Stranger than Fiction:
The Incestuous Ties Between the US Government and
Osama bin Laden
by Jerry Leonard
“The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil,
and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”
--George Orwell, 1984
Who would have guessed the following as the World Trade
Centers were burning following the terrorist attacks on 9-11:
-
That Osama bin Laden was
recruited and trained by the CIA to engage in
terrorist activities.[1]
-
Or that while the US was bombing a government it created (the Taliban[2])
for allegedly harboring a terrorist it created, this terrorist—Osama bin
Laden—may have been hiding in tunnels paid for by the CIA.[3]
(The CIA may even have helped bin Laden
escape.)
In addition to institutional ties, there are intriguing
personal ties between the CIA’s terrorist and high-level government personnel. For
example, George Bush, Jr., now US president, was the business partner of Bin
Laden’s brother.[4] (This
association reportedly made him a millionaire.[5])
Additionally, as of September 11, George Bush’s father, the ex-CIA head and
president of the US, was still in business with the Bin Laden family.[6]
Both George Bush, Sr. and the bin Laden family were invested in a powerful
international armaments corporation called the Carlyle group[7]
(“a US-based company that has several former international leaders on its payroll”[8])
that is profiting from the fight against a terrorist network headed by a Bin
Laden family member.[9] (George
Bush, Jr. was also paid by a subsidiary of this company.)
Thus, under the pretext of national security in the wake of
9-11, the president was implementing policy that was benefiting his own family
as well as the family of his business partner, which is also the family of
Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the excuse for these policies (Osama bin Laden)
implemented by George Bush, Jr. is the creation of an agency (the CIA) once headed by his father, George
Bush, Sr.
The financial curiosities do not end there. A CIA-associated
brokerage house was skillfully used by well-connected persons to make profits
on businesses hurt by the World Trade Centers’ destruction by a CIA-trained
terrorist. This required advanced knowledge of the attacks since dramatic
increases in profitable trades were made just prior to the attacks in a
manner (selling short) that allowed profits to be made on the declining stocks of
companies damaged on 9-11.[10]
"We are in the hands of an organization of crooks. They are the generals,
politicians, manufacturers of armaments and journalists. All of them are
anxious for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing wars to terrify the
public and to terrify the Ministers of the Crown."
- Lord Welby, 1934
Unfortunately, there is little chance that those in
intelligence circles who profited from foreknowledge of the attacks will be exposed
and punished. Although Bush created a presidential commission to investigate
why US intelligence failed to prevent the terrorist attacks, his first pick to
lead the investigation was Henry
Kissinger, a man with longstanding ties to the CIA and a history of using
“government service” for personal gain.[11]
Given his background, Henry Kissinger’s appointment provided
evidence that a blatant cover-up of events surrounding 9-11 is being
orchestrated. In addition to being a long time political insider[12]
with a history of holding high-level positions overseeing the CIA and the
entire national security establishment, [13]
Kissinger also has a history of misleading the press and using the “secret
government” approach to international affairs.[14]
With his background, it is hard to imagine a worse pick for the job of exposing
intelligence corruption.
More to the point, like those he would have supposedly been
investigating, Kissinger has a history of using government policy for his own
personal benefit. He is currently leveraging his inside knowledge of US
national security affairs as an international business consultant to
governments that not only have a vested interest in US foreign policy[15]
but also may have played a role in the 9-11 attacks.
Had he not resigned from the commission rather than reveal
his current business affairs,[16]
A thorough investigation by Kissinger would no doubt have found evidence (much
of it already publicized) that powerful people he has worked with had advanced
knowledge of and financially benefited from the terrorist attacks of 9-11.[17]
This made him a dubious choice to conduct an impartial investigation of US
intelligence corruption. However, if the goal was to cover up insider
corruption in the intelligence community related to the convenience of the
terrorist attacks,[18] Kissinger may have been the perfect man
for the job. Indeed, Kissinger’s past record prompted the Palm Beach Post to
write: “He’s the luminary least likely to embarrass the three administrations
(at least) in which a full report on 9/11 errors will find fault lines.” Even
the “The New York Times questioned Mr. Kissinger’s independence and
suggested that the White House might have appointed him to contain the
investigation rather than pursue it.”[19], [20]
Subsequent developments in the 9-11 “investigation” are consistent with the “whitewash”
scenario.
“It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable
and to propagandize the American people to hate, so we will let the
establishment spend any amount of money on arms.”
-John Stockwell, former CIA
official
And then there are the political benefits of the
attack, which are even more stunning than the financial benefits. George Bush,
Jr. and the CIA are both benefiting from expanded police-state powers in the
name of fighting the terrorist that the CIA created.[21]
These powers include massively expanded domestic
surveillance capabilities against all Americans[22] and a proposed national ID card.[23]
Conveniently, one company that has lobbied for the long-planned implementation of
an Orwellian/Nazi-style
national ID card system[24]
of the type to be implemented first in
Britain in response to the terrorism has major ties to the CIA.[25]
Additionally, new post-9-11 legislation has eliminated laws
that protected the public from abuses of law enforcement and intelligence
agencies. For example, the CIA, with a renewed sense of mission (and cash flow[26]),
now has expanded powers of torture[27],[28]
and assassination[29] outside
the US (as if it needed them) and will be working closer with the FBI inside
the US (something it was allegedly forbidden to do for decades).[30]
The New York Times has editorialized that due to the
increased surveillance powers of the government, the sixth amendment to the
Constitution no longer exists.
Other journalists have warned that the fourth amendment no
longer exists. Insight Magazine published a shocking article detailing
the manner in which the new police-state powers will destroy the few remaining
civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. According to Insight:
Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to
obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be
searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say
critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth
Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.[31]
Thus, instead of protecting American citizens against the
terrorist it created, the CIA cynically and self-servingly exploited American
deaths it was supposed to prevent to empower itself to put American citizens[32]
under its arrogant surveillance.[33] And rather than hold the CIA responsible
for the
terrorists they have unleashed on the world, government officials have
labeled critics of the new CIA surveillance-state as terrorists themselves.
Writing in the Times, Tim Weiner reported:
The expansion of government power to spy at home is taking place in a
political environment charged by the attacks. To oppose the powers that the
government seeks, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned Congress last month, is
to side with the terrorists. [emphasis added] [34]
The FBI has also given itself fantastic new domestic
surveillance powers as a result of its failures to protect the American public
from terrorists its agents had identified and tried to warn their superiors
about prior to the 9-11 attacks. [35]
These new powers[36] include
the right to infiltrate religious and political groups, monitor the internet
and other vehicles for public dialogue.[37]
The Times summarized: “The
new guidelines allow wide-ranging monitoring of political and religious activities
unconnected with the investigation of any crime and do away with the
requirement that some kinds of investigations be approved in Washington.” [38]
The Times again: “Under the old guidelines, agents needed to show that
they had probable cause or information from an informer that crimes were being
committed to begin counterterrorism investigations. Under the new guidelines,
agents will be free to search for leads or clues to terrorist activities in
public databases or on the Internet.” [39]
William Safire in the New York Times warned of the awesome scope of the
FBI’s new digital-age surveillance powers:
With not a scintilla of evidence of a crime being
committed, the feds will be able to run full investigations for one year.
Consider the new reach of federal power: the income-tax return you provided
your mortgage lender; your academic scores and personnel ratings, credit card
purchases and E-ZPass movements; your political and charitable contributions,
charge account at your pharmacist and insurance records; your subscription to
non-mainstream publications like The Nation or Human Events, every visit to
every Web site and comment to every chat room, and every book or movie you
bought or even considered on Amazon.com - all newly combined with the tickets,
arrests, press clips, full field investigations and raw allegations of angry
neighbors or rejected lovers that flow into the F.B.I. All your personal data is right there at
the crossroads of modern marketing and federal law enforcement. And all in the
name of the war on terror. … This is not some nightmare of what may happen
someday. It happened last week.[40]
The Washington Post reported that 9-11 has been
used to “fundamentally alter the way investigators handle counterterrorism
cases, allowing criminal and intelligence agents to work side by side and
giving both broad access to the tools of intelligence gathering for the first
time in decades…” CBS
News summarized: “The result is that the FBI, unhindered by the
restrictions of the past, ‘will conduct many more searches and wiretaps that
are subject to oversight by a secret intelligence court rather than regular
criminal courts.’”
So much for accountability and the presumption of
innocence… The FBI has been unleashed on the American public in spite of its
abysmal record of abuse of public trust that resulted in an outcry for
desperately needed reform in the 1970s. This
was the result of the FBI infiltrating and manipulating domestic political and
social groups throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s through its COINTEL
program under the banner of anticommunism.[41], [42]
Under this program, numerous groups were infiltrated by agents
provocateur and manipulated into violent actions that could be used to
justify harsh reprisals against the infiltrated groups. The latest developments in
anti-terrorism efforts indicate that this infiltration and manipulation of
political, paramilitary and religious groups could very well happen again, if
it hasn’t already,[43]
on a much larger scale.
In fact, the latest excuse (9-11 and the anthrax
attacks) for this new era of government infiltration for the purposes of
demonization and disruption may have been created through this same technique.
Given the history of the COINTEL program[44],
it should come as no surprise that the FBI, now empowered by the 9-11
catastrophe, had infiltrated the very paramilitary/religious group that
perpetrated the 9-11 assassinations,[45]
but declined to share the information or protect the public it is now targeting
with surveillance:
“At first, FBI director Bob Mueller insisted
there was nothing the bureau could have done to penetrate the 9-11 plot. That
account has been modified over time—and now may change again. Newsweek
has learned that one of the bureau’s informants had a close relationship with
two of the hijackers: he was their roommate.”[46]
The CIA also had information on one of the 9-11 hijackers.
As detailed in an on-line article in Expatica: “The US Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) had one of the September 11, 2001 terror pilots under
surveillance as early as March 1999 after a tip from German security services,
according to joint investigative reports in Germany.”[47]
With these revelations, the situation is beginning to look
more and more like a planned provocation (much like in the case of the Kennedy
assassination) which took place under the eyes of the US intelligence and
police forces[48] to justify
a convenient and planned war in Iraq, even though links between terrorists and
the Iraqi regime (which the US helped install) are tenuous at best.
“Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody
and everything by the agencies of the central government.”
-Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
The Pentagon is also getting into the race to put Americans
under unprecedented surveillance using anti-terrorism as the excuse. Major
Garrett, writing for Fox News described how the Pentagon is developing a
“massive database that the government will use to monitor every purchase made
by every American citizen.”[49]
This planned invasion of privacy, which was to be developed by a convicted
criminal,[50]
motivated Chuck Pena, an analyst at the Cato Institute, to warn:
What this is talking about is making us a nation of suspects and I am
sorry, the United States citizens should not have to live in fear of their own
government and that is exactly what this is going to turn out to be. I don't
think once you put something like this in place, you can ever create enough
checks and balances and oversight. [51]
Given the fact that a CIA-trained terrorist is benefiting
the CIA on such a scale, it is natural to ask the following questions:
- Did
the CIA help create the terrorist incident on 9-11 to justify the
fantastic new wealth and power it now has[52]—effectively
shredding the Constitution that previously limited its powers?
- Could
this explain how an explosion of trades at a CIA-linked brokerage house
was made with such precise timing regarding the companies damaged in the
attacks?[53]
- Could
this explain why the CIA conveniently ignored numerous warnings
of the impending attacks?
- Could
this explain why criminals like Poindexter and Kissinger are being put in
positions to not only cover up government knowledge of the attacks but to
use the attacks to spy on American citizens on a scale never before
dreamed of?
- Could
this explain the explosion of repressive surveillance state measures and
legislation immediately and gleefully proposed by government personnel in
response to the attack[54]—effectively
destroying
overnight the hard-won protective legislation accrued over the last 25
years due to past excesses[55]
of law enforcement and intelligence agencies?[56]
Unfortunately, this wouldn’t be the first time that
manufactured terrorist attacks on the US were planned to justify extreme
political action under a defensive pretext. The Baltimore Sun
revealed such a plan from the 1960s (“it involved committing
random acts of terror on Americans in the United States”) designed to
create “a helpful wave of indignation”[57]
to justify an invasion of Cuba—long the victim of CIA intrigue. The 9-11
terrorist acts were useful for creating a helpful wave of indignation launch an
invasion against Iraq,[58]
long a victim of CIA intrigue.[59]
Now such actions are apparently aimed at expanding the CIA’s power in the US.
Whether it was intentional or not, the attacks on 9-11 have
created a mood of national panic welcoming a national surveillance state that
50-year Cold War didn’t justify.[60]
It has rationalized the federal government reorganizing
itself around spying on US citizens. It has totally demolished the delicate
balance between civil liberties and law enforcement abuses and fundamentally
changed the CIA’s role into a massive domestic surveillance machine cooperating
with and directing the FBI and other government investigative agencies against
American citizens.[61]
And if the past is prologue, the CIA will use its power to infiltrate and
disrupt targeted organizations as a means of justifying itself to the public,
by supplying these groups with violence-prone infiltrators who will engage in
activities designed to disrupt and discredit them.
“And at the same time the consciousness of being at war,
and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste
seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.”
-George Orwell, 1984
Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there…
In addition to the
political and economic benefits to the World Trade Center attacks, the anthrax
attacks on the US also have amazing benefits for those with the power to pull
them off—specifically the CIA and the pharmaceuticals
industry. The influential pharmaceuticals industry[62] (“one of America’s most lucrative and powerful
businesses”[63]) is
making efforts to create a profitable new climate[64] in the wake of the bioterror attacks.[65]
This climate will give them license—due to a decreased regulatory atmosphere—to
short-cut safeguards in testing experimental treatments[66] on human subjects. Much like the situation
with the CIA and surveillance, the convenient new atmosphere[67]
will eliminate laws protecting the public—in this case against human
experimentation—that were erected after decades of abuses.[68]
Predictably, using the post-9-11 atmosphere as an excuse, rules governing the
pharmaceuticals industry have been swept aside. As the New York Times reported:
Departing from longstanding practice, the Food and
Drug Administration will allow some drugs and vaccines designed to counter
biological, chemical and nuclear terrorism to be approved without being
tested in people to prove they work. [69] [emphasis added]
The Times continued: “the new rule could spur
development of drugs for use against biological, chemical and radioactive substances
by eliminating a major stumbling block, the ethical barriers to exposing people
to deadly substances like smallpox or nerve gas simply to prove that a drug
works.”
One can only imagine the damage that will be done in
bypassing already marginal practices for protecting the public against unsafe
medical practices in the name of corporate greed.
Conflicts of interest for government officials[70]
and “Washington’s well-oiled revolving door between government and business”[71],
[72]
make protecting the public a secondary concern. The pharmaceuticals industry is
taking maximum advantage of the situation[73]—offering
the government assistance with the bioterror crisis with “strings attached.”[74]
For example, the industry is offering discounted remedies to maladies in
exchange for profit-friendly legislation. Such legislation under consideration
with respect to patents could mean as much as “$1 billion in sales for every
six months the patent is extended”[75]
for some companies.
But the profit-friendly legislation doesn’t stop there. The
9-11 attacks have not only provided a new demand for pharmaceuticals products
and a friendly atmosphere in which to test them on human guinea pigs--it has
also provided an atmosphere of unprecedented legal protection for the industry
against lawsuits resulting from product side-effects.
Lobbyists for the pharmaceuticals industry have
self-servingly used the fight against terrorism to protect themselves not only
against future lawsuits but against pending lawsuits which have nothing
to do with the fight against terrorism. In one outrageous case the industry
managed to sneak a provision into the Homeland Security bill which will protect
Eli Lilly and Co. from lawsuits related to “Thimerosal, a preservative in
childhood vaccines that has been circumstantially linked to rising rates of
autism and pediatric developmental problems.” According to the Washington
Post, “the brief provision -- designed to shield vaccine makers such as Eli
Lilly and Co. from lawsuits seeking billions of dollars for families of
autistic children -- has generated a whirlwind of controversy and a mystery as
to its origin.” This occurred just in time, according to the Washington Post,
“If action was not taken, advocates say, the lawsuits could have driven
vaccine makers out of business.” [76]
In addition to protecting the industry from past abuses, the
fight against terrorism is also being manipulated to give the pharmaceuticals
industry blanket legal protection from any side effects its latest vaccines. For
example, the Homeland Security bill will conveniently protect smallpox vaccine
makers from lawsuits due to the expected side effects from vaccinating
virtually the entire US public, if the pharmaceuticals industry has its way.[77]
The Washington Post reported:
“The Bush administration, voicing increased fears
over the threat of a biological attack, has quietly moved one step closer to a
voluntary national smallpox vaccination program by offering full legal
protection to manufacturers and medical personnel who administer the vaccine.
[Under a] provision belatedly tucked into the homeland security bill… the
federal government would assume all responsibility for the smallpox vaccine.
Medical workers administering it would be deemed employees of the public health
service and protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Smallpox vaccine
manufacturers, which were already indemnified under contracts with the
Department of Health and Human Services, would receive even broader legal
protections.” [emphasis added] [78]
Given the beneficial atmosphere that the bioterror attacks
are providing the industry, for example, loosening regulations and laws
restricting overt human experimentation on new and existing products, it is
natural to wonder whether this development was engineered for exactly this
reason using agents such as anthrax. In other words, did covert testing by the
closely tied CIA/pharmaceuticals industries using a biological warfare agent
developed by the government lead to the new era of overt testing? Indeed, given
the benefits of the attacks to the pharmaceuticals industry, one can’t help
wondering if the anthrax attacks were a marketing device by
these companies—providing an artificial demand for their products and a
crisis atmosphere to crash-test them in, much like the airplane attacks on the
World Trade Centers by a CIA-trained terrorist have been a highly effective
marketing device for the CIA-imposed surveillance state. Could this explain why
the anthrax used in the attack was so similar to
weapons developed in the US?
Curiously, not only is the post-9-11
"antiterrorist" climate perfectly suited for government/corporate
experimentation under the pretext of protection, the vaccines to be used in
this climate are the most perfectly suited for use in such experimentation.
For example, vaccinia-based vaccines against smallpox, the virus which the
government has touted as the most likely to be used by terrorist states, are ideal for researchers to use
as experimental vehicles in vaccine research. Given that smallpox vaccines
are unlikely to be useful against weaponized smallpox, the sales-job for the
smallpox vaccine initiative seems more likely to be useful for public
experimentation than public protection.
Additionally, the climate of public surveillance and anti-terrorist measures
has fostered another initiative allegedly for public benefit, but especially
benefiting the pharmaceuticals industry. This is the implementation of a
massive new monitoring system put in place to measure the health of the public
at any given time. As summarized in the New York Times:
“To secure early warning of a bioterror attack, the government
is building a computerized network that will collect and analyze health data of
people in eight major cities, administration officials say. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention is to lead the multimillion-dollar surveillance
effort, which officials expect to become the cornerstone of a national network
to spot disease outbreaks by tracking data like doctor reports, emergency room
visits and sales of flu medicine.”[79]
In addition to creating another civil-liberties nightmare,[80]
this massive anti-terrorist health monitoring system will be extremely useful
for conducting experiments on the public. In addition to serving as an early
warning system for terrorist attacks, it will provide feedback on the effects of
experimental variables by measuring the immune system responses of the public
to any vaccine experiments conducted in the name of antiterrorism.
As millions of people are monitored and hundreds of separate
national databases are joined, it will also be a useful tool in creating a
demand for pharmaceutical products, as it scrutinizes “populations for clues of
diseases before they [are] officially diagnosed.” This system, costing
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will also assist in the marketing of
pharmaceuticals products as it allows the industry to monitor the entire
medical system from disease diagnosis to the purchase of and payment for
remedies. For example, the system will monitor “physician payment and disease
diagnosis” while it “gathers electronic records from drugstore chains,
hospitals and physician groups.” Privacy concerns become more of an issue as
the system grows more sophisticated and “the surveillance becomes a two-way
street in which not only are problems detected but physicians are notified
about potential problems involving individual patients.”[81]
Such a tool may ultimately allow pharmaceuticals companies not only to monitor
disease diagnosis on a colossal scale, but to recommend specific treatments to
physicians for their patients on a national scale in real-time.[82]
Thus, thanks to the crisis environment created by
terrorist acts linked to US biowarfare labs (historically managed by private
corporations), the pharmaceuticals industry has an ideal scenario: an
artificially inflated demand for its products, relaxed laws for testing them on
human guinea pigs, a monitoring system for measuring reactions to experimental
products, a monitoring system for determining diagnosis and drug purchase rates
in the nation, and, finally, legal protection when this experimentation proves
disastrous for the human victims.
* * *
The right people have
been in positions of power not only to help orchestrate this crisis environment
but to oversee the new era of human experimentation conducted within it on
behalf of the pharmaceuticals industry. Donald Rumsfeld,
the current Secretary of Defense, is a prime example. After leaving his
position as Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration (which oversaw the swine
flu vaccination debacle foisted on the American public), he played a key
role as a private citizen in bringing Saddam Hussein to power (including
providing him with bioweapons). [83]
Now as Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld
occupies a key position to coordinate “defensive” human testing on the military
and public, using the madman he created—Saddam Hussein—as an excuse. Moreover,
Rumsfeld’s private sector managerial experience in between high-level
government jobs makes him uniquely suited for overseeing the needs of the
pharmaceuticals industry in this endeavor. After serving his first term as
Secretary of Defense, according to the White House,
Rumsfeld “served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of
G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company,” for nearly a
decade. He was named “Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry” for two years
during that time. Rumsfeld then joined the board of another pharmaceuticals
company—Gilead—in 1988 and was named Chairman in 1997. He served there until
reassuming the office of Secretary of Defense, this time under Bush.[84] So now the pharmaceuticals industry, already
disproportionately represented by government lobbyists,[85] has a well-placed lobbyist and former executive to
further their experimental and marketing goals within the upper echelons of the
Federal Government.[86]
While Rumsfeld has gone from the elite of the private
pharmaceuticals industry back into a top-level public service position, other
public-servant architects of the policies that created Saddam Hussein and Bin
Laden were or are now in private positions to profit from their public service.
Admiral William J. Crowe, former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time Saddam and Bin Laden were being armed
by the CIA, became a high level executive for BioPort Corporation, conveniently
the only company licensed to manufacture the anthrax vaccine for the military
in the crisis atmosphere he helped create. George Bush, also one of the
architects of these policies, [87]
is reportedly invested in this same company through his employment in the
Carlyle Group, which is suspected of owning substantial amounts of stock in
BioPort. But then so is the
Bin Laden family, which was also invested in the Carlyle group—until it
became an international embarrassment for the influential military-industrial
company.
Carlyle, “run by a who's who of Republican heavyweights, including former
Secretary of State James Baker and former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci,”
has a substantial financial stake in other medically-oriented firms set to
benefit from “anti-terrorist” policy of the Bush administration. For example,
Carlyle conveniently bought 42 percent of a company named MedPointe several
months before the terrorist acts of 9-11. According to David
Lazarus writing in the San Francisco Chronicle (March 21,
2004):
MedPointe, … just so happens to be one of only three companies
licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to manufacture
over-the-counter potassium iodide pills. That's significant because potassium
iodide can help protect against thyroid cancer in the event of exposure to
large amounts of radiation -- from a small, easily transported nuclear weapon,
say, or a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. And that's significant
because, in June 2002, President Bush signed into law the Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. It requires state and
local officials to "provide adequate protection" by distributing
potassium iodide to all public facilities within a few miles of a nuclear power
plant. And that, in turn, is significant because if you're one of just a
handful of authorized makers of potassium iodide, you're in a position to
profit handsomely if the worst-case scenario should actually come to pass.
Thus those involved in creating Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein
are not only in positions of government service to manipulate policy in
“reaction” to these evil personalities they helped put in power, some of them
are in lucrative positions in private industry to capitalize on the atmosphere
of panic that has resulted. Even the relatives of the demons they created are
in positions of private industry—in some cases partners with them—to profit
from these policies.
# # #
Curiously, the New York Times
has revealed that the repealing of laws and guidelines protecting the public
from unethical testing will be especially beneficial to the Pentagon, an
agency with a long history of Nazi-like experiments on the American public.[88]
As the Times summarized:
“One of the biggest beneficiaries could be the Pentagon, which
has already indicated it wants to use animal testing to win approval of a drug
that has allowed mice in tests to survive normally lethal doses of radiation.
The Army also has many vaccines for biological agents that it has never been
able to win approval for but which are given as experimental drugs to protect
scientists who work with lethal agents at Fort Detrick and other laboratories.”
[89]
The Times continued: “‘Now both the civilian population
and the military population will be able to get these products out in a
straightforward fashion,’ said Dr. Arthur O. Anderson, the chief ethics officer
of the biodefense program at Fort Detrick.” While the ethics officer at the lab
that was for decades the US center for biological warfare experimentation and
development apparently sees the new law treating the public and the military
on a similar basis with respect to experimental drug testing, this should
raise a red flag in light of the long-running criminal experimentation that the
military has been conducting on its soldiers. Exactly one week prior to this
article, the New York Times exposed on its front page a chilling set of
military experiments from the 1960s with “highly lethal” chemicals that had
just come to light:
The Defense Department sprayed live
nerve and biological agents on ships and sailors in cold war-era experiments to
test the Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare, the Pentagon revealed today.
The Pentagon documents made public today showed that six tests were carried out
in the Pacific Ocean from 1964 to 1968. In the experiments, nerve or chemical
agents were sprayed on a variety of ships and their crews to gauge how quickly
the poisons could be detected and how rapidly they would disperse, as well as
to test the effectiveness of protective gear and decontamination procedures in
use at the time. [90]
Continuing:
Of the six tests, three used sarin, a nerve agent, or VX, a
nerve gas; one used staphylococcal enterotoxin B, known as SEB, a biological
toxin; one used a simulant believed to be harmless but subsequently found to be
dangerous; and one used a nonpoisonous simulant. … Michael Kilpatrick, a
medical official in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for health
affairs, said it was unclear whether sailors had been intentionally exposed to
the germ and chemical agents without the benefit of protective masks and gear.
Also uncertain, he said, was whether any had given their permission to become
human guinea pigs in medical experiments with the deadly substances.
As is revealed by the
author in AIDS:
The “Perfect” Disease, the US government began testing nerve gases such
as Sarin (invented by the Nazis) on American soldiers under the guidance of
Nazi war criminals immediately after the war. The new laws will only make such
grotesque experimentation easier to implement on a larger scale, as long as it
is done within a “defensive” pretext. If the government is allowed to get away
with forcing the military to take experimental vaccines to pathogens the
government helped create and spread, there are indications that it will expand
these mandatory experimental vaccination programs to the public at large. In
fact, according to Rep. Ron Paul, the Homeland Security Act makes provision for
mandatory vaccination of the
American public with smallpox vaccines—the very vaccines that have been
traced to the AIDS epidemic. In addition to vaccines against anthrax and
smallpox, such draconian methods may include mandatory
experimental vaccinations against AIDS—which the author proposes is also a
biological warfare agent created and spread by the US government under the
pretext of a cancer vaccine experiment. (The cancer epidemic caused by AIDS is
not only proving highly useful as a cancer vaccine research vehicle, it is
creating an artificial market for cancer vaccines and other pharmaceuticals
products.)
Thus the world is becoming more and more like a Nazi
concentration camp where Nazi doctors were free to experiment on hapless
prisoners to develop countermeasures to chemical and biological warfare agents. [91]
Is it just a coincidence that this new atmosphere giving the military greater
latitude in its unethical testing programs was created by a biological warfare
agent traced to American military agencies?
Experts have warned that the
response to the bioterrorist attack may be worse than the attack itself.[92]
There may be more to this warning than was intended... One potential scenario is
that separate responses to the World Trade Center attacks (a
government-mandated national ID card linked to a CIA company) and the anthrax
attacks (government vaccines) are merged in the form of a recently available injectable
microchip which could be injected at the same time as the vaccines and
serve as a biometric national ID card. Such a scenario has already taken place
in animal
populations.[93] Such a
scenario in which an injectable microchip would be injected at the same time as
vaccination was raised by Joseph
Farah in February of 2000.[94]
The recent terrorist attacks have created the perfect
climate for implementing this strategy, which would allow American
corporations to track the American public as they are experimented on like
concentration camp prisoners, much like IBM did for the
Nazis in WWII-era concentration camps. [95]
* *
*
“Once when he happened in some connection to mention the
war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion
the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were
probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people
frightened.’ This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him.”
--George
Orwell, 1984
“Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in
Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
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 tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
--Hermann
Goering, Nuremberg Trials.
Go To:
Top of Page:
Stranger than Fiction: The Incestuous Ties
Between the US Government and Osama bin Laden
Page 1: What
You Should Know About the Anthrax and Smallpox Vaccines
Page 3: Prelude
to the AIDS/Cancer Epidemic: Creating Human
Lab Rats
Page 4: Chester
Southam Injects West Nile Virus in Humans
Learn
from the Past: Don’t Be A Guinea Pig!
[1]
In an article titled: “Bin Laden comes home to
roost: His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story,” MSNBC
reported the following: “At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code
name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an
operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden,
our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback.”
[emphasis added] Michael Moran, “Bin
Laden comes home to roost: His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful
story,” MSNBC,
Aug. 24, 1998.
[2] “The Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the
‘monster’ that is today Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on
South Asia said here. ‘I warned them that we were creating a monster,’ Selig
Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the
conference here last week on ‘Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the
Challenges in Asia.’ Harrison said:
‘The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over
the world to come to Afghanistan.’ The US provided $3 billion for building up
these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan’s demand that they should decide
how this money should be spent, Harrison said.” “CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban,” Times of
India, Wednesday, 7 March 2001.
[3] “Osama bin
Laden, the United States’ prime suspect in last week’s attacks on New York and
Washington, could escape an American revenge mission in Afghanistan by hiding
in tunnels that he built with funds from the CIA. At the height of the Afghan
mojahedin’s war against the Soviet invaders, the CIA provided money for a very
ambitious project. A series of defence tunnels was built in 1986 near the town
of Khost in the mountains of Paktiya province, a few miles from the border with
Pakistan.” Jonathan Steele, “Bin Laden
may flee in tunnels: Underground escape routes funded by CIA,” Guardian,
Tuesday, September 18, 2001.
[4] “Incredibly,
Salem [Bin Laden] went on to become a business partner of the man who is
leading the hunt for his brother. In the 1970s, he and George W Bush were
founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr Bush’s home state of Texas.
…As he built his own business empire, Salem Bin Laden had an intriguing
relationship with the president-to-be. In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a
close friend of Mr Bush who served with him in the Air National Guard, as his
representative in Houston, Texas. It was in that year that Mr Bath invested
$50,000 (about £34,000) in Mr Bush's company, Arbusto. It was never revealed
whether he was investing his own money or somebody else’s.” PETER ALLEN, “Bin
Laden's family link to Bush,” Daily Mail, 9/24/01.
[5] “Bush
thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens,” Hindu Times, November 7, 2001.
[6]
From the Judicial Watch web page: “Judicial
Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government
corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal
report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush,
works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle
Group, an international consulting firm. ‘This conflict of interest has now
turned into a scandal. The idea of the President’s father, an ex-president
himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the
terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but
demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group,’ stated Judicial Watch
Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.” [emphasis added]
[7] According to
the Hindu Times, this company is “a little-known private company which
in just a few years since its founding has become one of America’s biggest
defence contractors.”
[8]
As The Guardian summarized, “George Bush
senior, his former secretary of state James Baker, the former prime minister
John Major and many other figures from international big business and politics
are employed by Carlyle Group, a US-based private equity and defence group. …In
addition to the list of influential names from US politics, the company has
been linked to the Saudi royal family and until last year maintained links with
the half-brother of Osama bin Laden.” Philip Pank and
agencies, “MoD rejects fears over defence sell-off,” The Guardian,
9/05/02
[9]
The Wall Street Journal reported: “If the U.S. boosts defense spending
in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist activities, there may
be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden’s family.” The Journal
continued: “Among its far-flung business interests, the well-heeled Saudi
Arabian clan -- which says it is estranged from Osama -- is an investor in a
fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing
in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies. Through this investment and its
ties to Saudi royalty, the bin Laden family has become acquainted with some of
the biggest names in the Republican Party. In recent years, former President
Bush, ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Secretary of Defense Frank
Carlucci have made the pilgrimage to the bin Laden family’s headquarters in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is
senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund, while Mr. Baker is its senior
counselor. Mr. Carlucci is the group’s chairman.” Daniel Golden, James Bandler, and Marcus Walker, “Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a
Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank,” The Wall Street
Journal, 9/27/01.
[10]
“Further details of the futures trades that
netted such huge gains in the wake of the hijackings have been disclosed. To
the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to
buy many of the “put” options – where a trader, in effect, bets on a share
price fall – on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by
"Buzzy" Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” [emphasis
added] Chris Blackhurst, “Mystery of terror 'insider dealers',” independent.co.uk, 14
October 2001.
[11] In addition to using the government to target
his domestic enemies through civil liberties violations, Kissinger’s foreign
policies have led to accusations of his being an international
war criminal. The Palm Beach Post editorialized: “His enemies call
him ‘war criminal,’ as in a documentary film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger,
now in theaters. Authorities in Chile and France want him as a material witness
to the violent 16-year dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile. In a London
speech in April, Mr. Kissinger acknowledged that mistakes ‘quite possibly’ were
made by the Nixon administration but it’s ‘inappropriate’ to bring them up in
court.” “Kissinger wrong choice to lead 9/11 commission,” Palm Beach Post Editorial,
Tuesday, December 3, 2002.
[12]
Kissinger stated that he has served six US
presidents.
[13] As President Nixon’s National Security Adviser,
Kissinger not only oversaw the CIA but revamped the massive covert national
security infrastructure and used it to dominate US foreign and domestic policy
formation.
[14] An
editorial in the Palm Beach Post summarized why Kissinger is the wrong
man for the job: “During the Nixon administration, Mr. Kissinger was the
soloist who set up a ‘back channel’ to Moscow to cut out the State Department,
met secretly in Paris with North Vietnamese negotiators, organized the secret
bombing of Laos and Cambodia, clandestinely set up Mr. Nixon’s visit to China
and dated an actress to hide his trail when he sneaked off on foreign trips.
That record of evasion and furtiveness comes from his own memoirs. … In his
courtier’s career, Mr. Kissinger enchanted powerful leaders and key media
figures by feeding them selected facts, true or false, that advanced his
policies. But he has written that he was uncomfortable when facts got out
because democracy made his methods of statesmanship difficult. He insisted on
the last-ditch fight to keep the Pentagon Papers secret, even though they
discredited the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, not Mr. Nixon’s.”
“Kissinger wrong choice to lead 9/11 commission,” Palm Beach Post Editorial,
Tuesday, December 3, 2002.
[15]
As the New York Times editorialized:
“Encumbered by a worldwide network of consulting clients whom he was unwilling
to identify publicly, he faced potential conflicts of interest at every turn of
the investigation.” “Exit Henry Kissinger,” New York Times, 12/14/02.
[16] “Henry A. Kissinger abruptly resigned today as
chairman of the commission intended to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks,
informing President Bush that he could not serve if it meant revealing the
clients of his consulting firm.” DAVID FIRESTONE, “Kissinger Pulls Out as Chief
of Inquiry Into 9/11 Attacks,” New York Times, 12/14/02.
[17] “Mr.
Kissinger’s role in contentious foreign policy activities — like the secret
expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and the 1973 coup in Chile that
toppled the government of Salvador Allende and decades spent helping arrange
relationships between powerful economic interests and foreign governments —
have led some critics to suggest that Mr. Kissinger might not pursue all leads
in the investigation to their logical conclusions.” KATHARINE Q. SEELYE,
“Kissinger Promises to Drop Clients if Interests Conflict,” New York Times,
December 2, 2002.
[18] Perhaps
this would explain why the government’s own investigation, which continued
without Kissinger, complained of significant interference in its 9-11
investigation. According to The Guardian, “A US panel investigating the
September 11 terrorist attacks yesterday accused the Pentagon and the justice
department of obstructing the inquiry and said witnesses were being intimidated.”
Julian Borger, “9/11
inquiry alleges witness intimidation,” The Guardian, Thursday July
10, 2003.
[19] KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, “Kissinger Promises to Drop
Clients if Interests Conflict,” New York Times, December 2, 2002.
[20]
Although European investigations have made
progress investigating al Qaeda international financial links, the CIA
apparently has no interest in exposing who is aiding and financing the
terrorists. A front-page article in the Washington Post described how
the US-created al Qaeda terrorist cell used a sophisticated international
money-laundering scheme to hide its assets beginning in 1998. Although an “aggressive
year-long European investigation into al Qaeda financing” has revealed “an
elaborate plot that began in 1998 to hide substantial terrorist assets in
diamonds,” the Post reported: “Senior European intelligence sources said
they have been baffled by the lack of U.S. interest, particularly by the CIA,
in their recent findings. The CIA, which in the past has downplayed reports of
al Qaeda's diamond connections, declined to comment.” This despite the fact
that “European and Latin American investigations also found evidence that a
group of people buying diamonds on behalf of the terrorists were simultaneously
attempting to procure sophisticated weapons, such as missiles that could shoot
down aircraft.” Douglas Farah, “Report Says Africans Harbored Al Qaeda Terror
Assets Hidden In Gem-Buying Spree,” Washington Post, Sunday, December
29, 2002; Page A01
[21]
“Molded by wartime politics and passed a week and a half ago in furious haste,
the new anti-terrorism bill lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering
system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess, according to both
supporters and critics of the legislation.” Jim McGee, “An Intelligence Giant
in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of
Unprecedented Scope,” Washington Post, 11/4/01.
[22]
The New York Times reported: “The Senate passed sweeping antiterrorism
legislation today, sending President Bush a measure that would expand the
government’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance, detain immigrants
without charges and penetrate money-laundering banks. …The measure also permits
officials to share grand jury information to thwart terrorism and relaxes the
conditions under which judges may authorize intelligence wiretaps.” Adam
Clymer, “Antiterrorism Bill Passes; U.S. Gets Expanded Powers,” New York
Times, October 26, 2001.
[23]
According to the New York Times: “In the
United States, where compulsory ID cards have been anathema, the idea has
attracted some support. In the wake of September’s attacks, some regard the
security advantages of a card as more important than the potential threat to
civil liberties.” [emphasis added] Mark Landler, “Fine-Tuning For Privacy,
Hong Kong Plans Digital ID,” New York Times, 2/18/02.
[24]
“Broaching a controversial subject that has
gained visibility since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Oracle Chairman and CEO
Larry Ellison is calling for the United States to create a national
identification card system -- and offering to donate the software to make it
possible. …Under Ellison’s proposal, millions of Americans would be
fingerprinted and the information would be placed on a database used by airport
security officials to verify identities of travelers at airplane gates. … ‘We
need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and
embedded in the ID card,’ Ellison said in an interview Friday night on the
evening news of KPIX-TV in San Francisco.” PAUL ROGERS AND ELISE ACKERMAN, Mercury
News, Sept. 22, 2001.
[25]
“Oracle has a longstanding relationship with the
federal government. Indeed, the CIA was Ellison’s first customer, and the
company’s name stems from a CIA-funded project launched in the mid-1970s that
sought better ways of storing and retrieving digital data.” PAUL ROGERS AND
ELISE ACKERMAN, Mercury News, Sept. 22, 2001.
[26] The New York Times reported: “Congress
is pouring money into the agency’s counterterrorism operations, and the C.I.A.
seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way
it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war.” James Risen, “A NATION
CHALLENGED: THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was
Destroyed on Sept. 11,” New York Times, November 4, 2001
[27]
“US agents seeking to bribe foreign officials and informants for intelligence
have 10 times more money at their disposal since September 11, a Newsweek
reports claims. The weekly magazine, due to hit newsstands tomorrow, cites an
unnamed intelligence source and also says ‘rules restricting the Central
Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) ability to deal with torturers and murderers have
largely been removed.’” “Ten times more bribe money available to US
intelligence,” AFP,12/16/01.
[28] This has
resulted in the following predictable situation, as summarized by Henry Porter
in The Guardian:
“Weeks go by without serious newspapers investigating
or commenting on human rights abuses by the American government. At home and
abroad, hundreds, maybe thousands, of men are being held in camps and prisons
by the military, by the CIA and by the justice department, incommunicado,
without legal representation or hope of release, there to endure prolonged and
terrifying interrogation. Alone, this is enough for the US government to place
itself in contravention of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
which it is obligated to uphold. But that is not all. There is evidence that
the US authorities have encouraged the use of torture and may indeed have
participated in the torture of those men they believe to hold information on
past and future terrorist attacks. We surely didn't imagine two years ago that
this would be an outcome of 9/11 and yet it has happened with such ease, the
once rights-conscious American public turning its gaze the other way, along
with the self-regarding worthies of the American newspaper industry.”
Henry Porter, “America's dirty torture secret,” The Guardian, Wednesday September
10, 2003.
[29]
“President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down
and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency
is about to stage an operation. … The president is not legally required to
approve each name added to the list, nor is the C.I.A. required to obtain
presidential approval for specific attacks, although officials said Mr. Bush
had been kept well informed about the agency’s operations.” JAMES RISEN and
DAVID JOHNSTON, “Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists,” New
York Times, 12/14/02.
[30]
According to the Washington Post, the so-called U.S.A. Patriot act
passed by congress “will enable the Bush administration to make fundamental
changes at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency
and several Treasury Department law enforcement agencies. Known as the U.S.A.
Patriot Act, the law empowers the government to shift the primary mission of
the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence. In addition,
the Treasury Department has been charged with building a financial
intelligence-gathering system whose data can be accessed by the CIA. Most
significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to influence
FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain evidence
gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps. ‘We are going to have
to get used to a new way of thinking,’ Assistant Attorney General Michael
Chertoff, who is overseeing the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, said in
an interview. ‘What we are going to have is a Federal Bureau of Investigation
that combines intelligence with effective law enforcement.’ The new law
reflects how profoundly the attacks changed the nation’s thinking about the
balance between domestic security and civil liberties.” [emphasis added]
Jim McGee, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to
Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope,” Washington Post,
11/4/01.
[31] The Insight
article continued:
The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result
of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:
·
minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone
and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.
·
expands the ability of the government to conduct
secret searches.
·
gives the attorney general and the secretary of
state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and
deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.
·
grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business
records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.
·
leads to large-scale investigations of American
citizens for "intelligence" purposes.
More specifically, Section 203
(Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information
gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies,
including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a
political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to
provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury
proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being
investigated.
Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone
and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is
necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not
prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in
effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.
Kelly Patricia O’Meara, “Police State,” Insight On
the News, 11/9/01.
[32]
Morton H. Halperin warned: “Most of the new authorities are directed as much at
American citizens as foreigners.” Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New
York Times, 1/20/02.
[33]
Tim Weiner wrote: “Congress has given the C.I.A. new legal powers to snoop on
people in the United States — not limited to investigating groups like Al
Qaeda. It has been granted these new powers, along with billions of dollars, without
any public post-mortem into how all these guardians of national security failed
to protect against the September attacks.” [emphasis added] Tim Weiner,
“The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New York Times, 1/20/02.
[34] Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New
York Times, 1/20/02.
[35]
JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON, “Agent Complaints Lead F.B.I. Director
to Ask for Inquiry,” New York Times, 5/24/02.
[36]
The Times explained that the FBI was not previously legally forbidden to
engage in behavior such as infiltrating and spying on every aspect of American life.
This was voluntary: “Indeed, the restrictions under which the F.B.I. has
operated for three decades were self-imposed. Congressional pressure, lawsuits,
scandals and a public outcry played a role in the bureau’s vow to limit
domestic surveillance to situations in which criminal conduct was suspected.
But the restrictions were not enforceable in court and were grounded in what
might be called constitutional values, rather than actual law.” ADAM LIPTAK,
“Changing the Standard,” New York Times, 5/31/02.
[37]
The Times referred to this as “a broad loosening of the guidelines that
restrict the surveillance of religious and political organizations.” DON VAN
NATTA Jr., “Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I.,” New
York Times, 5/30/02.
[38]
ADAM LIPTAK, “Changing the Standard” New York Times, 5/31/02.
[39]
DON VAN NATTA Jr., “Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I.,” New
York Times, 5/30/02.
[40]
William Safire, “J. Edgar Mueller,” New York Times, 6/3/02.
[41]
“The guidelines were imposed in the 1970's after the disclosures about
Cointelpro, a widespread domestic surveillance program that monitored antiwar
militants, the Ku Klux Klan and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., among
others, while J. Edgar Hoover was bureau director.” DON VAN NATTA Jr.,
“Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I.,” New York Times,
5/30/02.
[42]
Several observers have compared 9-11 to the American equivalent of the
Reichstag fire, an incident that was blamed on the communists in Germany
and used by the Nazis to justify a sweeping consolidation of power under the
banner of anticommunism. It is strongly suspected that the Nazis not only
exploited the event for political leverage, but staged it as well. Given the
manner in which 9-11 has been cynically
used by George Bush for similar ends, it is ironic that Bush pronounced terrorism
as a “new totalitarian threat,” from the Reichstag and warned (apparently with
no hint of irony or self-parody): “We must confront this conspiracy against our
liberty and against our lives.” The New York Times covered this event on
its front page the very same day it announced—also on its front page—that the
US had been conducting human experiments on its own soldiers using nerve gases
invented by the Nazis (“The Defense Department sprayed live nerve and
biological agents on ships and sailors in cold war-era experiments to test the
Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare, the Pentagon revealed today”) and that
the FBI hierarchy had suppressed warnings of 9-11 terrorist activities from its
own agents prior to the World Trade Center attacks. Fittingly, the Times summarized:
“Laura
W. Murphy, director of the national office of the A.C.L.U., said. ‘The
government is rewarding failure. It seems when the F.B.I. fails, the response
by the Bush administration is to give the bureau new powers, as opposed to seriously
look at why the intelligence and law enforcement failures occurred.’”
DAVID
E. SANGER, “In Reichstag, Bush Condemns Terror as New Despotism,” New York
Times, 5/24/02; Thom Shanker, William Broad, “Sailors Sprayed with Nerve
Gas In Cold War Test, Pentagon Says,” New York Times, 5/24/2002; Jim
Yardley, “F.B.I. Didn’t Pursue Information On Terror Suspect, Papers Show,” New
York Times, 5/42/02.
[43] “Hints of a new wave of COINTELPRO-style government
surveillance first surfaced in fall 1999 as protesters gearing up for the World
Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle complained about infiltration by
undercover cops and federal agents. After Sept. 11, 2001, the feds embarked on
an unprecedented and brazen campaign of domestic spying. Leading the charge, Attorney
General John Ashcroft signaled his intent to spy on law-abiding religious
congregations and political groups and pushed through the USA PATRIOT Act,
which vastly expanded the government's phone-tapping and e-mail-monitoring
powers and broke down barriers between the Central Intelligence Agency and the
FBI. Now there's mounting evidence that government agents – returning to the
ways of J. Edgar Hoover – are monitoring political dissidents…. There are
several ways all of this government scrutiny could play out. If the new peace
movement develops the muscle to paralyze major cities – à la antiglobalizers –
it may find the feds doing more than discreetly keeping tabs and occasionally
pulling suspected troublemakers off airplanes. There's the real possibility
that FBI agents will covertly slip into the movement with the aim of crippling
it from within (a favored tactic in the 1960s against the Black Panthers and
the New Left) or enticing more-militant activists to participate in felonious
behavior (as the bureau did more recently with Earth First! and the militia and
white separatist movements).” A.C. Thompson, “They Spy: How law enforcement is
keeping tabs on the new peace movement,” Sfgb.com, November 20,
2002.
[45]
The Israelis have been accused of using exactly
this tactic with the same targeted al Qaeda “terrorist” group. Reuters
(12/07/02) reported:
“The Palestinian Authority accused Israel’s Mossad spy agency on Saturday of
setting up a fake al Qaeda cell in Gaza so that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
could justify Israeli attacks in Palestinian areas.” Others have noted that the
attacks of 9-11 by al Qaeda cells in the US, of which Israeli
intelligence rings in the US apparently had prior knowledge, have
been very useful for Israel as they are justifying US attacks on its enemy
Iraq. The “terrorist” incidents conveniently made one of Israel’s biggest
enemies (Iraq) the enemy and military target of the world’s greatest military power—the
United States. Such a scenario is not out of the question. It is well known
that the FBI
and the Israelis cooperate extensively in infiltrating “extremist” groups
in the US. One can’t help but wonder if the al Qaeda cell the FBI had
infiltrated prior to the attacks was in fact being run by the Israelis. This
wouldn’t be the first time intelligence operatives in the US went on to commit
high-level crimes though under constant surveillance by rival intelligence
agencies. As was recently revealed on the front page of the New York Times, declassified documents
show the CIA was afraid that the FBI would discover evidence that they also had
Lee Harvey Oswald under surveillance just prior to the Kennedy assassination. Times
reporter Tim Weiner wrote: “The files show how the C.I.A. scrambled hours
after the assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, to locate dossiers on Oswald (they
found 30). They record a C.I.A. official’s fear that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation was tailing him as he met
with the mobster the C.I.A. had hired to kill Fidel Castro.” [emphasis
added] T. Weiner, “Papers on Kennedy Assassination Are Unsealed, and ‘63 Is
Revisited,” New York Times, 8/24/93.
For the full story of how Oswald was used by the CIA, see: Jerry Leonard, The
Perfect Assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA and Mind Control.
[46]
Michael Isikoff, “Exclusive: The Informant Who Lived With the Hijackers,” Newsweek,
9/16/02; http://www.msnbc.com/news/805186.asp
[47] “Germany
tipped CIA about Sept 11 pilot,” 13 August 2003, Expatica.
[48]
Lee HarveyOswald was under both CIA and FBI surveillance as he met with CIA
assassins shortly before the Kennedy assassination. The front page of the New
York Times summarized documents declassified in 1993:
“The files show how the C.I.A. scrambled hours after the
assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, to locate dossiers on Oswald (they found 30).
They record a C.I.A. official’s fear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
was tailing him as he met with the
mobster the C.I.A. had hired to kill Fidel Castro.”
T. Weiner, “Papers on Kennedy Assassination Are
Unsealed, and ‘63 Is Revisited,” New York
Times, 8/24/93.
[49]
Major Garrett “Pentagon to
Track American Consumer Purchases,” Fox News, Thursday, November
21, 2002, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html.
[50]
Garrett related that the new system will be created by a convicted criminal:
“Rear Adm. John Poindexter, former national security adviser to President
Reagan, is developing the database under the Total Information Awareness
Program. Poindexter was convicted on five counts of misleading Congress and
making false statements during the Iran-Contra investigation.” Major Garrett “Pentagon to Track American
Consumer Purchases,” Fox News, Thursday, November 21, 2002,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html.
[51]
Major Garrett “Pentagon to
Track American Consumer Purchases,” Fox News, Thursday, November
21, 2002, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html.
[52]
This was the plot of the Hollywood movie “The Long Kiss Goodnight” in which the
U.S. intelligence establishment manufactured a terrorist incident in New York
as a “fund-raiser.” Whether premeditated or not, this has been the end result
of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. As related by the Associated Press,
in response to the 9-11 attacks, “The Bush administration is proposing a big
budget increase for the CIA to pay for its role in the U.S. war on terrorism.”
The increases are expected to be in the billions but, conveniently, “[p]recise
figures were unavailable; U.S. intelligence spending is classified.” John J.
Lumpkin, “CIA Gets Big Boost in Bush Budget,” Associated Press Washington
Post, 2/4/02. See also: “CIA Gets Huge Rise in Antiterrorism Funds,” Reuters,
4/17/02.
[53]
“It was not just airlines that were targeted by remarkably canny investors. One
of the biggest occupants of the World Trade Centre was Morgan Stanley, the
investment bank. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option
contracts was bought each day in its shares. The total for the three days
before the attacks was 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put
options bought in the four days before the attacks, when the previous days had
seen averages of 252 contracts a day.”
[54]
Consider these headlines published in the wake of the 9-11 attack:
Privacy
Trade-Offs Reassessed
Objections
to Surveillance Technology Face New Test After Attack
By
Ariana Eunjung Cha and Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday,
September 13, 2001; Page E
Ashcroft
Seeks Enhanced Wiretap Powers
By
Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer
Sunday,
Sept. 16, 2001; 9:52 p.m. EDT
Terrorism
review may result in ID cards
DANIEL
MCGRORY, The London Times
SATURDAY
SEPTEMBER 15 2001
FBI
to get extra spying powers,
Damian
Whitworth TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 18 2001
[55]
“The bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during
the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about
presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political
activists.” Jim McGee, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law
Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope,” Washington Post,
11/4/01.
[56]
Tim Weiner summarized in the New York Times: “In its first
quarter-century, the C.I.A. did what Truman feared: it spied on Americans,
opened their mail, tapped their phones. When those skeletons came tumbling from
the closet in the mid-1970’s — and after the F.B.I.’s illegal surveillance of
real and perceived enemies of the state was revealed — new laws took effect to
guard against eavesdropping abuses by American intelligence and security
agencies.” Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New York Times,
1/20/02.
[57]
The Baltimore Sun revealed: “U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret
plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the
ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the
National Security Agency.” The Sun continued:
“’We
could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other
Florida cities and even in Washington,’ said one document reportedly prepared
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ‘We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay
and blame Cuba,’ the document says. ‘Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would
cause a helpful wave of indignation.’” [emphasis added]
Scott
Shane and Tom Bowman, “New book on NSA sheds light on secrets: U.S. terror plan
called Cuba invasion pretext,” Baltimore Sun, April 24, 2001.
[58] “Without
9/11 there would have been no Iraq war.” Henry Porter, “America's dirty torture
secret,” The Guardian, Wednesday
September 10, 2003.
[59] The CIA
helped bring Saddam Hussein to power and keep him there, as did members of
George Bush’s administration when they worked as private citizens or government
officials in previous administrations. (See
Jonathan Marshall, IRAQ: It’s Not Always So Simple; Foreign policy malpractice,
San Francisco Chronicle, 10/20/02) Saddam was seen as a useful
ally. As Newsweek summarized: “American officials have known that Saddam
was a psychopath ever since he became the country’s de facto ruler in the early
1970s. ...But top officials in the Reagan administration saw Saddam as a useful
surrogate.” Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, “How Saddam Happened: America
helped make a monster,” Newsweek, 9/23/02.
[60] One is reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s famous
admonition: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
[61] This
domestic surveillance initiative also has corporate America drooling over potential
profits. As the Washington Post summarized: "Homeland security.
First there was the agency. Then there was the department. Now there is the
brand. Nineteen months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, thousands
of small and midsize U.S. companies like North American Access Technologies are
rearranging priorities, renaming operations, repackaging products, and more or
less reinventing themselves to cash in on what they hope will be hundreds of
billions of dollars in new spending on domestic defense." Michael Barbaro,
“Homeland Security for Sale: Firms Shift Focus To Capitalize on Defense
Spending,” Washington Post, Monday, April 14, 2003; Page E01.
[62]
“It has more lobbyists than there are members of Congress — 625 who are
registered. It had a combined lobbying and campaign contribution budget in 1999
and 2000 of $197 million, larger than any other industry.” Leslie Wayne and
Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New
York Times, 11/4/01.
[63]
Jeff Gerth, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Drug Industry Has Ties to Groups With Many
Different Voices,” New York Times, 10/5/00.
[64]
As related by the New York Times, pharmaceuticals companies, with an
army of lobbyists are making attempts “to influence major policy decisions
being made by the Bush administration that may well influence public health
issues and industry profitability for years to come — much to the dismay of
many consumer groups and others.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular
Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
[65]
“Executives of the major pharmaceutical companies have been hopping trains and
planes to the nation’s capital, where they are staging an enormous lobbying
campaign, at the highest levels of government, to help shape the nation’s
bioterrorist plan — and beyond.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular
Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
[66] According to the Times “at these
top-level meetings, industry executives and lobbyists are seeking exemption
from antitrust regulations, reduction of the timetable for getting new drugs to
market for treating the ills of biological warfare, and immunity from lawsuits
for any vaccines they develop to combat bioterrorism.” Leslie Wayne and Melody
Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New
York Times, 11/4/01.
[67]
“‘This is a great time to buy some good will,’ said Jake Hansen, a lobbyist for
Barr Laboratories, which wants to make a generic version of Glucophage, the Bristol-Myers
diabetic drug. Under ‘normal times,’ Mr. Hansen said, ‘the press would be
having a field day’ over the [legislation] now in play. But, with the attention
on anthrax, big pharmaceutical companies ‘know they are not under as much
scrutiny,’ he said, adding ‘and they are taking advantage of that.’” Leslie
Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror
Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
[68]
A government report noted the following with respect to the way experiments
were routinely conducted on the public for decades prior to protective
legislation: “In 1959 a Senate subcommittee chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver
of Tennessee began hearings into the conduct of pharmaceutical companies. Testimony
revealed that it was common practice for drug companies to provide samples of
experimental drugs, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, to
physicians, who were then paid to collect data on their patients taking these
drugs. Physicians throughout the country prescribed these drugs to patients
without their knowledge or consent as part of this loosely controlled research.”
[emphasis added] Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments - Final
Report, Chapter 3, Section: “The Development of Human Subject Research
Policy at DHEW,” http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_2.html
(12/31/01)
[69]
ANDREW POLLACK and WILLIAM J. BROAD, “Anti-Terror Drugs Get Test Shortcut,”
New York Times, 5/31/02.
[70]
“During a year when prescription drug prices and benefits are among the hottest
political topics, dozens of members of Congress also have another reason to
keep their eyes on pharmaceutical companies. These senators, House members and
their families own tens of millions of dollars in stock in drug manufacturers,
whose profits could rise or fall depending on what Congress does about the
soaring prices of medicine and the push for Medicare drug benefits. The
legislators’ stock holdings are legal but create appearances that trouble some
congressional watchdogs and public policy experts.” Greg Gordon and Andrew
Donahue, “Members of Congress Face Conflict of Interest When it Comes to Drug
Companies,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/29/00.
[73]
“James Love, the director of the Consumer Project on Technology, who works to
get low-priced AIDS drugs to poor countries, called the industry’s drive for
government contracts for medicines against bioterrorism ‘a feeding frenzy.’
‘They are putting together another gravy train to cash in on some big
government contracts,’ Mr. Love said.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A
Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times,
11/4/01.
[74]
“At every opportunity, they have also noted that they plan to give away
additional drugs and vaccines to the government fight bioterrorism — albeit
with some important strings attached. The medications would be made available
only if the government agreed to speed the process that would allow existing
drugs to treat anthrax and only if there was a national emergency.” Leslie
Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror
Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
[75]
Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s
Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
[76]
“Under the provision, a raft of Thimerosal lawsuits will be redirected from
state courts to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which caps
damages and sharply limits who can file suits against vaccine makers.” Jonathan
Weisman, “A Homeland Security Whodunit: In Massive Bill, Someone Buried a
Clause to Benefit Drug Maker Eli Lilly,” Washington Post, Thursday,
November 28, 2002.
[77]
The number and type of side-effects observed in the initial testing of the
smallpox vaccine program has shocked health professionals: “Of 200 young adults
who received the vaccine as part of a recent government study, one-third missed
at least one day of work or school, 75 had high fevers, and several were put on
antibiotics because physicians worried that their blisters signaled a bacterial
infection.” Ceci Connoll, “Smallpox Vaccine Reactions Jolt Experts: From
Rashes to Fevers, Array of Side Effects Is Uncommon Today,” Washington Post,
Thursday, December 5, 2002.
[78]
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was quoted by the Post as saying: “Leave it
to the Republicans to sneak in a proposal that protects manufacturers of the
vaccine, doctors and nurses and leaves the person who may be injured -- even by
negligent action -- to bear the whole burden of their injury.” Ceci Connolly,
“Homeland Bill Covers Smallpox Shot Liability: U.S. Would Shield Firms, Health
Workers,” Washington Post, Saturday, November 16, 2002.
[79]
WILLIAM J. BROAD and JUDITH MILLER, “Health Data
Monitored for Bioterror Warning,” New York Times, 1/27/02
[80] Initially
the system was funded by the Pentagon and reported to Poindexter’s agency for
total public surveillance, the Total Information Awareness Program (TIPs). It
will have access to detailed data on individual health records, diagnoses and
purchases.
[81] WILLIAM J.
BROAD and JUDITH MILLER, “Health Data Monitored for Bioterror Warning,” New
York Times, 1/27/02
[82] This system
might be abetted by another Orwellian nightmare implemented in the name of
protecting the public in the wake of 9-11. This is the national ID card
mentioned above, which is scheduled to be implemented in Britain. In one vision
of the plan, this ID card will contain detailed information of the DNA of each
person in the country. This information would be beneficial to the
pharmaceuticals industry for marketing products to the public and for
correlating the effects of experimental pharmaceuticals products on the public.
Additionally, it would create a civil liberties nightmare. As Henry Porter
outlined the proposed British system in the Guardian, the “chairman of
the Police Superintendents' Association, is hoping this week to add one more
piece to the apparatus of control when he asks his association to call for a
national DNA database that will include every man, woman and child in the
country. The seriousness of the threat to individual liberty cannot be
underestimated. Once a person's DNA is held by the police, there will be nothing
they won't be able to tell about him or her. Every week, our ability to read
the 30,000 human genes increases, and it cannot be long before scientists start
making assumptions about personality traits from particular constellations of
genes. Imagine this capability in the hands of a murder squad desperate to
solve a difficult crime. Everyone with a particular profile would become a
suspect. To place this power at the disposal of the police at this early stage
in the development of genetics would be a disaster. But maybe we just don't
care. As long as our comfort and pleasure are not immediately inconvenienced,
we seem to go along with the idea of cars that automatically alert the
authorities to speeding, or cameras that log our every movement.” Henry Porter,
“America's dirty torture secret,” The Guardian, Wednesday September 10, 2003
[83] Newsweek
summarized how the US not only assisted but armed Iraq in the early 1980s: “After
Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the
Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official
documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and
other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal—American tanks to
Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the
Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of ‘dual
use’ equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential
Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping
list included a computerized database for Saddam’s Interior Ministry
(presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to
transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for ‘video surveillance
applications’; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy
Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of
‘bacteria/fungi/protozoa’ to the IAEC. According to former officials, the
bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax.”
[emphasis added] Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, “How Saddam Happened:
America helped make a monster,” Newsweek, 9/23/02.
[85]
The White House budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., is a former Eli Lilly
executive. Jonathan Weisman, “A Homeland Security Whodunit: In Massive Bill,
Someone Buried a Clause to Benefit Drug Maker Eli Lilly,” Washington Post,
Thursday, November 28, 2002.
[87] Former
President George H.W. Bush (and former CIA head), father to current President
George Bush III, was vice president under Reagan at the time the Reagan
administration and the CIA were providing assistance to Iraq in its war (which
included chemical warfare) against Iran. The Times again: “Though senior
officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq’s employment of
mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military
officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national
security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program
in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly
providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for
battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.”
[88]
For an overview of the long-running set of experiments that the author proposes
culminated in the AIDS epidemic, see AIDS:
The “Perfect” Disease, by Jerry Leonard. This study also shows how AIDS is
systematically benefiting the eugenics program that American elites used the
Nazis to begin implementing.
[90] THOM SHANKER with WILLIAM J. BROAD, “Sailors
Sprayed With Nerve Gas in Cold War Test, Pentagon Says,” New York Times,
5/24/02.
[91]
The US has pushed for other policies which have made it easier to implement the
methods of the Third Reich on a global scale. For example, the father of the
present president (George Bush, Sr., as head of the CIA prior to becoming
president) assisted Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim in becoming head of the
U.N. for ten years following WWII. (See: Hitler
Is Winning, by the author.)
[92]
“A number of health officials and experts are warning that steps being taken by
the government and members of the public in response to threats of bioterrorism
carry health risks that may far exceed their benefits. These experts are
focusing on two developments: the rising interest in powerful antibiotics to
counter anthrax and the possibility of renewing mass vaccinations for
smallpox.” Gina Kolata, “‘Cure’ for Bioterror May Be Worse Than the Disease,” New
York Times, 12/22/01.
[93]
The implanted pet microchips were rationalized as a way to make a pet’s entire
medical history available merely by scanning the pet with a special wand.
Similar arguments may be used to justify similar policies with respect to
people now that a crisis atmosphere has been created making people afraid
they’ll need emergency government treatments for terrorist attacks.
[94]
Farah reported that an organization called the World
Economic Forum (WEF), whose goal is to vaccinate every human being on the
planet, also gave a technology award to the company that has come up with an
injectable microchip that could be monitored from global positioning
satellites. Farah stated: “Now, I want you to use your imagination here, for a
moment. Why would an organization committed to breaking down nationalist
barriers and moving the world toward global government give a technology award
to a company that just acquired the patent to a sophisticated, implantable
identification device? Hmmmmm? And guess what one of the foremost goals of WEF
is? You got it -- vaccinating every human being on the planet. How convenient!
What a coincidence.” Farah, noting that the company’s sales projections only
make sense if every human on the planet is forced to take the implanted chip:
“And how could that be done? At vaccination time, of course.” Joseph Farah,
“Meet the 'Digital Angel' -- from Hell,” Worldnetdaily.com, 2/14/00.