|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||National Security State / Surveillance State: Review of Literature||Recommended Links||History of American False Flag Operations||False flag operations as an important part of demonization of the enemy strategy||Classified America: Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ?|
|Media-Military-Industrial Complex||Machiavellism||Two Party System as Polyarchy||Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few||Overcomplexity of Society and Collapse of Civilizations|
|Total Surveillance and Snowden Prism Revelations Saga||Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite||The Grand Chessboard||Disaster capitalism||Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism||The Iron Law of Oligarchy|
|American Exceptionalism||New American Militarism||Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few||Media-Military-Industrial Complex||Humor||Etc|
False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.
Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags
Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:
- “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” - Plato
- “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” - U.S. President James Madison
- “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”. - Adolph Hitler
- “Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the 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. That is easy. All you have to do is to 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 any country.” - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
- “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”. - Josef Stalin
Jul 10, 2015 | The Guardian
The largest association of psychologists in the United States is on the brink of a crisis, the Guardian has learned, after an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years of denials, has already led to at least one leadership firing and creates the potential for loss of licenses and even prosecutions.
For more than a decade, the American Psychological Association (APA) has maintained that a strict code of ethics prohibits its more than 130,000 members to aid in the torture of detainees while simultaneously permitting involvement in military and intelligence interrogations. The group has rejected media reporting on psychologists' complicity in torture; suppressed internal dissent from anti-torture doctors; cleared members of wrongdoing; and portrayed itself as a consistent ally against abuse.
Now, a voluminous independent review conducted by a former assistant US attorney, David Hoffman, undermines the APA's denials in full – and vindicates the dissenters.
Sources with knowledge of the report and its consequences, who requested anonymity to discuss the findings before public release, expected a wave of firings and resignations across the leadership of an organization that Hoffman finds used its extensive institutional links to the CIA and US military to facilitate abusive interrogations.
... ... ...
Substantial sections of the report focus on the APA ethics chief and describes Behnke's "behind-the-scenes attempts to manipulate Council of Representatives actions in collusion with, and to remain aligned with DoD" – a reference to the Department of Defense.
A University of Michigan-pedigreed psychologist, Behnke has held his position within the APA since 2000, and, according to sources, used it to stifle dissent. Hoffman's report found Behnke ghostwrote statements opposing member motions to rebuke torture; was involved in voter irregularity on motion passings; spiked ethics complaints; and took other actions to suppress complaints.
... ... ...
Behnke was hardly the only psychologist involved in the establishment and application of torture.
According to two landmark Senate reports, one from the armed services committee in 2009 and the other from the intelligence committee in 2014, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were instrumental in persuading the CIA to adopt stress positions, temperature and dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation and waterboarding in interrogations. (Neither man is an APA member.)
Psychologists assigned to the CIA's office of medical services assisted abusive interrogations, which the Guardian revealed in June appear to violate longstanding CIA rules against human experimentation.
Those tactics, save waterboarding, spread from the CIA to the military. Psychologists joined "behavioral science consultation teams" that advised interrogations at Guantánamo Bay.
... ... ...
Yet the organization withstood all public criticism, until New York Times reporter James Risen revealed, based in part on a hoard of emails from a deceased behavioral-science researcher named Scott Gerwehr, the behind-the-scenes ties between psychologists from the APA and their influential counterparts within the CIA and the Pentagon.
In 2002 – the critical year for the Bush administration's embrace of torture – the APA amended its longstanding ethics rules to permit psychologists to follow a "governing legal authority" in the event of a conflict between an order and the APA ethics code.
Without the change, Risen wrote in his 2014 book Pay Any Price, it was likely that psychologists would have "taken the view that they were prevented by their own professional standards from involvement" in interrogations, making it "far more difficult for the Justice Department to craft opinions that provided the legal approvals needed for the CIA to go ahead with the interrogation tactics".
In 2004, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal burst into public view, the emails detailed a private meeting of APA officials with CIA and military psychologists to "provide input on how the APA should deal with the growing furor", Risen wrote.
Ethics chief Behnke emailed: "I would like to emphasize that we will not advertise the meeting other than this letter to the individual invitees, that we will not publish or otherwise make public the names of attendees or the substance of our discussions, and that in the meeting we will neither assess nor investigate the behavior of any specific individual or group."
Risen went on to report that six of the 10 psychologists on the seminal 2005 APA taskforce "had connections with the defense or intelligence communities; one member was the chief psychologist for US Special Forces". The subject of tremendous internal controversy, the APA ultimately rescinded the taskforce report in 2013.
In October, the APA called Risen's account "largely based on innuendo and one-sided reporting". Yet the next month the association announced it had asked Hoffman to investigate potential "collusion with the Bush administration to promote, support or facilitate the use of 'enhanced' interrogation techniques by the United States in the war on terror".
Throughout the controversy, the APA has preferred to treat criticism of its involvement in torture, either from journalists or from human rights-minded psychologists, with dismissal. Its internal investigations of the criticisms have typically ended up exonerating its members.
"A thorough review of these public materials and our standing policies will clearly demonstrate that APA will not tolerate psychologist participation in torture," the APA communications chief, Rhea Farberman, told the Guardian in January 2014, after the Guardian revealed that an APA inquiry declined to pursue charges against a psychologist involved in the Guantánamo Bay torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani.
The psychologist, former US army reserve major John Leso, took part in a brutal interrogation of Qahtani, the suspected intended 20th 9/11 hijacker, according to a leaked interrogation log and investigation by the Senate armed services committee.
Interrogators extensively deprived Qahtani of sleep, forced him to perform what the log called "dog tricks", inundated him with loud music for extended periods, and forcibly hydrated him intravenously until he urinated on himself.
"The concern that APA's decision to close the matter against Dr John Leso will set a precedent against disciplining members who participate in abusive interrogations is utterly unfounded," the APA's Farberman told the Guardian in January 2014.
Apteryx05 10 Jul 2015 22:05
If these doctors are guilty as alleged, then why aren't Bush, Cheney and the rest of their cabal of war criminals facing prosecution?
WatchEm 10 Jul 2015 22:04
Just the APA?? Of course elements of their APA membership are torturers - and they know this only too well. Don't leave out 'psychologists' who are not APA members and get profitable government contracts to develop 'better ways to torture'...
Add psychiatrists, 'government employees', mercenary profit centers aka 'contractors', police officers with torture expertise, the alphabet soup of government agencies and purported humans from the rank of major to general. The latter being directors and instigators of torture where a number of them were promoted for their efficiency in the finer arts of torture.
At the lower echelons of torture are military cannon fodder who are often assigned blame and have been known to be prosecuted. Just watch a few tapes of them speaking on camera and it's easy to see thru them - ranging from just sad to being control freaks. They are what is known as the "few bad apples" in the barrel full of bad apples.
There is no such thing as an old torturer... Add a few criminal retirees with long track records of torture and experience of slaughtering men, women and children. They were pulled out of retirement to show their expertise in the killing, torture and operating death squads - paid for by the US taxpayer.
Never leave out US 'ambassadors' who magically appear like bees to a honeypot when torture is in the air - e.g. Negropointe is an example of a US 'torture ambassador' with considerable experience in the slaughtering, torture and particularly in the rapes of innocent people. His latest skill set extends to being a diplomat for death squads.
In the Washington swamp there are the legal lemmings specialising in opinions of torture. All legal opinions are, of course, simply to support the rear ends of policy makers on torture - and their non-legal opinions violate the Convention against Torture and literally every human rights and crimes against humanity treaty ever ratified by the USG.
At the top of the pack of cards are the policy makers - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, the Black Widow Pianist, Wolfowitz and other self-relevant sickos, plus circa 400-500 of their I'm-very-innocent sycophants from almost every department of government. They will explain how torture is not torture - despite a written policy on torture. Needless to say, the travel opportunities of this group outside US jurisdiction is somewhat restricted.
Not unsurprisingly, US society is marinated in this vermin and some of them are pillars of society - e.g. college deans et al. Dysfunctional, corrupt and criminal would be an understatement. In most other nations with a real functioning justice system, most of this swamp with the vermin of humanity would be in jail cells.
The APA? Hell they are just a segment of a torture regime...
JinTexas -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:03
In light of this:
How would we know if they've stopped doing it or not?
rfs2014 -> Slo27 10 Jul 2015 22:03
no, doctors are the worst. it's their job to help people. not so with lawyers.
dakaygees -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:02
Which US was able to correct it self by condemning torture? You must be living on another planet.
TheBBG 10 Jul 2015 22:01
The Americans need Tony Abbott and his far right wing Liberal-Fascist Party for salvation. He will show them how to make it legal to torture and illegal to tell anyone about it, first or second hand.
bobliv -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:00
Read the White Rabbit by Bruxe Marahall, just a variation on theme.
rfs2014 -> Lex Lozano 10 Jul 2015 22:00
by that logic, you should have no problem with terrorists capturing and torturing american armed services personnel (whose main goal may be to kill as many terrorists as possible).
the geneva conventions are there for a reason - each side believes it's right, so we need some basic standards by which to conduct ourselves in times of war. not torturing the other side is a good place to start.
Athell -> William Brown 10 Jul 2015 21:58
Of course, any fascist surveillance state considers everyone a threat
Athell -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 21:57
Ha ha ha true - but I just think he was trying to compare the level of atrocities committed by the nazis to the one committed by the US government since the Bush years - and perpetuated by the Obama administration
Athell alverta 10 Jul 2015 21:55
Yeah, that bunch of criminals have evaded justice for many years.
Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 21:55
In the history of humanity, all nations will torture, and fall from good character: only some, unlike the US teeter there longer, stay there, or go so far off the deep end they end up like Nazi Germany, or the Soviets. That the US was able to correct its self, and condemn the torture, and move on, drives many mad.
tomjoadmcalister 10 Jul 2015 21:53
Psychologists are not medical professionals. Why does the Guardian keep mistakenly referring to them as such? This habitual error casts doubt on the credibility of this and related articles.
en1gm4 -> MondoFundi 10 Jul 2015 21:53
Bingo. Democracy, rule of law etc is just a charade. In reality the rulers of today are no different than those of years ago. We're just compliant because we have a little version of freedom. So they keep us happy whilst they do what they want.
Maybe some time in the future justice will prevail but for now nothing is going to happen.
Haynonnynonny kowalli 10 Jul 2015 21:51
The Nazi never water boarded any one. If you get a chance, stop by your local library, and get a history book.
alverta 10 Jul 2015 21:44
Start with Bush. Cheney, Rummie and Condi first... Add in Wolfie and all who are already signed on to advise Jebbie.
Mansa Mahmoud gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 21:42
US foreign policy is dictated by US corporate interests. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany (prior to WW1) were focused on colonization. Under the colonization model, the European countries owned the colonized countries and extracted resources and cheap labor to support the 'Home' economy.
America (aside from Okinawa Japan, Phillipinnes, Guam) prefers not to maintain direct control. Rather america installs puppets; the purpose of the puppets is to make it easy for american companies to exploit the resources of the proxy (via puppets) controlled nations. During the cold war, the USSR wasted resources in trying to finance and manage warsaw pact nations. The USSR did it (partially) for ideological reasons. USA focused on maintaining proxy control and creating access to cheap resources for american companies. That is the entire premise of globalization.. it enables an american (by brand only) company to access cheap labor and provides said company with access to a world of consumers.
Once you understand that fundamental concept, then american foreign policy makes absolute sense. America is run for the benefit of the big dollar people; nothing less, nothing more. Read the book "Confessions of a Hit Man".
kowalli 10 Jul 2015 21:39
nazi at the full face. USA are bunch of nazi
William Brown StuartBooth 10 Jul 2015 21:37
The U.S. Government considers its own citizens a threat. That's why they spy.
Brian Lippe 10 Jul 2015 21:37
Typical. They should start with Cheney if they're going to prosecute anyone and spread out from there. He's still saying it was OK!
StuartBooth 10 Jul 2015 21:34
American Exceptionalism allows Americans carte blanch to commit any crime against foreigners. Like standing on a cockroach.
Alistair73 10 Jul 2015 21:30
Lets not forget all the commie regimes... Stalin and Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un and his daddy and grand daddy, and now Maduro in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, Mugabe in Zimbabwe. You would think the left would embrace state sanctioned torture since it has been relentlessly practiced by all of its heroes.
camerashy 10 Jul 2015 21:24
Every god damn single one of these psychopaths must prosecuted and put behind bars! No apologies should be accepted. They're nothing but human scum!
philbertdelamorgue -> Trig Satyr 10 Jul 2015 21:22
the APA has a code of ethics, modelled after the Hippocratic oath. these psychologists violated that code of ethics, and then the APA took steps to protect them, at the expense of their own ethical code. that's the problem, independent of the guilt or innocence of the people tortured.
gastinel1 -> Mansa Mahmoud 10 Jul 2015 21:21
I appreciate what you are saying, however US foreign policy adopted the theme of 'America First' long before Bush and Cheney. This policy runs counter to its own stated values of freedom and democracy because it necessitates ensuring compliance from other regimes to American capitalist aspirations.
confettifoot -> libbyliberal 10 Jul 2015 21:19
It's a hard education. The best among us recoil; it breaks the heart and poisons everything, knowing. That's the problem. It wasn't so long ago that the Nazis discovered the same - make it so awful that no one can quite wrap their mind around it, so atrocious that it can't be discussed at table, so ugly that passing the information feels like assault. Make it very expensive to resist, make it life-wrecking - someone suggested that we stop paying taxes. That won't catch on. It's not just America. The world is full of good Nazis, frowning silently into the middle distance. We're all deploring like crazy in here. Who among is is actually doing something?
photosymbiosis 10 Jul 2015 21:13
One question here - what about the use of psychoactive / neuroleptic drugs in interrogation? Was that used? I just ask because those few Gitmo detainees seen in public so far have that kind of nodding dazed drooling expression of the lithium / tricyclic / SSRI victim of excessive drug treatment - nodding, dazed, stumbling, etc? Have they been doing drug-based interrogation on top of the waterboarding?
confettifoot -> Jake Wilson 10 Jul 2015 21:11
Pogo. You know. "I have seen the enemy...".
confettifoot -> pogomutt 10 Jul 2015 21:10
I don't want my life purchased by torture. I agree with those who don't believe that it saves anyone, anyway, but come down to it? I'm radical. Don't want to live in a world in which torture is"just n case" standard procedure. Sorry. Ends don't justify means. Appeal to self-interest here is shabby and false.
fairandreasonabletoo 10 Jul 2015 21:06
The spirit of one Doctor Josef Mengele……….found its way to America with all the other NAZI baggage….
It would seem?
gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 21:05
Its interesting isn't it, how governments justify torture. The Nazis were convinced that they needed to weed out dissidents and spies by any means possible. When the Allies occupied Germany, suspected Nazis were also given a very rough time. Those post war interrogators gained a lot of 'useful' experience and that has really formed the basis of postwar interrogation techniques - human rights be damned.
gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 20:57
They could have saved themselves a bit of money by recruiting NCO's from the British Army who served in Northern Ireland. They know all the techniques. To be fair to the UK Government, they did apologise. But then again, why did the UK go back to doing it with the Americans? What values did they say they are protecting?
CostaParkiMik -> Emily Pulane 10 Jul 2015 20:54
such sincerity ..... while forgetting that your lot were the illegal invading force operating in the interests of corporations and zionist interests.... who had spent years degrading the public infrastructure of a sovereign nations causing the deaths of many hundreds and thousands of women, children the old and the sick.
libbyliberal 10 Jul 2015 20:52
In Jan. 2014 I attended a "World Can't Wait"-sponsored NYC forum on Gitmo and a screening of "Doctors on the Dark Side" directed by psychologist Martha Davis.
Todd Pierce, who had been a Gitmo prisoner lawyer, said that our society expects professional people to exhibit high ethical standards. This has not been the case and an alarming number has colluded with the amoral Bush administration's torture program.
From the film I learned about the horrific tortures some ended by the Obama adm. and SOME NOT at Gitmo!
Temperature extremes, sensory deprivation, 24 hour flourescent lighting, 24 hour sustained assaultive noise, solitary confinement, riot squad attacks and punchouts with night sticks, sleep deprivation, aggressive force feeding, genital mutilation, sexual degradation, threats to kill a prisoner's family members, manipulation with drugs, stress positions, organ-damaging, bone-breaking sustained shackling and suspension from vulnerable body parts, withholding of appropriate and timely medical care, the infamous water boarding, etc. ETCETERA!!!
I also learned that having military personnel present motivated torturers to push torture to nth degree. Emergency tracheotomies at times had to be conducted on prisoners who had been zealously waterboarded. In spite of medical personnel present at least 100 prisoners were "inadvertently" tortured to death. Medical personnel were then pressured to falsify death certificates to cover up such mistakes.
UK's Andy Worthington spoke of not only the number of wrong place/wrong time innocent men rendered and tortured but how Obama's promises of release and then betrayals is a spiritual torture that has resulted in profound despair and even suicides. How the US Congress is heartless about Gitmo, wanting to posture as tough on terror and Pentagon issues propaganda about recidivism rates to back them up.
Worthington said Obama has decided to kill people with drones instead of use capture and imprisonment. Once again, innocent lives are destroyed with this reckless program.
Debra Sweet of WCW said instead of trying to win foreign hearts and minds the US is instead traumatizing and terrorizing foreign hearts and minds (and radicalizing them) with its draconian detention and torture programs.
Torture begats false confessions which the Bush administration used to justify its war.
Mitchell and Jenner who reversed the SERE program and set up the advanced interrogation program Worthington disclosed are now covered by a $5 million defense fund provided by CIA against attempts at liability and accountability. Mitchell was the one who decided one prisoner be waterboarded 83 times!
creweman 10 Jul 2015 20:50
Who wants to bet that the maximum penalty imposed on any individual will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist? The United States Of Hypocrisy will see to that.
CostaParkiMik Urgelt 10 Jul 2015 20:47
"....There are no such pressures on the FBI or the Attorney General to do their jobs and enforce the law....."
I could imagine with white man, intellectual arrogance that they saw it as part of their "mission" to maintain and spread all that's good and right about the American way and do away with threats to that mission..... self righteous neo christian nazis.
F H Dar 10 Jul 2015 20:46
21st Centuries truly Savage State, which a 'special relationship' with Britain?
reto 10 Jul 2015 20:44
It's a little like the death penalty... I don't really care what they do to terrorists who have carried out attacks and killed innocent people but do really hope they only do it to people who are guilty. What is clear is that the guy who is actually torturing is crazy afterwards. As for the APA... this organisation is so awash with group think and peudo-expertise I doubt they have found out anything at all despite their many "experiments". Being a scientist requires a minimum IQ. Look, if you actually can find out things using torture, why not have it in your arsenal but experience after 9/11 (see Senate report), the last couple of hundred years and the inquisition seems to suggest that it doesn't work well for most purposes. Names are just codes these days and aren't that important anymore in a cell command structure.
BrianHarry 10 Jul 2015 20:24
If medical professionals were coerced into lying about torture after 9/11, it's not to hard to imagine that the N.I.S.T. report(the official explanation of what happened on 9/11) is also a lie.
The question is, "Who in government, CIA, FBI, etc, found it necessary to coerce these people into lying"? And Why?
PamelaKatz JohnML2015 10 Jul 2015 20:15
The APA is currently lobbying the AMA (American Medical Association) and Congress to be permitted to prescribe and dispense drugs used to treat psychological/psychiatric disorders. Unless the APA outs every single one of these guys and kicks them out of APA permanently, yanks their licenses, and gets rid of every member of their Association's Board of Governors who 'covered up' these ethical breaches, no psychologist should be eligible for insurance reimbursement. Nothing happens until you hit the pocketbooks of the whole community.
1cjcarpenter 10 Jul 2015 20:14
In my opinion the APA and its members lost the majority of their credibility well before any CIA involvement. The 1995 Little Rascals day care trials, for a start, showed a degree of irresponsibility that I would have labeled criminal.
pogomutt 10 Jul 2015 20:13
"Community standards" What a fucking joke. The American Psychological Association came out with a position paper only a few years back that classified the rape of children by homosexuals as an "orientation". It's TRUE, Guardian! Live with it!
ID5175635 FancyFootwork 10 Jul 2015 20:00
A bit overboard, don't you think? APA is an organization. Some in that organization may be guilty of wrongdoing. The vast majority of APA members are psychologists who work in schools, workplaces, universities, for NASA, the DOD, and other workplaces and have no relationship with torture in any manner.
Michael Williams 10 Jul 2015 20:00
Right. Blame the doctors. Not the people giving the orders.
When Bush hangs, then we can worry about the doctors.
Barry_Seal franzbonsema 10 Jul 2015 19:57
They have domestic assassination squads and NSA surveillance teams to deal with any prosecutors who get any funny ideas which might threaten "national security"
Barry_Seal 10 Jul 2015 19:52
The CIA is absolutely untouchable. They are the law and they are the true government of the USA. They cannot and will not be prosecuted for anything. This is not because they never do anything illegal; it is because they are the government agency tasked with doing that which is illegal. This is the true reason why the CIA must necessarily be so secretive - nearly everything they become involved with is a grave legal and moral crime.
Angelaaaa Brucetopher 10 Jul 2015 19:51
Probably because alcohol, drugs and so-called "truth serums" don't actually deliver the truth. They just lower inhibitions. As anyone who has listened to chemically-enhanced stream-of-consciousness rambling will gather. You may get some truth (Grandma smells ... ) but probably no razor-sharp insights.
Of course, torture doesn't deliver the truth either. Just for other reasons.
The point that no one in power ever wants to acknowledge is that the most reliable way to get the truth is from someone who really wants to deliver it.
Bankhead 10 Jul 2015 19:50
Is it correct to refer to psychologists as part of the medical community? The writer perhaps should distinguish between Psychiatrists (medical doctors) and Psychologists (PhDs). As I recall, the Psychiatric professional association(s) were demonstrably against participation in military interrogation during the period in question.
Denial, however, is a term familiar to both professions. There is an irony on display here, and not a small amount of hubris.
Haggala Jeffrey_Harrison 10 Jul 2015 19:40
When the Americans were accused of torture after the world saw the Abu Ghraib images, the American administration to let themselves off the hook just redefined the terminology.
And that is what humanity does to allow itself to make the same mistakes of the past, it changes the definition unconsciously mostly but in the Abu Ghraib situation that was a conscious change.
And still GTMO is in operation where there are still untried prisoners being interrogated, where we may wonder is the beast we fight actually the image in the mirror
Angelaaaa synchronicfusion 10 Jul 2015 19:39
No. It's a fairly straightforward definition of the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist - the terms are not interchangeable.
The difference is important because psychologists want desperately to be acknowledged as "doctors" (Mengele notwithstanding) - rather than expensive crackpots for the chattering classes. To that end, their organisations adopt similar ethical commitments. However, unlike psychiatrists, joining these organisations is voluntary. And even if they kick out a member, that psychologist can still hang out a shingle and continue counselling, regardless of whether s/he is guilty of government-sanctioned torture, sleeping with patients or just really bad at the job.
Psychiatrists however, as doctors, can be stripped of the right to practice if they are proven to be incompetent or unethical.
ro2124 Will D 10 Jul 2015 19:34
Indeed if it was some African dictator Mr Yankee would be screaming for justice!
Still guess we should not be surprised after all the illegal wars, torture, lies, illegal gathering of information by the NSA and the way their police forces are behaving at the moment gunning down unarmed people like there was no tomorrow.
The Yanks have absolutely no credibility left whatsoever !!
But, hell when someone exposes the truth like Mr Snowden then they fall over themselves and scream about justice, etc what a bunch of damn hypocrites!
FancyFootwork 10 Jul 2015 19:30
Finally, those righteous and morally upright men and women, who for a very long time cried foul very loudly will feel vindicated that an upcoming report by an investigator, who was personally chosen by the brass of the APA is slated to point fingers at the organization, its leadership and members.
The report will blast a bombshell, which will be seriously consequential to the livelihood, reputation and possibly freedom of many in the APA, which includes the elite brass, who where involved with the Bush Administration by schooling, aiding and abetting its its principal torturing institution: The CIA
Now the APA will forever be decidedly linked with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Who can forget the image of the imprisoned man at Abu Ghraib, kneeling on the floor, hands tied and been stared at eye level by a barking German Shepherd, which looked ready to bite and sever his head from his body. The horror displayed by the man was unsettling. How about the image of a hooded person in a black robe, arms spread, standing to look like enduring crucifixion? And the APA will also be forever lined with the term WATERBOARDING.
This is an institution that was entrusted to use the science of psychology to safeguard the mental and psychological health of Americans. Instead, it used its knowledge and power to do to engage in morally and ethically reprehensible acts of torture.
No doubt, the anticipated report will provide tremendous moral and political boost to those, who endured years of humiliation, rebuke, ridicule and even threats to their livelihood for opposing torture in all its forms. They will come back swinging with a swagger, aiming and hoping for a grand slam. My hope is that, once the necessary number of APA heads are bashed, the momentum will shift to go after Bush Administration officials Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, the former president himself and many other big fish, or small minnows that were involved in the CIA torture program.
Now, that will be quiet an event bigger in scale to the impeachment of former President Nixon, who by comparison committed far lesser reprehensible act than George W Bush and cohorts
Ali Kerrouzi 10 Jul 2015 19:27
And then they wander why USA is hated all over the world, Bush's administration is partly responsible what's happening in Iraq now and Syria, Bush & Blair made our world more dangerous created more terrorism they get away with it in this life but they will have to answer God on the judgment day for the blood on their hand, the torture, millions of refugees
IntoOblivion 10 Jul 2015 19:26
Better late than never. Many of us already knew what "enhanced interrogation techniques" really meant, an euphemism for terrorism. And that "responsible and humane medical practices" were never compatible with "EIT".
That doesn't mean that the ones who ordered the torture are not the ones we should really blame and that should face justice. But doctors were also aware of what they were doing.
Bklynite53 10 Jul 2015 19:23
Why do they always go after the bottom feeders first. Time to start at the top and that means the commander-in - chief.
talenttruth Juan Olmo (MOSAICOS COQUI') 10 Jul 2015 19:19
I HOPE that this is satire. If so, funny. If not . . .
The "war" against terrorism is an INVENTED FANTASY LIE, by the U.S. military industrial complex, to waste American's money, even beyond the 53% of our ENTIRE national budget going to Eternal War (and huge eternal profits for the criminals behind the "war industry".)
Yes there are insane "terrorists." And they have insane, sociopathic leaders and lost, borderline personality "followers." But the American response (all for PROFITS) is to turn everything into a fear/fear/fear 24/7 "War."
The Republicans are the paid representative of the Eternal War Profits machine.
Having the APA support Bush, or any other criminal who kills hundreds of thousands of people, just to further enrich themselves, is despicable. And Yichen Hu is partly right, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton's entire board and a host of other criminals should have been prosecuted for war crimes years ago.
Theodore Svedberg Laudig 10 Jul 2015 18:58
True psychologists are not physicians. However, there were a number of "real" physicians, i.e. AMA accredited doctors, that worked at Guantanomo who monitored the health of torture victims and alerted the interrogators that their subjects were close to death and they did two things: stopped the torture and then treated the victims back beyond the verge of death. At that point the torturers could resume their "interrogation". We know this was happening. So far these doctors names have not been revealed.
If the APA is now cleaning house on their torturer enablers maybe it is about time for the AMA to start looking into the "real" doctors that were part of this system.
ro2124 Brucetopher 10 Jul 2015 18:57
>Why do elaborate, horrendously painful, cruel and vicious actions need >to be undertaken
No doubt some are sadists and enjoy it and as any real interrogator knows, evidence under torture is mostly useless. If someone wired up my dangly bits to the mains, I am sure I would confess anything from eating babies for breakfast to being the best mate of Osama Bin Liner!
and the Yanks still insist on lecturing the rest of us about morals and the "Land of the Free" and all the other bullshit they like to spout ...but slowly we are seeing what a bunch of hypocrite F**** they really are!
Littlemissv norecovery 10 Jul 2015 18:51
Here is a comment from JCDavis with some important information:
Russ Tice revealed that the NSA was spying on Obama as early as 2004 at the behest of Dick Cheney, who had already convinced the NSA's director Hayden to break the law and spy on everyone with power.
It can't be any coincidence that President Obama went (or was sent) to Bill "Cheney is the best Republican" Kristol to get his foreign policy validated, and Kristol congratulated him on it, calling him a "born-again neocon."
And it is no coincidence that Obama has the Cheney protegee Victoria Nuland in his administration, right in the center of his new cold war with Russia. And no coincidence that she is the wife of neocon Robert Kagan, who with Bill Kristol founded PNAC. PNAC counts neocon Paul Wolfowitz as a member, who saw Russia as our main obstacle to world empire.
It's a nest of neocons running Obama as a puppet and pushing us into a confrontation with Russia while smashing all the Russian allies according to the Wolfowitz doctrine.
Littlemissv -> marydole 10 Jul 2015 18:46
the US and it's partners in crime turn around and say "gee how come all these folks got radicalised and are out to kill us"?
Gore Vidal explained why very well back in 2002 in his book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated
Littlemissv -> ID8918386 10 Jul 2015 18:41
I'm reminded of the work of R J Lifton
Yes! Lifton appeared on Democracy Now two months ago: Robert Jay Lifton, Author of "The Nazi Doctors": Psychologists Who Aided Torture Should Be Charged
Everyone should watch Amy Goodman's terrific interview with the 89-year-old, and very wise Lifton.
gtggtg -> IanCPurdie 10 Jul 2015 18:29
"I think you will find the USA has exempted itself from international law, ..."
Yes, and they should be called on it, relentlessly. Law is not law, only tyranny, if one can exempt oneself from it.
When a Spanish court took on Pinochet and by extension his US partners, this scared the shit out of powerful people here in the US, much more than has been let on. File charges against the bastards; demand their appearance; when they refuse to show up, try them in absentia; if found guilty, arrest them should they ever touch foot in that jurisdiction or wherever there is recognized procedures for extradition. Keep doing it again and again and again. Eventually it will have an effect, although it may seem hopeless now.
Imran Nazir 10 Jul 2015 18:23
Adam Curtis: Bitter Lake. . Puts things into perspective.
Longasyourarm KDHymes 10 Jul 2015 18:21
Regrettably true. The problem began with the notion that putting pharma into bed with academics would generate miracles, a delusion shared by many neocon governments.
confettifoot Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 18:19
No - I read the link. "Learned helplessness" is a thing that's been around since Pavlov, and is helpful in compassionately understanding depression. It wasn't developed for the military, and you've taken Seligman's comments wildly out of context. I HATE these bastards, want them out of the profession - Seligman is very much a pacifist, well-known good guy, actually well out of the medicalized model, against coercion, opponent to bad stuff in the profession and that's why I was shocked.
If you have real source that he was hushing up whistleblowers show me and I'll loathe him, but it would be extraordinarily out of character. Be careful with people's reputations.
frazzerr 10 Jul 2015 18:18
This is great don't get me wrong, they deserve to be jailed and for a considerably long time, but who oversaw all of the torture and sometimes the torture of innocent people?
He is also responsible for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as a direct reaction to the 9/11 bombing when neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any connections with Al-Qaeda.
I'll never forget his comment, "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
When is George W. Bush going to tried for his war crimes?
redpill 10 Jul 2015 18:02
US torture doctors could face charges after report alleges post-9/11 'collusion'
Good. Let them try using the Nuremberg defence!
MiniMo 10 Jul 2015 18:01
"an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years of denials, creates the potential for leadership firings, loss of licenses and even prosecutions."
The very sad part of this is that they were involved in even a slightest way in torture, not that they might lose their jobs or prosecuted.They fully deserve to lose their jobs at the very least.
They are expected to be caring professionals. Obviously not always so, and they've let down most of their colleagues so very badly, as the majority of them really do care.
KDHymes Pete Street 10 Jul 2015 18:01
Your last paragraph pretty much reveals your true point of view. Know any women in the military? Bet they'd appreciate your words so much.
You know what? We could argue all day about whether any of this was justified, and as others have pointed out, your argument is irrelevant because all of it is illegal under both US and international law. But let's stick with something you might understand: it does not work. Period. Coerced confessions lead to bad decisions by those who use the information. How's things going for the US and Europe in the Middle East? Did any of these crimes make a single thing better?
Please enlighten us as to what difference torture made for us. And you'll have to do better than citing the same discredited cases over and over again. EVERY TIME the government has claimed to receive useful intel from torture, it has been disproved by those actually in the know. If they have evidence that is valid, they would surely be presenting it. But no, they don't have that, because there isn't any, so the only things they can do is lie and hope the first media report out-shouts the correction.
These people are very very stupid. NGIC is right up the road from me. They continue to have amazing smug confidence about their work. And yet their work has consistently been poor and misleading. Same goes for Homeland Security, the CIA, and the NSA. Every time we actually get a look at the details, it's obvious they don't know what they are doing at all, they're just spending their budgets, and sometimes indulging their sadism and racist paranoia.
But this has been the case all along with bloated intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Look at the FBI in the 60s and 70s. It's criminal, but it's also frankly laughable. There's a culture that builds up of certainty and self-reinforced ideology, and it becomes incapable of thought. It's worse now, because so much of the intelligence gathering is done from a desk. They know very little, but pretend they know so much. All that tech and all that spying can't make you smart. And we're all paying the very high price in dollars and military lives for their willful ignorance.
confettifoot marydole 10 Jul 2015 17:55
That's correct. And we all become good Nazis insofar as we tolerate it - but the average citizen has very little power against uber-powerful institutions like those that perform these abominations with our tax dollars. It's an outrage not only against the direct victims, but against every decent American and the conscience of this country.
IGiveTheWatchToYou 10 Jul 2015 17:52
"Sections of a previously classified CIA document, made public by the Guardian, empower the agency's director to "approve, modify, or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research". The leeway provides the director, who has never in the agency's history been a medical doctor, with significant influence over limitations the US government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people."
I assume there's a tranche of records waiting to be discovered from US black sites around the world detailing various unspeakable illegal human experimentation projects with subjects rendered, I mean kidnapped from a war zone, by the military.
KDHymes Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 17:49
Here's an alum who heartily agrees with you. I've watched this pseudo-science play havoc with family members, generating income and label after label, while ignoring crimes. I worked as a residential social worker in Ohio for 7 years, with people who were placed in group homes and apartments after the Athens Mental Health Center was closed. Several were simply slightly eccentric people whose families had committed them for the sin of inconvenience, or in one case for daring to stand up to sexual abuse. The "care" was a scandalous mixture of polypharmacology and hideous punishments. Yeah, it was a while ago, but these folks are still alive, and the "doctors" who signed off on all of it have never been held accountable, never even been forced to apologize to them. And these days what we seem to have in the US is, like everything else, multi-tiered according to class and ethnicity and income. Being weird while poor is a shooting offense. Being an abusive sociopath while rich gets you a label and a suspended sentence, with the help of well paid "expert witnesses."
There is no integrity, no real science, behind any of it. Partly this results from the ongoing fantasy that human behavior can be reduced to chemicals and imaging. But a lot of it has to do with the profit motive and attendant careerism, with the pharmaceutical industry and the psychotherapeutic industries smiling hand in hand on the way to the bank.
aardivark 10 Jul 2015 17:49
Stephen Behnke, has a Yale law degree and a psychology Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. How ominous does that sound?
Mike Casey 10 Jul 2015 17:48
As these build, more and more people will be implicated. The APA, being a private organization can be held accountable more easily than can government officials. Hopefully this will lead to prosecution of decision makers within the government. We the people need to make our leaders accountable!
Jeffrey_Harrison usernameshinobi2 10 Jul 2015 17:35
You make me sick to my stomach. Just a few bad apples? Right. Torture is illegal under US law and our treaty obligations. For the military to conduct it, everybody from the CinC down to the individual torturer knew that. That's not a few nor were they rogue individuals acting on their own as you imply. This was systematic abuse of human beings deliberately conducted by the United States Government aided and abetted by Psychologists. They are scum and should be a total embarrassment to their profession although transparently the "profession" doesn't see it that way.
Contrary to your assertions, torture was not practiced nor condoned by the US military in the past and individual service members who tortured, even in the heat of battle, were punished. We also convicted foreigners who perpetrated the things that these psychologists did of war crimes after WWII. But never fear! I'm sure Egypt or Libya has an open slot for you in their system.
Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 17:35
The leading scumbag in the above story is illustrated in the link. He was instrumental in hiding and excusing the links between the corrupt APA and the CIA These greedy psychologist parasites are not physicians, everyone should realize, even though they make No attempt to clear the confusion that they are medical doctors.
The abject debasement of their own professional standards owes much to this Martin Seligman who was president of the APA and tried to squelch the whistleblowers.
He should be jailed and tortured by those who have suffered from the application of his crackpot theories, which he developed by giving electric shocks to dogs. The poor excuse for a university department that is psychology at Penn should be closed.
TaiChiMinh Pete Street 10 Jul 2015 17:35
Sorry for posting this twice, it was meant as a response to the apologist for US crimes, Pete Street:
>> The context of this historical period justifies torture not involving death or permanent physical injury, in order to protect national security at home and abroad. This context we call wartime.
Actually, the UN treaty (signed by the US in 1988 and ratified by the US in 1994) - Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Acts - specifically rejects the case you are trying to make, which makes you an apologist for crimes:
"2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Nor does US law make an exception for wartime: "18 U.S. Code § 2340A - Torture
(a) Offense.- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. . . .
(c) Conspiracy.- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy."
Throw the book at them - and the people up to W who designed this criminal enterprise.
Maybe you can come up with an rectal destruction exception? Keep, er, probing . . .
Gegenbeispiel 10 Jul 2015 17:35
Is there way for the International Criminal Court in the Hague to issue arrest warrants against these people? The US would not, of course, recognise them but it would keep them out of international professional conferences and make them afraid to ever travel outside the US.
DerekCurrie richy1 10 Jul 2015 16:43
richy: I warned you that 'the masses' aren't prepared to face the treasonous nightmare. Don't feel bad.
Meanwhile, the proven evidence of the enablement of 9/11 by the Bush League continues to collect. Hiding from it and hating on it won't change the facts. No looniness or anti-Semite bad attitude is required to read what really went on that day and thereafter. No clap trap. No Holocaust denial. No anything denial. Just the facts. Sorry about that.
drew4439 10 Jul 2015 16:41
Witch hunt.. Where are Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Pearl in all this..
MiltonWiltmellow 10 Jul 2015 16:25
In 2004, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal burst into public view, the emails detailed a private meeting of APA officials with CIA and military psychologists to "provide input on how the APA should deal with the growing furor", Risen wrote.
The word "collusion" comes to mind.
Perhaps "criminal conspiracy."
Kudos to those APA members/agitators who forced a reckoning.
As long as the CIA (DoJ) isn't setting up Behnke et al as scapegoats to distract from the institutional criminality of the Bush administration, this is a great report. One doesn't need the ethics of the APA to read and understand the Constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."
Finally a reckoning appears on the horizon.
I hope it isn't a mirage.
These people attacked and harmed America as surely as the terrorists. Their self-proclaimed virtue and patriotism aren't relevant. (For instance, by their actions, they allow members of ISIS to argue their atrocities are reprisals.)
Let's see the DoJ and FBI perform their actual duties rather than interdicting terror plots which they imagine, instigate, finance and then -- with much publicity -- discover and prevent.
DerekCurrie 10 Jul 2015 16:17
This minor revelation about 9/11 is nothing compared to the Bush League's involvement in enabling that day and lying their way into the Iraq War, as per the plans of both the Israeli government and their pawn in the USA: PNAC, Project for the New American Century, run by the Neo-Con-Jobs. So much of this is out for anyone to read and prove to themselves at least a critical part of what really happened that day and thereafter. But the masses still aren't prepared to face that treasonous nightmare.
But if you want to get started!
Here's where scientists and engineers are collecting proven data about the actual 9/11 events. You won't enjoy it:
kgb999again 10 Jul 2015 16:17
I'm almost positive Mitchell and Jessen were members of the APA when they were designing and selling torture campaigns a decade ago. IIRC, at the time they were vocally supported by the then-president who also had ties to some of the companies that were monetizing interrogation techniques.
No longer being members seems irrelevant to the actions the APA has taken over the years defending the behavior of these two specifically - and the consistent APA defenses of these practices in general.
John Smith 10 Jul 2015 16:14
OK, this mind come across as a bit cold, but human rights aside, what most amazes me about this whole sad affair is that the APA didn't brief the US government about what value of intel can be gained from torture.
Torture has been found to be excellent in extracting confessions: the subject, once deprived of all hope and having to rely on their torturer for all emotional support and empathy, will confess to anything. Even shooting Kennedy.
As a means of securing reliable, actual info, it's worse than useless. Subjects will give answers to please their captors, and avoid pain.
This is widely known. If the APA didn't pass this advice on, they are actually complicit in undermining the safety and effectiveness of the US intelligence gathering organisations.
The APA would appear to have been caught up in both a blood lust for terrorists, and root and branch stupidity. What a mess.
sampson01 10 Jul 2015 16:13
The APA chose to be a rubber stamp for the govt, and allow for its members to be there to reaserch what the boundries were separating 'enhanced interrogation' and torture. Thus using human subjects being exposed to enhanced interrogation in an experiment to assess if it was in fact torture. One of the architects of this program (though hadn't renewed his APA membership) has admitted (proudly on Fox News) that he personally water boarded a prisoner during an interagation session.
Patrick Clawson, member of the globalist-controlled think-tank and neo-con influenced Washington Institute for Near East Studies (WINES); recently spoke about the use of false flags as a necessary way for instigating a war with Iran. Clawson remarked that Obama has had a difficult time "getting the US into a war with Iran" and advocating the use of conventional means (i.e. using a false flag to provoke a military strike).
"If in fact Iran is not going to compromise, then it would be best if someone else started the war. . . One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people – Iranian submarines go down all the time. What if one of them did not come back up? Who would know why?"
March 11, 2013 | NYTimes.com
Very funny to see the US administration complain about computer hacking when it has inflicted some of the most serious computer hacking damage around which could have set off a serious nuclear accident. (Against Iran's civilian nuclear reactors for example). The USA and Israel feel that it is ok for them to wreck another countries infrastructure but cries foul when someone else does the same to them.
Unbelievable logic.... as usual.
So Chinese Military appears to be hacking US computer networks. North Korea threatens the USA with a Nuclear attack. China and North Korea are allied with each other. Is our nuclear installations connected to the internet? Maybe "Demand" is not strong enough.
I guess we have our drones and they have their hackers.
Rob S, San Francisco
Time to wake up Corporate America...if you're too greedy to seriously invest in cybersecurity, you deserve it. But this is just part of it. The other side is now China is "investing" in high tech in Silicon Valley by starting incubator companies under the guise of investing. What they are really doing is planting a big fat Trojan Horse right in the middle of one of America's most valuable assets, with the intention of siphoning off information to send home.
Phil Greene, Houston, Texas
The US demands! I am so sick of reading that phrase. Every day the US lodges some critique of some other Nation that has wronged us. Fortunately most nations so criticized ignore our constant critiques. Are we the Worlds arbiter of taste as we invade other countries, practice torture and run concentration camps export weapons, and brandish our nuclear weapons? I think not.
Puzzled, Washington DC
Can I believe that my new Lenovo laptop, made in China, doesn't have secret software installed that reports what I'm doing to the Chinese government?
Phil Greene Houston, Texas
All the good thing I have, my clothes and my TV and my phone and my tires and every good thing I have or want comes from China and a price I can afford and they take dollars from us, too. And they lend money so our government can function.Thank You for all you do for me, China.
Tally Isham, New Mexico
If our neighbor is robbing us, maybe we should try locking the door first. I doubt whining and threatening our banker is going to be good either country.
BL, New York
Yes because the U.S. is the only country on earth that is allowed to hack other countries... The rules don't apply to the U.S. and even if they do we always have a very good reason for breaking them.
Tired of Hypocrisy, USA
How dare we demand anything of another sovereign nation. We all know how horrible the United States has acted toward the rest of the world. We all know how the rest of the world hates us all and that whatever evil befalls us is well deserved. We know this because we have read it in many comments made by Americans to the NYT. [Sarcasm over.]
Anyone who thinks that this is a one-way street is totally ignorant and deluded. All countries engage in every possible form of espionage. It is all secretive. This outburst by the US side is telling an interesting story. Imagine two fellows challenging each other to be underwater as long as possible and the loser is the one who burst out to the surface for air. . . . Is the US losing this particular two-way espionage game?
I wonder how one government would react when another said: "Could you please stop spying on us?" No government is as pure as the driven snow and pretending to be one sounds more than weird. Any form of espionage is what powerful governments have always employed as a common strategy, more often than war. Get real please.
The first government that I know of that boasted of its cyber attacks, off the record ,was the US government. Reported I seem to remember in this paper. Full of their own cleverness they leaked stories of the US cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. Elsewhere on the planet people are likely to conclude that you condemn others for acts your own government performs routinely. But it isn't hypocrisy I believe that your government actually believes the US is exceptional. In the sense of being treated as an exception to every rule. Europe has had at least two regimes in the twentieth century whose leaders held similar beliefs. It didn't end happily for them or their countries.
K. Spain West Virginia
1. Acknowledge the problem. No problem. 2. COMMIT to stopping it. Not actually stop it. If Obama was serious, this would read STOP the hacking. So, they decided this isn't important and they're gonna let the Chinese slide. 3. Create guidelines. This is a ploy to give the administration time to let this slide into the future and become the next administrations problem. This was likely because they don't know how to respond.
Phil Greene Houston, Texas
This country reminds me of the mood that Germany was in in the 1920's and 1930's. They were nativist, insular, nationalistic and defiant. We here seem to hate everything and everyone foreign. Those Mexicans, those Muslems, even those Europeans, those Chinese and those communists. And lets build that wall on our southern border higher . It is a recipe for disaster.
none2011, Santa Fe NM
Why is the U.S. always asking other countries to stop doing what the U.S. itself does? Because we are an arrogant and not very insightful into our own absurdities! The U.S. spends 28. 5 million dollars to send messages to Cuba that only about 1% listen to. We spend billions listening to, and capturing, millions of messages from our own citizens and the rest of the world, and we know we have just used cyberwar against Iran and who knows how many other countries. It might be that we can fool our own citizens who, after all, are not very politically sophisticated, but we are a laughing stock of the world because we are so obtuse, and think that other people are going to be scammed by us. I am sure the Chinese are having a good laugh, and will probably the increase hacking they now do just to make a point; that is what the U.S. government would do. Personally, I could care less if they hack U.S. businesses; we did, after all, steal a lot of trade secrets from other countries in the past; now we hack other countries and then kill people with illegal drones.
I think we have to define what is a crime, what is a tort, what is a trade violation and what is an act of war. If we set expectations, then people can know the consequences.
Your Name Here, Chicago
Jawboning the Chinese government: this is pathetically weak.
No it's not. A lack of response is.
DD, Los Angeles
Kind of astonishing that virtually no comment mentions the vast incompetence of the IT people responsible for making sure their systems are impervious to attack.
Whether it's identity thieves in Russia, or government sponsored hacking out of China, until there is SERIOUS financial punishment for U.S. corporations who sloppily let their systems be hacked, this will never stop.
And yes, I am advocating punishing the "victims", if you can call them that with a straight face.
Young Patriot, Utah
The fact that Cyber attacks have "moved to the forefront" of the US's concerns with China is saying something. China has extensive nuclear arms and over two million people in their army. The fact that cyber space attacks ranks alongside our national debt and nuclear arms throughout the world must mean that there is even more attacks than the government is letting onto. Cyber attacks are just another form of espionage. I don't think asking China to regulate crucial American Information intake is going to work. Rather than trying to weaken China's cyber influence we should focus on strengthening ours.
Stonezen Erie, PA
We are all speculating - oh what fun.
CHINA has an advantage over the USA that Republicans and our general sense of self reliance prevents us from plugging into. A government of any people can be stronger than any subgroup such as a corporation. We falsely believe smaller government is better - even democrats . But a government which provides large advantage to it businesses and financial well being is what the CHINESE have and what we need to counter this single minded government threat to US interests and world peace. We need to back our US government and support actions on our side to apply the power we have. It begins with our agreeing this is needed and must be supported 100%.
Obama's plan is a good first step. This will insure there is no way any country will misunderstand the natural consequences of their actions. We must discourage cyber activity that is unwanted, illegal, unfair, and inconsiderate of what is best for the world community. These table manners will provide fertile ground for international business relationships.
If CHINA continues down this path we must be prepared to defend ourselves or take offensive action in cyberspace in response.
It seems obvious that China will not halt cyber attack invasions of the U.S. unless the consequences are so painful they will understand that it is in their best interests to do so. Otherwise there is no reason for them to stop regardless of protestations of the U.S. We should accept that we are in a serious cyber war with China. I am no computer expert but a question that I have is: do we have the ability to set up sophisticated alert programs that respond to hacking by China by automatically bouncing back our own cyber attacking viruses and worms, etc. to the source hacker that will either obviously or silently invade and severely disable Chinese hacker systems.
To avoid their attacks on us we'll have to build a firewall as strong as our military forces are. The current Chinese government won't reason with you just like they never reason with their own people. The one-party government will do whatever they need to so that they can stay in power.
j. von hettlingen Switzerland
Indeed, hacking is a perfidy form of industrial espionage. Companies spend a huge fortune on security in order to safeguard their blueprints and corporate secrets. There are companies that know that they've been hacked and those that don't even know that they've been hacked.
Paul White Plains
Pretty tough to tell China what to do when they hold so much U.S. government debt.
If they won't take the steps requested, then it's time to place a value on the stolen IP and then place a tariff on all Chinese imports to offset the benefit China is receiving through their state sponsored criminal behavior.
Howard64 New Jersey
Corporations have so much power so my guess is the largest corporations do not want the us government to confront China. There must be a profit reason.
NW New York City
It is always a good idea to set up some rules to discourage cyber hacking. Have the rules is better than have not, even though you may say the rules are not enforcible.
I think the president is saying a good thing here. The question is will he do anything about it? We can't have anybody harming our already down economy by stealing secrets from American companies. We should also do something about all the copyright and patton issues worldwide. We need to protect ourselves and come up with secure ways of housing our secrets. We shouldn't go to war over this but we do need to address the issue. We should use our diplomatic powers and people to go and make something happen. I also thought it was very interesting that we said we couldn't abide by the armistice anymore. We will see how that goes but hopefully it goes well.
Do as you would be done by. Or shall we say don't do as you would not wish to be done by?
Brian Davis Oshkosh, WI
Or in America, do unto others before they do unto you. What if we policed and punished corporete espiage in our own country?
Chris Ford Cambridge
On every article I see that concerns China, I see comments telling that we should bring the outsourced jobs back to America. But would we REALLY want that? Those are menial (not to mention unhealthy) jobs, like manufacturing Apple products. And they do not pay well. If I remember correctly, one of the Chinese workers doing these jobs that we want so badly commit suicide because the working conditions were so deplorable. Sure, there are regulations that set standards for working conditions, but it wouldn't be THAT much different from those terrible working conditions in China.
Do we really want those jobs back here at home?
Yes, we do. And with livable conditions. Factory work does not have to be inhumane; manufacturing provided decent lives to people in the US for many decades. It's the willingness to mistreat labor (and to destroy the environment as well--anything for profits) that is key here, the old battle with the new robber barons on a global scale.
I think you ask a good question.
Yes, we want consumer manufacturing back here in dark factories. That would provide independence from China, control of resources and money/deny same to rising hostile power.. Why make China rich when it threatens our close ally Japan - with a democratic government made in our post-war image, large influential Japanese American community, etc., etc.
And manufacturing some things like machines doesn't just provide jobs. It provides high tech skilled career workforce - see top-of-food-chain manufacturing economies like Germany & Finland. These economies make the multimillion-dollar machines that make machines manufacturing robotics or advanced textiles, high quality and specialty steels, glass and plastics, etc. all critical, all good jobs.
Dale Williams Calgary
Perhaps it is time for US industry and the federal government to mobilize discussions on filing suit against the Chinese government for the theft of intellectual property. Damages could easily be in the hundred of billions, and might coincidently be close the trillions of US debt held by China. As for realizing on any judgement, China has hundreds of billions invested in western assets and corporations which could be targeted.
This is a great idea, but how do you propose filing a suit? Also, that might spark a cyber war against the United States and China if not handled properly. As long as enough evidence is gathered, a suit could be possible.
Eric Rooney Tampa
We can't be so outraged since there really are no international rules in cyberspace for China to break. It's morally wrong but not legally since there are no laws or even universal definitions. That's why Obama is saying he wants to discuss online regulations. In the past it has been the U.S. who is reluctant to do this and the Chinese who want to organize the Internet through the United Nations.
jim jennings new york, ny 10023
US cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear operations are a new type of drone although not quite as messy. Perfectly justified. Rather a hack than a holocaust.
Is the US hacking North Korea, Venezuela, Putin, Pakistan, Belarus, Afghanistan, Iraq or any other government known to be anti-US?
It is likely that America's corporate geniuses have been hacking each other. Corporate espionage increased exponentially when cyber attacks and thievery proved possible and hard to trace.
As to the Chinese, they will benefit little from what they have electronically pilfered. American government, private and public, is as badly managed as it is humanly possible to be. Should the Chinese attempt to use their new knowledge, it will bankrupt them in a heartbeat. Could they shut down our grid or water systems? Sure, but if US firms have not by now installed systems to prevent that sort of damage, so be it.
I thought Hacking was done both ways! or are we saying we are not doing any hacking to China or any other country for that matter? Something is completely dishonest somewhere here! They cannot do it, but we can! Ha!
Thomas B Santa Barbara, CA
While I agree that we need to be more forceful with China about the hacking issue... As the top commenter already said, they government will just feed us the same old story: "We don't condone hacking; we have laws against hacking; we are the victims of hacking ourselves."
And now, they'll throw another one at us in the response: our government is attacking their companies, their government, their military just as much, if not more. Whether or not that is true, it's hard to say. It's very difficult to take anything the Chinese say at face value. I'm inclined to agree with others who say the only defense here is to continue insourcing our most valuable technology and manufacturing processes. However, with China wanting more and more concessions for access to their national market, those goals will be hard to achieve.
In the end, I doubt anything will come of this.
The US also has a large hacking network. Is Obama yelling "UNCLE"?
Dreamer Syracuse, NY
Is there is any moral basis to all this? Is it ok for us to hack away and disrupt other's nefarious activities but definitely not ok for any one elsr to do this kind of stuff?
Brian Ketcham 2347btkcsk
In a fascist state, such as PRC, we must understand that there is a relationship between the military and financial elites.
This may be a for-profit operation whereby Generals get a piece of the action by providing intel to wealthy Chinese.
By exploiting capabilities only the state can develop, the "people's" army can succeed on the long march towards a Bentley for every commander.
Rex Cheung Philadelphia, USA
For a good read on Chinese history that mirrors what current Communist China is -- Pulitzer Prize winning "Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911 -1945" by Barabra Tuchman. Communist China lives in a make-believe world. Mandiant compiled pages of APT1 hacking US from the financial district of Shanghai (home town of Jiang Zemin -- their current Deng Xioaping), their statement department denied the existence of APT1. It is a good step to get CCP to acknowledge what the PLA paramilitaries are doing, it is wrong and set the rules for the cyber space.
STEVE PLOTKIN ROCKVILLE, MD
Helps to remember that, early in U.S. economic history, we stole everything in sight.....intellectual property be damned. When it became useful to us, we changed our behavior (officially).....and, in all likelihood, so will the Chinese when they become convinced that they can gain more from protecting their own intellectual capital than by stealing everybody else's.
As to their long term goals vis a vis the U.S......I assume they want to become so powerful that we can no longer interfere in their business. Whether they want more than this is anyone's guess.
FC Campbell, CA
Could you be more specific about which IP the US stole in the beginning of its economic history? Or maybe even later?
Madbear Fort Collins, CO
@FC I know we stole weaving and steel making processes from the British. Probably other techs as well.
K Henderson NYC
National security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon should know better than drawing a line in the sand.
That kind of diplomacy never works. And that is all this is -- diplomacy -- with some finger-pointing added for effect.
naught.moses the beautiful coast
"... he made no mention of Washington's attacks on the computer networks in Iran..." nor, very likely on the PRC and gawd only knows how many other foreign governments and corporations worldwide. Not that we or anyone else =should= stop hacking. Please. This =is= what =is=. And we will keep right on buying Chinese goods as long as they are cheap, because cheap =is= what we value.
Well-written biography of an FBI translator hired 3 days after 911 who quickly discovered one of her co-workers was spy for Turkey and actively sabotaging investigations into narcotics trafficking, 911, and even the stealing of American nuclear secrets. When she reported this to her superiors, instead of prosecuting the spy, they viciously attacked Ms. Edmonds. Part detective novel, part spy-thriller, Ms. Edmonds subsequent investigation uncovered a network of corruption that implicates the White House and congressional leaders of both parties. A must-read for any American concerned about real espionage which goes unpunished and unabated today. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report abuse | Permalink Comment CommentJohn Conlon - See all my reviews
Read this important book,
June 2, 2013
Put down the keyboard and the remote - if you read one book this year, read this one. But before you do, know that it will require of you the reader, the fortitude to follow the author through her courageous yet heart wrenching metamorphosis from 'true believer' to a modern individual.
What Hannah Arendt gave us in her 'Eichmann in Jerusalem', the any man and the Banality of Evil; Sibel Edmonds has given us Americas polar opposite - the individual fighting for the truth amidst the banal anymen and anywomen of the group.
Perhaps the book should have been titled 'Edmonds in Washington - fighter for the true American Spirit.' ?
Our truest Americans have always been our immigrants, like Arendt and Edmonds, those individuals that know the importance of holding fast to universal truth and ideals.
By Dennis P. McMahon on December 8, 2011
For anyone not up to speed on 9/11 Truth, as well as for those fully versed in the topic, David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Ten Years Later" is (as of this writing) *THE* book to read. And it almost wasn't written, for Professor Griffin--the premier researcher/author/spokesperson for 9/11 Truth--had to recover from a series of life-threatening crises before he could begin writing this superb work which highlights and summarizes the overwhelming evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was an inside job.
A most intriguing segment of this excellent book involves Professor Griffin's addressing the issue of why "otherwise rational journalists" have endorsed the official story which is so riddled with what the author labels as "miracles," uniquely defined therein as events that contradict the laws of science. As to why journalists have failed us, the answer depends on which journalists are being discussed, but the reasons are, in sum, the fear of being discredited by their (mainstream) colleagues, and the fear of being distracted from "more important matters," according to Professor Griffin. I would add that another reason is because the most prominent news media personnel continue to work "hand in glove" with the government, as Carl Bernstein originally observed some 34 years ago in the October 20, 1977 issue of Rolling Stone magazine. Or as former CIA Director William Colby once put it: `The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.'
In a separate chapter, Professor Griffin asks, "Why have Bill Moyers and Robert Parry in Particular Endorsed Miracles?" and then pays tribute to the good work these journalists have done. Later, Professor Griffin concludes that a major reason for Moyers' and Parry's abysmal failures re: 9/11 is their "nationalist faith--the mythical belief that the American government would never deliberately do anything [so] terrible" as murdering their own people on 9/11--despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But according to Professor Griffin, also key is that Moyers and Parry have failed in their job to "follow the truth, wherever it leads," and also "have fallen for the Big Lie." (See postscript on the "Big Lie" in the final paragraph, below). To be sure, Professor Griffin's assessment would tend to explain Moyers' and Parry's "abysmal failures," however, this assessment strikes me as overly generous. In my view, Moyers and Parry appear to be nothing more than left-wing gatekeepers, carrying out the work of true reporters most of the time--thereby establishing credibility and gaining trust with the American people--and then falling in line with the State when it comes to issues of the greatest importance, e.g., what really happened on 9/11, all in a concerted effort to conceal the truth about matters the State deems absolutely essential to its existence.
In the chapter on "Building What?" - which discusses the mysterious collapse of Building 7 and how SCADS (state crimes against democracy) can be hidden in plain sight - Professor Griffin duly notes that two Fox News journalists, Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano, did have the courage to challenge, on-the-air, the government's untenable position on how Building 7 collapsed. However, neither journalist followed up on this extraordinary story or its implications, probably, as Professor Griffin later notes (on page 235), because the Fox news heads "likely did let [Rivera and Napolitano] know that, unless they said no more about the matter, one or both of them would be let go." As of this writing, neither journalist has dared to speak out any further about the government's cover-up of what really happened on 9/11.
In chapter 5, Professor Griffin discusses what has become his most controversial position, the "Phone Calls From the 9/11 Planes [and] How They Fooled America." In short, Professor Griffin makes a good case for the fact that the reported phone calls--which led the public to believe that the 9/11 planes had been hijacked by Middle Eastern-looking men--were faked. Here, I was somewhat surprised to see Professor Griffin address and thereby dignify with a response, arguments made by one Erik "Loose Nuke" Larson, a prominent presence on the heavily infiltrated 9/11 Blogger website. There, in early 2011, when Professor Griffin was seriously ill and near death, Larson viscously attacked Professor Griffin and his phone-call analysis. That unprovoked attack on Professor Griffin pretty much reduced Larson's internet persona to rubble in the eyes of many, and he became in the process someone to ignore. However, in "9/11 Ten Years Later," Professor Griffin takes the high road and addresses the substance of Larson's rambling arguments, revealing them to be specious at best.
In another somewhat surprising presentation, in chapter 7, Professor Griffin calls for "a consensus approach" among 9/11 Truth activists who have long debated over what actually struck the Pentagon. The author states that the answer to this question is "quite unimportant," because the resulting friction among 9/11 truthers "allows the [State controlled] press to portray the 9/11 Movement as absurd, with members being more concerned with their battles against other truthers than with their differences from the government's account." Although I would like to have seen Professor Griffin address whether this debate is being fueled by cognitive infiltrators posing as 9/11 truthers, it's still hard to argue with his conclusion (on page 197) that "regardless of what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon was not struck by [Flight] AA 77 under the control of al-Quaeda. And given this consensus, the 9/11 Truth Movement now has the same kind of agreement with regard to the Pentagon that we have with regard to the World Trade Center."
Chapter 8 covers "Nationalist Faith: How It Blinds America to the Truth About 9/11," and it is here that Professor Griffin is at his most insightful. The author effectively and efficiently discusses the history of false flag attacks, and presents the overwhelming evidence indicating that 9/11 was perpetrated on Americans by Americans who were (and remain) intent on blaming Muslims. For those with eyes to see, this should be most obvious. Unfortunately, not many people in this country even bother to look, for they are too invested in a nationalist faith that blinds them to the truth, Professor Griffin states. (I would add that the American people are also too involved in their own little worlds, and way too distracted by sports, entertainment, and electronic devices.) In short, Professor Griffin duly explains in a most compelling way, how and why the nationalist faith phenomenon occurs and persists.
In the final chapter on SCADS, Professor Griffin focuses on the "Professionalization of the 9/11 Truth Movement," listing many of the esteemed professionals who publicly have joined organizations, signed petitions, and indicated "their judgment that the official story is indeed false." These organizations include intelligence officers, journalists, lawyers, medical professionals, pilots, political leaders, veterans, and firefighters--all standing up for 9/11 Truth.
Despite this formidable array of professionals, Professor Griffin observes that the 9/11 crime has thus far succeeded. Why? Professor Griffin persuasively discusses the reasons from three key perspectives:
(1) Psychological and Sociological (involving shock and rallying around the flag, trusting the president, nationalist faith, the Big Lie, and the power of salary and status);
(2) the Press, "by virtue of the fact that the [State controlled] media, rather than giving the public the available facts, have concealed such facts" (page 230); and
(3) the Academy (i.e., Academia), which "has devoted virtually no attention to the apparent contradictions of the official account with scientific principles" (page 236).
As Professor Griffin points out, the failure to reveal the truth about 9/11 has not only generated perpetual war, but has also triggered an unprecedented assault on the U.S. Constitution in the form of military and secret tribunals, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, the "justification" of torture [and murder], states secrets privilege, suspension of habeas corpus, and the authority of the president to initiate war. "It is impossible to see," writes Professor Griffin (on page 241), "apart from revealing the truth about 9/11, how American political life could ever again become more than [the] hollow shell of a democracy" it is now. No doubt. But can this dire situation ever be rectified?
Professor Griffin offers some hope with the idea that more insiders will have to come forward and be willing to speak up (as a few have). And, he says, leading journalists will have to be converted. In closing, Professor Griffin warns that "If the perpetrators of this crime are not brought to justice, then they will believe that they can get away with almost anything. So unless we want continued false-flag attacks, we should do our best to uncover the truth about 9/11."
My take is that the 9/11 masterminds already believe that they can get away with anything, and sadly, it appears, they are probably right. 9/11 is proof of that. Still, it is vitally important for each of us to learn and recognize who we are and where we are, speak truth to power, and do all we can to bring about justice. No one has done more in this regard than David Ray Griffin, whose courageous and ongoing quest to discover and reveal the truth about the most horrific unsolved crime of our era has produced yet another extraordinarily powerful book, "9/11 Ten Years Later," a must-read for anyone interested in the truth about 9/11, and the land we call America.
By Thomas C. Fletcher on September 7, 2011
Format: PaperbackDavid Ray Griffin in his new book, 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER: WHEN STATE CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY SUCCEED, takes stock of what we know, after the passage of a decade of intensive grassroots research and analysis, about what really happened that day, and of the present state of the 9/11 truth movement - its strengths and its weaknesses, and how it can move forward most effectively. The book is a combination of important lectures given by Griffin in the last few years, revised and updated for publication, and of completely new essays on key topics, such as the strong evidence that the phone calls from the hijacked airliners must have been faked, and the powerful consensus about the Pentagon events that has been achieved by the movement.
The first four chapters highlight the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and the clearest implications of that evidence: the lack of evidence that Muslims attacked the US on that day (making clear that the ten-year-long series of wars on Muslim nations is morally and legally unjustified); the multiple occasions on which the laws of physics were miraculously inoperative in the destruction of the World Trade Center, if the official account so ferociously defended by erstwhile critics of government like Bill Moyers, Robert Parry, Alexander Cockburn and many others is to be believed; and the extraordinary case of WTC 7's classic demolition, which has been assiduously covered up by the mainstream media and government agencies (its collapse was never even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the final report on its destruction issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in November 2008 was fraudulent).
Chapter 5, "Phone Calls From The 9/11 Planes: Why They Are Not Authentic," examines all the evidence that has been discovered regarding phone calls from the hijacked airliners. The phone calls have been a crucial part of the official story of the day's events, purportedly establishing that the planes were hijacked by Arab Muslims and that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. But after a careful, critical analysis Griffin is forced to conclude that the phone calls were not made from the planes. First he shows that there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers actually were ever onboard any of the planes, and further, that the failure of any of the eight pilots to "squawk" the hijack code into their transponders is "strong evidence that the official story about the 9/11 planes -- that the cabins were taken over by hijackers - is false." He then shows that the calls to Deena Burnett, which registered on her caller ID as calls from her husband Tom Burnett's cell phone (he was a passenger on board Flight 93), could not have been completed because cell phone technology in 2001 was not capable of completing calls from airliners at high elevation. Griffin concludes the calls had to have been faked, and suggests that they were faked by voice morphing, already a well-established technical capability at the time. After examining the claims made for many other calls, including those for Barbara Olson, wife of then Solicitor General Ted Olson, which were the basis for the claim that Flight 77 was still in the air and subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, Griffin concludes that "the evidence that the `calls from the planes' were faked is strong, ... far stronger than the evidence for the view that the calls were made by passengers and flight attendants, describing the activities of Middle-Eastern hijackers."
Chapter 6 discusses Vice President Dick Cheney's changing account of his whereabouts and activities at key times during the morning of 9/11. After admitting on national TV five days later that he had been present and in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the basement of the White House before the Pentagon was attacked, he changed his story in November and claimed he did not reach the PEOC until after the Pentagon attack. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission Report upheld Cheney's otherwise unsupported second account, which absolved him of responsibility during two key incidents, the Pentagon attack and the destruction of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. He shows further that much evidence, ignored by the Commission, contradicted Cheney's second story, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commission, Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke's published account of the morning, and reports from ABC News on the first anniversary of 9/11, all of which the Commission buried without mention.
The gem of the book is the seventh chapter, "The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach." In this very detailed analysis Griffin shows that the 9/11 truth movement has developed a complex, broad-based refutation of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon (that "the Pentagon was attacked by American Airlines Flight 77... under the control of al-Qaeda"). He examines fourteen facts which have been established by independent researchers, upon which there is universal agreement, and any one of which is enough to demolish the official account. Griffin argues that the movement should concentrate its Pentagon energies on further strengthening and advocacy of these points of agreement, and avoid dissipating time, energy and trust on a question which has taken up much of these resources in recent years, the question of "what hit the Pentagon?" He shows that this question is unanswerable with the evidence available; only a genuine investigation of the 9/11 attacks will enable it to be answered.
Chapter 8 illuminates the psychology of resistance to the truth about the 9/11 events which is so widespread, arguing that the real faith of the nominally-Christian US is "nationalist faith." The critique of the official story laid out by the 9/11 truth movement is literally unthinkable for many, even for devout Christians whose religion calls upon them to avoid all kinds of idolatry, including nationalism. Griffin concludes that "[w]hen Christian faith is subordinated to faith in American goodness ... it becomes a blinding faith, producing Christians with eyes wide shut."
The subtitle of the book indicates that the 9/11 attacks, in being a false-flag operation carried out by elements of the US government, were a "State Crime Against Democracy" or SCAD, with the primarily political purpose of imposing policies by force upon the country, and that the failure to carry out a genuine investigation, arrest the perpetrators and reverse the policies adopted by the government after 9/11 means that the operation has succeeded. But only to this point in time: the future is still open. Griffin provides in a powerful conclusion (Ch. 9, "When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed") suggestions for how the 9/11 truth movement can continue to press forward to the necessary investigation of the 9/11 crimes and the reversal of the tragic course taken by the US while under the control of the criminals.
This superb book is written with the usual clarity, logic and argumentative power readers have come to expect from David Ray Griffin, which he has now employed in ten books on the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 TEN YEARS LATER continues his advance at the cutting edge of 9/11 truth, and should be read by everyone who wants to take stock of what the movement has achieved and how to press on into a future in which illegal, immoral wars have been stopped and the country's democratic ideals reaffirmed.
39 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again39 of 42 people found the following review helpful
Another tour-de-forceBy Martin Hanson on October 3, 2011
Format: PaperbackWhen my son told me, in 2004, that there was strong evidence that explosives had demolished the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, I reacted reacted in a similar way to most others -- with derision. He then waved a copy of The New Pearl Harbor under my nose, and said: "Read that!"
I did so, and it stood my previously held view of the world on its head. Even after ten years, I find it difficult to get my head round the enormity of this crime but one has to follow the evidence -- no matter how painful the destination.
Since then, David Ray Griffin has published numerous books on 911, each piling on evidence as more comes to light. By the time he had published The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, the evidence that the government account of the events of 911 was so overwhelming that anyone with an open mind, who was prepared to examine the evidence, could not fail to realize that 911 was a monstrous inside job.
When David Griffin was taken seriously ill, it seemed that his 911 role as one of the leading intellectual advocates against the official conspiracy theory was in jeopardy. However, he has not only recovered, but has bounced back with yet another tour de force.
As previous reviewers have written so eloquently on the contents of the book, I'm left with my overall impressions.
The early chapters summarize some of the most powerful evidence that the official account is false in every respect. His ability to marshal evidence in a systematic and compelling way is simply brilliant. Though he does, necessarily, revisit some well-trodden arguments, he often brings in details that were new to me.
I believe his treatment of the Pentagon issue to be particularly useful. Discussing the diversity of opinion on the precise details of how the U.S. military pulled the wool over people's eyes, he wisely counsels a conservative approach, as division of opinion within the 911 Truth Movement is potentially useful to detractors. Better, then, to stick to what we all agree on -- that the Pentagon was not attacked by AA77 piloted by al Qaeda fanatics. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and in a genuine democracy would be sufficient of itself to prompt a genuine inquiry into the events of 911.
Why, after ten years, are people so incapable of bringing themselves to look at the evidence before expressing their `opinions'? Griffin's penultimate chapter deals with this, explaining how the majority of Americans put their country before all else, including their belief in God. The threat to the comfortable view of America as a benign force for good in the world is so great that most simply cannot contemplate the ghastly alternative.
Even to non-Americans, the threat posed by the 911 Truth movement to the conventional, comfortable, worldview is enormous, for it implies a terrible truth about our own governments and media. One is forced to the conclusion that many other `democratic' governments, for reasons we can only speculate on, are also complicit in the cover-up of mass murder. One is forced to the view that the U.K, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and most other `democracies' are little more than vassal states in the American Empire.
Michael Herzog on January 30, 2011
Sometimes the truth is just too shocking for the masses
Being a certified investigator & talk show host, I did my 'homework' on Susan Lindauer as her book 'Extreme Prejudice,' reads more fascinating than any Ian Fleming Novel. My conclusion...
Ms. Lindauer's story is credible, easily verifiable & conveys in explicit detail just how far the 'Powers that Be' will go in perpetrating a lie to achieve their goals. This book blows the doors off any conceived idea that our Politicians are 'For the People.'
Definitely a MUST READ for anyone that dares step out of the box & wants a good dose of American Political Reality.
Google matched content
False flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFalse Flag Chemical Weapons Attack on Syria. Pretext for All ...
Syria False Flag designed to discredit Russia. - nsnbc international nsnbc international
Who Should Go Down in History The Latest and Greatest False Flag Operation in History Chuck W. Maultsby 9781480039421 Amazo
Historical Examples of False Flag Attacks as Pretexts For War – Wikipedia DavidWesterfield.net
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS PAST, PRESENT AND THE INEVITABLE FUTURE BobTuskin.com
10 false flags operations that shaped our world
History of American false flag operations
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2018 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time and without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info|
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified: January, 02, 2020