Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Like most of us I have been watching the developments in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon tragedy throughout the week. Because I’m retired I probably logged more hours of viewing it on TV than most people who are younger. The initial bombings on Monday and their aftermath made me terribly sad at the loss of innocent lives and the maiming of so many, which will have future pain and consequences for the entire lives of the victims. As a father and grandfather how could I not feel painful tears for the death of an 8 year old and the lifelong pain of his parents? Yet beyond that sadness, I also felt a sense of anxiety in my chest as I listened to the hour upon hour of cable news coverage and the analysis of “terrorism experts” aligned with prognosticators telling us what it all means.
My anxiety did not stem from fear of terrorism, because that fear is irrational. This is so not because terrorism is a chimera, but because this type of terrorism is an all too real fact of the lives of humanity and indeed while we in America have suffered it, so has the rest of the world to an even greater degree. Great Britain, Spain, Iraq, Israel, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia etc. and so on and so forth. Life itself is always uncertain and unseen death lurks as a constant possibility for even the most protected of us. This has always been the human condition and the truth is that as the eons of human history have passed we are far safer now than our ancestors ever were. Yet it is also a human necessity to maintain the illusion of our own safety and indeed immortality. When horrors like the Boston Marathon bombings occur it tends to shake up our human illusions and engender fear. In the aftermath of these horrors though come the “explainers” whose attempts to soothe us only increase the fears. Following the “explainers” come those who would exploit the aroused fears for their personal gain or predilection. This happened in America from 9/11 and in its wake the false meme “This Changes Everything” was transformed into a reality of war, torture and the shredding of our Constitution. My anxiety was raised because as I watch this all unfold on TV I became fearful of how this new attention arousing horror would be used by those intent upon transforming this country into a Police State under the guise of saving it from terror.
Last night I watched the TV coverage from 5:00 pm until Midnight. In the aftermath of the successful capture of the second suspect and with the bows taken by the innumerable Law Enforcement Officers (LEO’s), my anxiety reached a point of fruition where I saw that this whole incident does not bode well for us all and for our freedoms. The climax of that during the self-congratulatory press conference was the introduction of the vile U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who will be handling this prosecution. For those where the name Carmen Ortiz doesn’t ring a bell please follow these links to recent blogs by Jonathan Turley and me: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/30/the-obama-administrations-inspector-javert-federal-court-rejects-forfeiture-effort-by-the-office-of-carmen-ortiz-in-stinging-rebuke/ and: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/26/carmen-ortiz-prosecution-for-political-ego/ and this: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/18/the-obama-administrations-inspector-javert-speaks-ortiz-issues-statement-in-swartz-case/
Ms. Ortiz responded to a question by confirming the “Public Safety Exception” would be invoked in this case, which would delay informing the suspect of his Miranda rights and keep him from seeing an attorney. The use of this Court approved “exception” basically takes away the Constitutional Rights of defendants presumed to be terrorists and yes this is something that we as ordinary citizens should worry about as explained here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html
There had been speculation throughout the day that this “Exception” would be invoked, indeed the “estimable” Senator Lindsay Graham has called on the President to invoke this “exception” and now after the successful capture we get confirmation that the Administration would do just that and this information is relayed by a U.S. Attorney who has exhibited the tendency to use the power of the office to harass at least one person into suicide.
There was more though about the whole way this case played out that disturbed me further and it is something that I have written about recently: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/09/swat-is-america-coming-under-martial-law/
After the death of the older brother in the shootout in the middle of night and the escape of the younger brother initiating the massed manhunt, the entire City of Boston was in effect shut down. Maybe I’m too blasé in attitude but this seemed to be an extraordinary measure. Even in the direct aftermath of 9/11 only Lower Manhattan below 42nd Street was shut down and that was due to the chaos and disruption in the aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Center disrupting the subways and other New York City services. In this case the citizens of an entire large City were ordered to remain indoors indefinitely. Now I can understand this precaution taken in the Watertown area alone, but all of Boston seems excessive. It essentially held an entire City hostage to the whims of one admittedly dangerous 19 year old, where all the evidence would lead one to presume was on foot, since LEO’s quickly discovered the abandoned, hijacked Mercedes he drove through a police barricade to escape. I found this troubling.
It was ironic in the end, that the suspect was eventually located as a direct result of the “shutdown” being lifted, by a man who came out of his house, noticed blood on the tarp of his boat and peeked in to see the suspect covered in blood. Also troubling to me was that once the suspect had been located it seemed like every sort of LEO from the area drove down congesting the streets with an abundance of vehicles, armored cars, ambulances and trucks of various kinds. Actually an hour into the siege I saw three Federal Government, Black SUV’s pull up into the crowd of vehicles and LEO’s and these were presumably the FBI arriving on the scene. Actually, the Agencies represented there were beyond count. There were at least the Watertown PD, the Boston PD, the FBI, and the DEA (why?), the ATF, the Massachusetts State Troopers, the National Guard (why?) and who knows who else. The show of force to capture one cornered and bloody young man was extraordinary and I think far out of proportion to the mission at hand. Indeed it seemed that many officers came down to feel like they had gotten into the action, rather than out of need. That this terrorist was captured alive is indeed salutary, but the show of force seemed out of place and will no doubt serve as a model for future situations. This indeed seemed to be the “Martial Law” that I discussed in my blog linked above.
Please understand I’m not implying that the capture of the suspect and the solving of this act of terror, at least of the immediate perpetrators wasn’t a good bit of work by law enforcement, because it was. Yet if you think about it, as with most stupidly committed crimes a good deal of the work done was not trailblazing a new path, but actually using long established law enforcement methods updated by our digital age. The cameras that captured the original pictures belonged to Lord and Taylor, not the City of Boston. The video of the two men that was played over and over was a direct analogy to something that we’ve used in this country for hundreds of years, the wanted poster. While it might come out that the video of the perpetrators initiated leads as to the men’s identities from friends and acquaintances, it was the killing of the MIT policeman that focused the attention of the area where the bombers were confronted. Finally, even though a supposed perimeter had been established that cornered the younger brother, he was as admitted by the police holed up in a boat one block outside that perimeter and only discovered by a private citizen. This was good police work, but not astounding police work and yet the hagiography has already begun about this case and precedent will be established based upon it. I am glad for the capture, interested in discovering the reasons for this terrible act, but depressed that it may represent a further step towards a police state in America, under possibly martial law. What do you think?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/09/swat-is-america-coming-under-martial-law/
just another inside job/false flag operation.
see http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/19/some-hard-lessons-from-the-boston-bombing/
photos– be sure to read some of the comments AFTER THE LAST PHOTO
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-brothers-tsarnaev-hunt-for-the-truth-begins/
SWM, Good NYT article. I’m w/ the ACLU attorney Romero on this.
OKY1, I’m in agreement w/ you on Waco. We disagree on Boston. I think the important thing to know regarding Boston is who objects or have objected to the police presence. I’ve seen numerous people in Watertown[I know that area well..they’re not afraid to say what they think!] and they have all been grateful. That may change..I’ll watch for those affected who say they felt violated. It’s easy for us to talk about it since we were all safe. Those folks were not. It’s the same w/ 9/11. For the most part, people in NYC have a different attitude. They felt the horror. They went to many funerals. This isn’t black and white like Waco IMHO. There, Clinton wanted to show his “manhood” and then hid behind Janet Reno’s skirt when the shit hit the fan.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/04/20/dzhokhar-tsaraev-the-big-issue-is-not-miranda-its-presentment/#more-34798
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/a-debate-over-delaying-suspects-miranda-rights.html?_r=0 The middle ground taken by the Obama administration is putting both the civil libertarian and the national security conservative factions in a bind.
Four Reasons Sens. Graham and McCain are Wrong
By Benjamin Wittes
Saturday, April 20, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain were quick out of the box last night in declaring that the Obama administration should hold Dzhokar Tsarnaev in military detention:
Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now.
Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.
We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama Administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option.
We will stand behind the Administration if they decide to hold this suspect as an enemy combatant.
Bobby quickly explained why this is both unnecessary and a bad idea; this very fine Wall Street Journal blog sketches out why it would pose legal problems as well. But the idea has had legs on Twitter, so I want to bring together in one place and explain the several distinct but overlapping reasons why it would be not merely ill-advised but absolutely nuts to try to treat Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.
Broadly speaking, there are four reasons:
First and most important, Tsarnaev may not be an enemy combatant. Graham and McCain warn that “The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorist trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans.” That’s certainly true. But not every terrorist with a bomb is an enemy combatant whose military detention is authorized by law. Some are just killers with bombs. Under the AUMF as interpreted by the courts, and under the NDAA as passed by Congress, the administration is authorized to hold in military detention only those who are “part of” or “substantially supporting” Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. Nothing that has come to light publicly has shown that Tsarnaev was operating as part of any group covered by the AUMF. Unless and until such evidence arises, military detention is not merely a bad idea. It is simply not legally available. Particularly for those of us who support military detention in appropriate circumstances and have argued for its propriety and legality, it is absolutely essential to reject it where the facts do not support it. Military detention does not flow legally from the fact of someone’s being more than just a common criminal. It flows from the fact of someone’s being a part of a military enemy’s fighting cadre. Calling for detention of people who don’t meet—or may not meet—that threshold comes perilously close to calling for a roving power to lock up nasty people.
Second, assuming for a moment that the facts as they emerge would support an enemy combatant designation, there’s the small matter of Tsarnaev’s citizenship. Tsarnaev is reportedly a naturalized American citizen, and the government’s appetite for the detention of American citizens under the laws of war has waned—and rightly so. This began under the Bush administration, which tried twice—in the early cases of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla—to detain U.S. citizens under the laws of war and ultimately backed down both times. The question of whether such detention is legally appropriate for a U.S. citizen captured by law enforcement remains an open one. But it’s an open question that no sane executive would want to test in the presence of a viable alternative—like, say, an open-and-shut prosecution in federal court. As a matter of policy, it was informally off the table long ago, and the Obama administration made that informal policy formal. John Brennan, in a speech at Harvard Law School, declared:
when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system. There is bipartisan agreement that U.S. citizens should not be tried by military commission.
Third, even if the reports of Tsarnaev’s citizenship prove erroneous, he was certainly captured in the United States, and the military detention of domestic captures is problematic for many of the same reasons that the detention of the citizen poses difficulties. Again, whether it is or is not legally available is an open question of law; this was the issue in the Al Marri case. But this is not a question of law that any administration should be eager to test. And just as it has adopted a policy of not testing the citizen detention question, the Obama administration has taken military detention off the table for domestic captures. As Brennan put it,
it is the firm position of the Obama Administration that suspected terrorists arrested inside the United States will—in keeping with long-standing tradition—be processed through our Article III courts. As they should be. Our military does not patrol our streets or enforce our laws—nor should it.
Fourth, even if all of these legal and policy problems could be overcome, as Bobby explained last night, military detention offers no clear advantages in this case and has several big disadvantages. The public safety exception to Miranda means the FBI has a considerable degree of flexibility in conducting this interrogation, so there’s no particular reason to expect the Bureau will be unable to glean from Tsarnaev the answers to the critical questions at stake right now: Are there accomplices still at large, and to what extent was the bombing the work of any foreign group? On the other hand, military detention would gravely complicate the longer-term interest in punishment and in Tsarnaev’s legitimate long-term incarceration. In the Hamdi and Padilla and Al Marri cases, the consequence of military detention was a substantially shorter sentence than the suspect’s conduct would have supported.
In short, there is simply no case for military detention here. By pushing for it, Sens. Graham and McCain risk bringing into disrepute the one avenue realistically open to those who want answers.
Hear, hear, Bob, Esq.
—–
“This is how you build a nation full of chicken shit pansies willing to give up their rights in alleged defense against irrational fear.” -Bob, Esq.
Furthermore, “this is how you build” a compliant populace — one ready and willing to accede to the demands of “authority” — the Constitution and rule of law be damned.
As always, thanks Mike. I don’t know where we’re headed, exactly, but I know this: America needs some courageous whistleblowers…
————
Greenwald today:
What rights should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get and why does it matter?
The Obama DOJ says it intends to question the Boston bombing suspect “extensively” without first Mirandizing him
by Glenn Greenwald
Saturday 20 April 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights
Excerpts:
Now, the cheers for this erosion of Miranda are led not by right-wing Supreme Court justices such as William Rehnquist (who wrote the opinion in Quarles), but by MSNBC pundits like former Obama campaign media aide Joy Reid, who – immediately upon the DOJ’s announcement – instantly became a newly minted Miranda expert in order to loudly defend the DOJ’s actions. MSNBC’s featured “terrorism expert” Roger Cressey – who, unbeknownst to MSNBC viewers, is actually an executive with the intelligence contractor Booz Allen – also praised the DOJ’s decision not to Mirandize the accused bomber (if you want instant, reflexive support for the US government’s police and military powers, MSNBC is the place to turn these days).
Leave aside how misleading and misinformed this defense is: the DOJ’s policy, as documented, is to go well beyond that 1984 “public safety” exception and the DOJ clearly intends to do so here. It’s just so telling how this doctrine, in the age of Obama, has been transformed from hated right-wing assault on Miranda rights to something liberals now celebrate and defend even in its warped and expanded version as embraced by the Obama DOJ. Just 30 years ago, Quarles was viewed as William Rehnquist’s pernicious first blow against Miranda; now, it’s heralded by MSNBC Democrats as good, just and necessary for our safety, even in its new extremist rendition. That’s the process by which long-standing liberal views of basic civil liberties, as well core Constitutional guarantees, continue to be diluted under President Obama in the name of terrorism. Just compare the scathing denunciation of this Miranda exception by Marshall, Brennan and Stevens to the MSNBC cheers for it in its enlarged form.
Needless to say, Tsarnaev is probably the single most hated figure in America now. As a result, as Bazelon noted, not many people will care what is done to him, just like few people care what happens to the accused terrorists at Guantanamo, or Bagram, or in Yemen and Pakistan. But that’s always how rights are abridged: by targeting the most marginalized group or most hated individual in the first instance, based on the expectation that nobody will object because of how marginalized or hated they are. Once those rights violations are acquiesced to in the first instance, then they become institutionalized forever, and there is no basis for objecting once they are applied to others, as they inevitably will be (in the case of the War on Terror powers: as they already are being applied to others).
…
Leave aside the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been convicted of nothing and is thus entitled to a presumption of innocence. The reason to care what happens to him is because how he is treated creates precedent for what the US government is empowered to do, including to US citizens on US soil. When you cheer for the erosion of his rights, you’re cheering for the erosion of your own.
End of excerpts
Thank you Mike for the much needed bullshit repellent regarding this Boston Marathon thing.
I’m not only sick, but angry at the media and government continually milking this for personal gain.
How is the Boston bombing more tragic than the disaster in West Texas? What does the American flag have to do with capturing a criminal deviant? Why is it that the federal government is always the first to spout tripe like “we will not let the terrorists win.” Win what? The only people taking away our freedoms are the people in the Fed who leverage the fear created by acts and threats of terrorism to their advantage. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are actually calling for treating the suspect as an enemy combatant. WTF??
Where is this great psychological trauma that the media and federal government keeps talking about? How is it worse than what’s happening in West Texas?
I’m so sick of the pissing and the moaning amplified and exaggerated by those who have the most to gain; the media selling it and the folks in government leveraging it for unconstitutional purposes.
This is how you build a nation full of chicken shit pansies willing to give up their rights in alleged defense against irrational fear.
A noble lie – refers to the propping up of a myth in order to “maintain social harmony” and keep the elite in their present position.
Plato’s Republic
Wasn’t AG Holder around back in 1995 also?
Oops, I’ve got chores here to do…
**
A Noble Lie The Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995
1) The city shutdown was perfectly justified
2) The heavy tactical response was justified…..he was ‘not some bloody kid’ who was cornered, he was a previously heavily armed terrorist who was still likely armed and possession of more explosives …..I doubt the author would have volunteered to saunter up Andy Griffith style like he seems to suggest LEOs do and put his hand on his shoulder and ask if he was ready to surrender……..such an operation requires layers of perimeters and extensive manpower to pull off safely.
3) The public safety exception to Miranda and detention is more troubling and I’m inclined to agree with the author.
“Alex Jones must be either getting lazy or think his readers are really dumb, because his grand theory about the Boston Marathon bombings is the sloppiest concocted narrative we’ve seen since that dog ate your homework.
Of course, Jones and his comrades at InfoWars thinks the brothers suspected in the bombing are innocent, citing such reliable sources as Twitter user “Trippin No L’ 4/20.”
But if the brothers Tsarnaev didn’t do it, who did? Jones laid out his unified theory of the event yesterday in a video promising “PROOF!” that the event was “staged” and an accompanying blog post.
The basic outline is the same as all of his projects: A globalist cabal working through the U.S. government staged a “false flag” operation that will be blamed on terrorists as pretext to take away guns and civil liberties and eventually tyranny. Eventually, they will depopulate the entire planet through massive genocides.
In the video, Jones calls the bombings “the biggest event” of his 18 years of broadcasting, so you would think he would bring his A game, but he really let us down with this one. There’s something you have to respect about a good conspiracy theory — Hollywood certainly does — and Jones is generally a master, but his latest work is so full of holes, internal inconsistencies and outrageous leaps in logic that only die-hard fans willing to suspend all disbelief will appreciate it. It’s really the Phantom Menace of the InfoWars franchise.” from the article above.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/alex_jones_is_phoning_it_in/
I have to disagree with you on this Mike.
The supreme court has accepted the Public Safety exception to the Miranda warnings and in this is and incident in which it could be articulated as a fair use of it.
The facts that are undisputed presently are that the suspects had engaged in a WMD terrorist act, car jacked a vehicle in order to obtain a cache of weapons (illegal explosive\destructive devices and firearms) which they then used to engage against other persons such as LEOs attempting to capture them. There were multiple bombings that had occurred.
Other known probabilities with regard to terrorist cells is that they tend to have the support of others who may levy new attacks that are clearly and presently dangerous to the public. There also might be secondary explosive devices that could have been planted elsewhere, and this was certainly a possibility given that multiple bombs were detonated and there is experience with placing booby-trap type devices that could subject LEOs and the public to additional injury.
The scope of the questioning under Public Safety exception needs to be limited to addressing the general public safety and not minor issues that would be subject to Miranda.
Additionally, given the exigency that existed at the time, calling in large numbers of LEOs is reasonable. Taking a perimeter takes a lot of warm bodies to maintain, not to mention ones where the suspect was accused of engaging in bombings, shootings, multimple murders, car jackings, etc. The requirement of large numbers of personnel causes just about everyone under the sun to be called in. I have had countless times in my LE career where just about every agency available was called in to help, including Liquor Control officers, Railroad Police, Fish and Wildlife, anybody that could help during a high incident. It is not indicative of a police state in doing this especially when the numbers of these types of responses pales in comparison for the sheer numbers of common crimes that take less of a federal response.
The situation in this case is about stopping a undeniably severe threat to the lives of everyone around. I would want just as strong of a response to this as possible to prevent the escape of this person and another act happening with more people dying or being maimed. If handing out a blank check to all the overtime needed to put this situation to an end immediately is something most cities are going to agree to willingly.
Also, the fact that the citizen found the man hiding in his boat shows that even with the tightest perimeter imaginable one cannot expect every possible inch of space to be covered. It is not unusual for people to pop up and be discovered by others. Also, that the citizen immediately recognized this person to be the suspect certainly can be said to have been a successful example of getting the information out that the supect was on the loose rather than this man not knowing what what was going on because he was not watching the news or that nobody had contacted him about the threat.
To not have police and federal LEAs capable of being readily mustered just because one does not want to provide the appearance of a police state, even if just in appearance, denies the ability to handle a situation that can be very dangerous to patrol officers and the public in general. Plus the unavailability means that it is only going to be a matter of time before some high incident such as this arrives where the police are totally outgunned and a marauding group of terrorists unleashes additional murders against the public. At some point the situation will have to addressed by someone, leaving only one entity with the capability to do this; the military. Would that be preferrable? That is all that is left.
If we look at the number of terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11 it is a small sampling to consider this being evidence of a shift toward a police state.
As for the grandstanding by the gov’t officials I agree with you on that and of the choice of the US attorney who is fairly controversial is not something I would risk for the justice department in such a high profile case.
I also predict that at some point as you and someone else has mentioned there will be politicians that will use this incident as evidence to support some usurping of the consitition on other matters new and contrived. And you and I are in complete agreement with that.
Aaron Swartz – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
Aaron Hillel Swartz (November 8, 1986 – January 11, 2013) was an American computer programmer, writer, political organizer and Internet activist. Swartz was …
Oh, & how odd CISPA just happens to pass the House last week.
2 of 2
I’m a bit cautious sometimes with Alex Jones, but when he’s right on target & correct I understand his outrage completely.
Just look how many people’s lives were destroyed by the known Govt lie we call the Vietnam War.
( small warning, AJ curses a small bit & is loud, clip is lil over 1:45 minute long.)
The OIG needs to send a team to Boston and the DOJ and the FBI need to be taken to task. This was an unquestionable set up. The Massachusetts FBI are KNOWN liars and have decades of dishonest history – does “Bulger” ring a bell and the fact that it takes them 17 years to capture someone who had the same apartment for 16 when chances of their implication exist. Further, at the initial press conference where these suspects had their pictures released never was it disclosed that the FBI had been watching the older brother for years with no signs of terrorist activity noted. What was really interesting was the solicitation of pIcs and videos to the FBI email when in 2011 this same office was sent attachments as evidence of public corruption and returned an email stating they could not accept attachments for security reasons– PER SEVEN OTHER MAJOR CITY FBI AGENCIES THE EMAIL CONTACT ON THE INDIVIDUAL FBI SITES WAS SET UP SO THE PUBIC COULD SUBMIT TIPS AND RELATED EVIDENCE.
The following link is to a pic taken by air media before the team of actual government terrorist returned upon a claim that a resident called them and reported blood by his boat. The suspects’ Uncle is scum the way he trashed them in the media when he had not even seen this young suspect since he was 11 years old; one source reported that the Uncle was an attorney which begs the question how much was he paid to sell out his nephews and trash them on the news to help influence the public? https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBgpaHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0cGljLmNvbS9zaG93L2xhcmdlL2Nra2I0aS5qcGcUsAQUrAIAFgASAA&s=RiTklzmcuBJrujG9Q61_iQ2tDNvof7L-9FEHsIdmLr0
1, April 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm
nick spinelli,
When the Clintons, the Bush family , the Obama/Holder Wallst/London mafia goons are finally arrested for War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity, Treason for hiding behind the US Constitution to incite/engage in illegal wars/creating public panic/disorder & they being a public menace, I hope like heck they are read their Miranda Rights because the general public needs to see those perps receive a fair trial to help re-enforce public confidence in “We the People”s govt.
IE: Preamble of the Bill of Rights.
Evidence in court rooms have shown time & again there was in fact multiple conspiracies & not a conspiracy theory, that they have repeatedly been the ring leaders of events like Boston.
Boston, Sandy Hook,etc., all the evidence isn’t in yet so we’ll have to wait & see on those.
**
(What, you don’t think evil aholes wouldn’t pull a Boston to cover up the release of the below report? Really?)
The report is an indictment not only of President Bush who is responsible for the torture program but President Obama who promised CIA officials that they would not be investigated or prosecuted for torture.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/17/report-u-s-government-ran-torture-program-after-9-11/
**
1 of 2
“This has always been the human condition and the truth is that as the eons of human history have passed we are far safer now than our ancestors ever were.”
In some limited context perhaps, but not in the larger context of human civilization itself (The Most Dangerous Moment in Recorded History).