORDC, Shahid serves on the advisory bodies of the Rights Working Group, the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights. He also supports populist constitutionalism as a civil rights lawyer, independent columnist, community organizer, and hip-hop and electronica MC. In his creative capacities as a poet and musician, Mr. Buttar has performed around the world, co-founded several grassroots art and culture groups around the country, facilitated workshops for young people and emerging artists.

Here is our guest Shahid Buttar unplugged! (Subscribers only)

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

I cringe every time I read or hear this self-defeating fallacy repeatedly used in almost all arguments and advocacies intended to counter our government’s assault on our liberties. I know those who use this fallacy, whether a lone-wolf noble politician, enlightened commentators, or civil liberties experts and representatives, all mean well and have the best intentions with what they put forth in defense of our liberties. Nonetheless they are doing a great harm by unintentionally promoting a myth, an illusion, and a major fallacy.

Allow me list a few old and recent examples:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin

PBS Headline- America at a Crossroads: ‘Security Versus Liberty: the Other War’

“If we allow the interests of national security to take away our freedoms, we surrender what it is to be an American.” – ACLU

Title: “Ten Years of Trading Liberty for Security” – Anthony Gregory, Independent

Title: “Guantanamo Bay Detainees: National Security or Civil Liberties” – Pamela M von Ness, FAS.Org

Just read the civil liberties related headlines daily and you will compile a very long list of similar titles and arguments. Most, if not all, fortify the false notion of ‘security vs. liberties,’ ‘the compromise between safety and rights,’ ‘sacrificing Constitutional rights to fight terrorism,’ … Granted, some, actually only a few, bother to include the notion of ‘perceived security;’ only in passing, a long way into the body text. For most Americans, busy with life, hassled with chores, too distracted by entertainment news, the part that quickly and easily sticks is the notion of making a choice between security and idealistic liberties.  And for many the answer comes down without any hesitation- it becomes a choice between life and death. And hey, when you face a life and death situation you ain’t gonna bother with some idealistic liberties concerns. Right?

Civil liberties experts and spokespersons, intentionally or unintentionally, help frame the majority’s simple response when it comes to the state of our liberties in a national security state. And as we know, when asked, most Americans go for life- for so-called security. Just take a look at complied surveys for the last decade and you’ll see where the majority stands on this very wrongly framed question.

With the intended and unintended help of our media, civil liberties advocates and experts, liberties have been diminished to a choice, a luxury, and an ideal. We The People, the large majority, are under the false impression of being in a ‘give and take’ situation where liberties are given in return for security, when in reality their position is of ‘give and give.’

Our national security state on the other hand is in the clear position of ‘take and take.’ Think about it, if no grand-scale terrorism incident occurs, they will continue to take by showing their ‘taking’ as the reason for this safety from terrorism. On the other hand, If there is a large terrorism incident, the government will continue to take, and take even more, citing terrorism as justification for more liberty-butchering actions. They will take, continue to take, and most likely take more.

Meanwhile, without a single scientific or rational parallel established between police state practices and increased security, our experts and media continue to propagate this fallacy of linking security and liberty-butchering practices.

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

Lorie Van Auken joins us and shares with us her reflections ten years on about the events of 9/11 and her loss. She discusses the still- classified 28 pages of the JICI dealing with terrorist financing, the 9/11 families’ stalled lawsuit to bankrupt the terrorists and the direct interventions by the White House to protect the Saudi regime against the justice-seeking families, and the many uninvestigated questions and facts covered up by the 9/11 commission. She questions our current many-fronted wars and the senselessness of the occupation of and our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden both dead, while our economy is crashing here at home. Ms. Van Auken talks about the three versions of the NORAD timeline, the passage of the Patriot Act as a vehicle to erode our civil liberties, NSA’s illegal wiretapping of our domestic communications under the guise of security, and more!

Lorie Van Auken, the mother of two children, lost her husband Kenneth Van Auken in the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. She is one of the “Jersey Girls” who, along with Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza, fought the Bush administration for a commission to investigate the attacks. Ms. Van Auken is also a member of the September 11 Advocates.

Here is our guest Lorie Van Auken unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

On the other hand, by this very same definition, a criminal ‘hot case’ that has not gone through a proper investigation by real investigators remains a ‘hot case.’ Whether that hot case is shoved into a cold case file or not does not make it technically a ‘cold case.’ The never-investigated mass murder on September 11, 2001, a case never assigned to real and independent investigators, with many witnesses never-interviewed, with many suspects never-pursued, with many questions left unanswered, and with many leads never-followed, remains a ‘hot case.’ The self-serving classifications and redactions, the many cover ups, and the burial of the case and related files in government-created massive igloos, do not make 9/11 a cold case.

Let’s take a few minutes and by comparison examine a smaller scale murder investigation involving a murdered wealthy middle-aged man in an office building that was set on fire. While the forensic teams go over the body and through the charred building and debris to search for clues and evidence, the trained detectives begin interviewing witnesses, checking out the victim’s history, following any leads and forming their list of suspects.

In creating their list of suspects, the investigators look at all persons with direct or indirect motive(s): A young trophy wife with a multi-million dollar life insurance policy; a business adversary with much to gain from the elimination of the murder victim; former business partners and associates with grudges; a man who had actually threatened the murder victim; another who had shared his intense desire to see the victim dead; the owner of the handsomely insured burned down office building who had been unsuccessfully trying to sell the building and liquidate his assets …so on and so forth.

Whether through accounts of eye-witnesses or relatives, coworkers and friends, whether through documented evidence such as letters or e-mails, the investigators fill the list with possible suspects with motive(s) to see the victim dead, and maybe some with the established intent to kill him. Once the investigators create their list of suspects, and once the forensic and other evidence and witness statements have been gathered and analyzed, then they set about winnowing down the list. Using exhaustive interrogation techniques, investigative channels, and forensic evidence, the investigators begin eliminating unlikely suspects from the initial list one-by-one.

Sometimes the list is simultaneously narrowed down and expanded. While some initial suspects can be eliminated, others related to the initial suspects may be added as accessories to the crime. For example, the murder victim’s business adversary hired a professional hit organization that turned around and contracted the killing to three of its contract hit men. Or the victim’s wife’s lover plotted with her and engaged two hit men to execute the plot.

In the end, the investigators turn over their final suspect-accessory list and all the evidence that they believe will stand up in court to a prosecutor who then decides (on the evidence)  whether to bring charges against one or more suspects, and then argues the case in court. The suspect(s), motive, means and opportunity, all supported by evidence and witnesses, are presented in court for the jury to judge the case and decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course we then have those cases that never make it to court. The lack of sufficient evidence, witnesses, or even a lack of possible suspects, moves the case from the investigation phase directly into the cold case file cabinet.

Then, we have cases that never make it even to the real investigation phase. Period. Without going through the usual investigative process- evidence-gathering, witness interviews, seeking motives and means, looking for intent, establishing a list of suspects …Without turning over any suspect with ‘all’ associated evidence and witnesses to any prosecutor…These case are evasively declared closed or a cold case.

The investigation of the 9/11 mass murder was first assigned to a highly-influenced and dependent Congress. We are not talking seasoned detectives and investigative agents here. Then, it was given to a group of sleazy pocketed politicians called a commission. Again, we are not talking about experienced detectives and savvy and independent prosecutors. No; just a handful of masterful and deceitful politicians and their puppet administrative staff.

There never was a thorough initial list of suspects. A few hours after the mass murder a bearded man in some dark cave in Afghanistan was announced as the mastermind and less than a couple dozen dead hit-men were declared the executioners of that mass murder. As for motive and intent, there was a round or two of circular discussions in the media, but absent any real investigation and thus any need for real prosecution, establishing motive and intent were deemed irrelevant and unnecessary. Same for any accessory suspects; a few hundred were rounded up around the globe and were taken into black holes, black sites, and black prisons. Some were later released, some were tortured and killed, and some still remain in those holes. We don’t know, and it looks like we’ll never know.

In a real-life mass murder investigation by real investigators a document like this, explicitly stating the desire for a mass murder like this would immediately make its way into the evidence bag, and signatories such as these people with a real motive and unlimited means would be automatically added to the top of the investigators’ initial list of suspects. They would remain there until further investigated, eliminated, or possibly prosecuted. Of course this was not a real investigation, and with no real investigators, and there never was a real list of suspects.

In a real-life investigation highly suspicious suspects like this would not easily disappear into thin air just like that.

In a real-life investigation any suspect accessory like this would be investigated, interrogated, and accordingly cleared or apprehended. And other highly suspicious persons or possible witnesses like this would be questioned and examined very thoroughly, rather than being directly assisted in fleeing the country.

In a real-life investigation key witnesses and investigative experts like these would be held with the highest regard, and their knowledge, first-hand information, and documented evidence would be considered of great value. They certainly wouldn’t be censored, classified and officially gagged.

In a real-life investigation if the highest-level criminal investigative body declares the capriciously designated perpetrator only a ‘suspect’ with no real hard evidence ever linking him to the crime in question, the case would be categorized as ‘never-solved & so very much open.’

And the list goes on and on. When we get down to it, I mean really get down to it, what do we really have in the investigation of the biggest mass murder in the history of our nation? I’ll tell you what we have. We have a still ‘Hot Case’ that has been shoved inside a massive establishment-built igloo; so far, successfully.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

 I am not going to get into the ‘some’ reasons for this post; although, I have plenty to say on the subject. Instead, for the purpose of this piece, and for those audiences, I am going to answer the ‘whys.’ Why ‘some’ still question and seek answer(s) and accountability on 9/11.

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ claim that’s what gives them the right to override our Constitution and all other laws guaranteeing our liberties and privacy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what ‘they’ claim as justification for every one of our many wars.

Why 9/11? Because that’s what ‘they’ say is the reason for us having to be violated, humiliated, groped and fondled for the ‘privilege’ of travel.

Why 9/11? Because that’s when ‘they’ began the illegal eavesdropping of all our communications.

Why 9/11? Because that’s how ‘they’ legitimize excessive secrecy.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the excuse ‘they’ use to implement torture and severe human right violations and escape all liabilities.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the rationalization ‘they’ use to expand ‘their’ size and power.

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ have successfully made it a means to justify many unjustifiable ends.

Why 9/11? Because that holds answers to many questions ‘they’ don’t want you to ask.

Why 9/11? Because that’s the question ‘they’ don’t want ever answered.

Why 9/11? Because maybe that is what ‘they’ really wanted.

Why 9/11? Because ‘they’ should not get away with it.

With all due respect to those who are still not satisfied with my answers to their ‘why’ question, we’ll be publishing articles, podcast interviews and investigative videos on 9/11 and related topics for the next few weeks…or maybe longer.  We hope to have those friends as an open-minded and critical thinking audience during our 9/11 coverage here at Boiling Frogs Post.

Sibel Edmonds

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

For almost 10 years we have been engaged in a massive and many-fronted war advertised as a war on terror-war on Al Qaeda. Recent reports put the total cost to America of this war on terror at around $3 trillion. This is not counting un-countable covert operations with secret budgets, and it does not include the war in Libya or covert wars elsewhere.

For the last 10 years of the Cold War, the period of our heightened expenditures against a war marketed as a war against communism, we reportedly spent slightly under $3 trillion.

For a moment let’s forget about the exaggerated and sometimes dubious Soviet threats that were being sold to our nation during the Cold-War, and assume all of them legitimate and warranted. Okay?

We had the Soviet military with over 5 million men. We were dealing with Long-Range Ballistic Missile capabilities.  We had an empire with a declared arsenal of 39,967 tons of chemical weapons. We were faced with massive nuclear arsenals and warheads, sophisticated fighter aircraft, tanks… All that, and of course the added fear propaganda and jazzed up other threats to go with it. My point here is not how scary an adversary the USSR was to the United States. Here is what I want you to do:

Take into perspective and compare the size, budget, militaristic and technological capabilities, and the vast power of our former adversary, the USSR, to the current alleged terrorist adversary, Al Qaeda, whom we have supposedly been fighting for ten years.

Let’s first begin by engaging in a rational process of elimination, and take out the wars and targets that are not related to the 9/11 terrorists, the supposed Al-Qaeda. That will take out Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and also Libya and Gaddafi.

Next, we should take out Afghanistan as a terrorist nation state. Afghanistan has been under our occupation for almost ten years, and we have our puppet government installed there, and when it comes down to it, the Taliban does not equate to Al-Qaeda, it never did. The Taliban did not exercise terrorism in the United States or its Global territories.

We must also remove Pakistan as a terrorist country, thus a nation state target. If you remember, neither the quasi 9/11 Congressional Inquiry nor the quasi 9/11 Commission Report ever declared the Pakistani government/nation as terrorists or an Al-Qaeda member. Let us go with their official judgment. After all, haven’t we been giving Pakistan billions of dollars in US aid since 9/11 and continuing to date? Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to on one hand categorize our drone war there as war against Pakistan as a member of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, and on the other hand support and finance them? Exactly; that eliminates Pakistan as an Al-Qaeda nation-government. Are you with me so far? What does this leave us with?

Our war on Al-Qaeda terror does not include a single nation state or organized state military. No military infrastructure or headquarters. No trained army-navy-air force. No tanks, warplanes, nuclear warheads, drones. No intelligence institutions or landmarks. No communication satellites. No technology. No borders. No GDP…

The supposed Al Qaeda’s top leadership was declared by our government to be Osama Bin Laden, aka Al Qaeda Commander in Chief; a sickly old man who was hooked to a dialysis machine; who supposedly lived and hid in caves, and later, in a mud house located in a remote third world village with chickens and goats. A man who sustained himself and his family by periodically selling his wives jewelry or bartering milk from his goats for occasional lamb chops. All this according to our own government; coming out in bits and pieces, and of course, sometimes in a totally contradictory fashion.

The supposed Al-Qaeda network’s communication and intelligence sharing infrastructure, according to our government, was kept very simple to evade our trillion-dollar intelligence institutions. The Al-Qaeda commander-in-Chief wrote down notes and instructions. He then waited for the courier to come and pick it up. The old man courier would hop on a donkey and travel from a bigger town to the Commander-in-Chief’s mud house in a third world village. This sometimes took several days. He’d take the note, then hop on his donkey, and go back to the town where he’d meet another intermediary courier. The intermediary courier would take the note to a nondescript little house, climb up to the roof where he kept trained courier pigeons and hawks, and based on the importance of the communication given to him, he’d either choose a hawk or pigeon to send the intelligence to the next courier. The next one used couriers who traveled to the remote deserts by camels, and so on and so forth.

How about the sophistication of weapons-methods used by our target terrorists, the ominous Al Qaeda? We are talking about a dozen or so pocket knives priced at approximately $4 a piece (probably made in China), and of course if bought in bulk, for a total under $40. That for the supposed execution of the massive terror plot over here, in the world’s super power nation. As for other worldwide terror incidents that have been placed under the  ‘Al Qaeda Track Record,’  we are talking about rudimentary bomb-making ability paired up with ultra simple bombs created by ingredients such as fertilizer; we are talking a few loads of cow dung here; literally, that is.

What about the size of the manpower these terrorists, Al-Qaeda, possess? Interestingly no one in our government has ever touched upon any scientific or even commonsensical estimate as to the number of active-combative Al-Qaeda terrorists. Instead, our government, through their stenographers in the media and their marketing arm in the Hollywood filmmaking industry, has succeeded in forming this public perception of a massive number of boogieman-Al Qaeda-terrorists out there who are actively and constantly planning and executing terror plots against the West.  Thus, to get a certain level of rational perception we must look at some factual indicators:

We have had this $3 trillion ‘War on Al Qaeda Terror’ for the last 10 years with nearly a quarter million military members, thousands and thousands of intelligence operatives and analysts, highly sophisticated and gigantic intelligence gathering tools (Think NSA, satellite technologies, wiretaps, spooks and snitches), mega rewards for turning in Al-Qaeda members …You’d think in ten years of these constant war and intelligence gathering operations we’d have tens of thousands of captured Al-Qaeda terrorists in our jails here and abroad. No?

Interestingly ‘No.’ Let’s take a look at the mother of all our captive top Al Qaeda terrorists detention center; Guantanamo Bay:

Since October 7, 2001, when began the war in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Of these, most have been released without charge or transferred to facilities in their home countries. The Department of Defense often referred to these prisoners as the “worst of the worst”, but a 2003 memo by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says, “We need to stop populating Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) with low-level enemy combatants … GTMO needs to serve as an [redacted] not a prison for Afghanistan.”

Currently we have less than 200 detainees at Guantanamo most of whom have not been proven guilty of being ‘Al Qaeda terrorists.’ Let’s be even more generous and count in those detained in other US military prisons like Bagram. Again, we are looking at 500 or so prisoners none of whom having ever been charged; none of whom legally found to be an Al Qaeda terrorist.

Now please put all these facts in perspective: Ten long years of continuous wars, trillions of dollars, 250,000 military personnel, trillions of dollars worth of intelligence gathering institutions and capabilities, millions of dollars set in rewards for Al Qaeda terrorists, and a supposed network with supposed  Al Qaeda active terrorist members in very large numbers. Yet we have less than 1000 detained who have been accused of being Al Qaeda terrorists, and none ever proven to be an active Al Qaeda terrorist member.

Does this make sense to you? Does it make sense as far as the trillions of dollars you have been made to pay for this? What are we talking about here? A massive never-ending war against a fantastical network of technologically and militaristically dwarfed terrorists whose proven guilty members we haven’t been able to catch or kill.

Everyone is busy arguing whether we should cut or add a few billion dollars to the several trillion dollars war on Al Qaeda. People keep talking about which country we should be getting out of, or, how many more countries we should get into to fight against terrorist Al Qaeda. No one is asking what Al Qaeda is or who really these supposed Al Qaeda terrorists are. The question that never seems to come up is exactly how big is this Al Qaeda we are spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting against. I mean no one.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Andy Worthington provides us with an overview of America’s detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the plight of 774 individuals, most of whom are innocent of any terrorism connections. He discusses the general view of the US government and Americans held by many of those released, and the rarity of radicalization or revenge seeking among them. Mr. Worthington talks about the astonishing lack of interest and coverage of these cases and stories by the US media, President Obama’s failure in meeting the release deadline despite his promises during the presidential campaign, the number and current status of inmates released to date…and more.

Andy Worthington is a journalist and historian, based in London. He is the author of The Guantánamo Files, the first book to tell the stories of all the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, and the co-director of the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo.” You can visit his blog here.

Here is our guest Andy Worthington unplugged!

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

Dear Mr. President:

Today is the official Presidential Turkey Pardon Day for 2009, your very first since taking office.  I understand you are planning to fly your pardoned bird(s) First Class to California, where they will live at Big Thunder Ranch at Disneyland. How lucky are these birds, how kind of you to value their lives and freedom, and how generous of you to release them.

Mr. President, there are many innocent human beings who have been caged for over six years, under deplorable conditions, including torture – despite being innocent and having done nothing wrong. Their last ten months of detainment and torture have taken place under your watch, per your orders, and with your instructions.

Your Bagram military prison in Afghanistan currently houses over one thousand Afghan detainees who have never been charged, none of whom have ever been given the right to an attorney, and every one of whom has been kept as secret and unidentified.

Even the individuals who were brought there from other nations, and held there for over six years with no charges, are not allowed to have their cases heard or represented.

Former detainees say Bagram resembles a concentration camp, where people are beaten and tortured regularly.

Experts describe it as “Guantanamo‘s lesser-known evil twin“.

One of your own generals, Major General Douglas M. Stone, who was charged by you to investigate Bagram, has been saying that many of these detainees in Bagram are in fact innocent.

Mr. President, to this date you have said and done nothing about this Human Rights Abuse of mammoth proportions. You have never even so much as mentioned Bagram in any of your speeches. Is that turkey you are freeing today entitled to more respect, rights, and freedom, than these long-caged and tortured innocent human beings?

Mr. President, please give these human beings half as much value as you give your turkey(s). Otherwise, Mr. President, be prepared, because next time you frown upon and point to the Chinese Government’s record on Human Rights, next time you speak out on the Iranian Regime’s flawed and undemocratic practices, next time you single out any nation for their absence of Human Rights values, you will be written off as a “turkey”, and your words will be laughed off as nothing but “Turkey Talk”, a meaningless repetition of words, gobble, gobble, gobble…

Respectfully,

Sibel Edmonds, A Boiling Frog

Please help us spread the word, invite your irate friends and associates to visit and join this site, and bring in your views, analyses and feedback in our comments section.

A few Interesting News Items

Crackdown on Terrorism in Xinjiang

There is an interesting news item on Xinjiang which was picked up by only a very few in the US media:

“Police in China’s far west have launched a crackdown on terrorism and stepped up a hunt for suspects who took part in deadly ethnic riots there four months ago, the regional public security ministry said Tuesday.

Hundreds have already been arrested and nine people sentenced to death following the July 5 riots, which saw Uighurs (WEE’-gurs) attacking Han Chinese in the regional capital of Urumqi. Nearly 200 people were killed in those attacks and in the revenge killings of Uighurs by Han Chinese in the days that followed.

Uighurs are a Turkic Muslim ethnic group linguistically and culturally distinct from China’s majority Han. The Uighurs see Xinjiang as their homeland and resent the millions of Han Chinese who have poured into the region in recent decades. A simmering separatist campaign has occasionally boiled over into violence in the past 20 years.

China says overseas Uighur separatists orchestrated the riots to worsen ethnic divisions and bolster their campaign for independence but the government has provided little evidence to back up its claim.”

The Chinese government doesn’t want to provide any evidence because right now they don’t want that kind of an international incident. However, anyone who knows about this conflict and the related developments would know that the overseas orchestrators are: number One – the United States – followed by Turkey and Pakistan’s ISI. Unfortunately, thanks to our media, mainstream and alternative alike, very few people in the US have ever heard of this ongoing saga.

EU to Kiss & Make Up with Tashkent

This development reported by Asia Times is not that unrelated to the piece above.

“The worsening Afghan war has brought some good news for Uzbekistan. On Tuesday, the European Union announced it was lifting a four-year old arms embargo against Uzbekistan. The EU imposed wide-ranging sanctions in 2005 after Uzbek troops fired on civilians during an uprising in the city of Andizhan in Ferghana Valley, and Tashkent rejected calls by Western countries for an international inquiry into those killings. Tuesday’s decision completes an incremental process stretched over the past year or so on the EU’s part to kiss and make up with Tashkent.

…

Aside from the veracity of the EU claim, the reality is that Europe not only blinked first, it also bent its knees while doing so. Brussels kept a straight face, though, assuring the world audience that it would “closely and continuously observe the human-rights situation in Uzbekistan … [and] assess progress made by the Uzbek authorities.”

…

Clearly, no story quite ends in the Central Asian steppes. There is always a sub-plot, often more than one. It is against this complex backdrop that the uniqueness of Uzbekistan – a cradle of Islamic culture and civilization – needs to be grasped. The West learned the hard way that the pre-requisite of an effective engagement in Central Asia is a full-fledged relationship with the regime in Tashkent.”

I encourage you to read the entire article. As I’ve emphasized repeatedly there is no real coverage of this simmering region by the media in the United States. Asia Times is one of a very few news publication with consistently solid and thorough coverage of this highly important area.

Scowcroft’s Pimping Business

Here is an item totally hidden in one of McClatchy’s blog pages. Thanks to one of our readers who brought it to my attention:

“There’s nothing like litigation to crack open a window into a secretive world of power and intrigue. All those lovely depositions and legal documents…

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer kept alive a lawsuit filed by the Scowcroft Group against Toreador Resources Group. That’s Scowcroft, as in former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former CIA deputy operations director James Pavitt and former undersecretary of state Arnold Kanter and former assistant secretary of state Walter H. Kansteiner III and…

The Scowcroft Group says that Toreador failed to pay it an agreed-upon “success fee” for a deal involving the purchase by a Turkish company of the South Akcakoca Sub-Basin natural gas concession.

Scowcroft contends the work included:

“obtaining necessary Turkish government approvals for the…transaction…and ensuring the Turkish Ministry of Energy’s endorsement of the transaction and the rapid governmental approval of the transaction.”

Begging the question: just how does one go about “ensuring the Turkish Ministry of Energy’s endorsement”?[Emphasis Added]

The deal closed last year for $55 million, and the Scowcroft Group says it is owed $850,000. Judge Collyer declined to dismiss the case, which means unless it settles there should be a lot more information on the public record about how an international consulting firm does its business.”

Those of you familiar with my case know all about Mr. Scowcroft’s Lobby business for Turkey and his chairmanship of The American Turkish Council (ATC). Just like AIPAC, without having to register under FARA, Mr. Scowcroft has been serving the Turkish business, government and operatives’ businesses (includes ANY kind of business) for years, and with NO scrutiny. This sheds a tiny bit of light on how these kinds of pimping operations go. To put it simply:

The pimps here are a former national security adviser, a former CIA deputy operations director, a former undersecretary of state, and a former assistant secretary of state. Just like any good ole ordinary pimp these pimps want their commission for facilitating business transactions. Except these particular pimps have been milking their past positions, and thanks to our media only God knows how their ongoing access to those pimps-to-be who are still in the government is contributing to their lucrative pimping business…

Boiling Frogs Interviews

Our upcoming interview episodes include Elizabeth Gould & Paul Fitzgerald on Afghanistan, Joe Lauria talking about the latest involving the United Nation, Mizgin Yilmaz on Kurdish related issues and Turkey, and Kristina Borjesson on the worse than sorry state of the US media today.

One of our upcoming guests is Andy Worthington, author of the Guantanamo Files, The first book to tell the story of every man trapped in Guantanamo. Andy lives in the UK, but will be in the US for the screening of ‘Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo.’ I’ll attend the screening in Washington DC at the New America Foundation. I know the film will be screened in other US locations, including on the West Coast; check it out if you are interested.