COMMENTS: 39
Unlikely Terror Suspects on the TSA No-Fly List
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Journalists Susan and Joseph Tentro recently obtained a copy of the 44,000-name no-fly list and collaborated with CBS's 60 Minutes to investigate the names on it. They found thousands of inaccuracies and ambiguities on the list, not to mention some shocking omissions.
"The airlines get a list that's out of date," Joe Tentro said. "The list includes dead people and people in prison, but not dangerous terrorists whose names appear on other public lists of terror suspects."
The no-fly list is supposed to be a centralized roster of suspects compiled by various intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Interagency rivalry and mutual suspicion often trump cooperation. Officers will withhold the names of their high-value targets because they don't want their counterparts in other agencies to have the information.
The original no-fly list was hastily compiled after 9/11. Now, five years later, the list is no closer to being functional. So far the government has spent $144 million to clean up the database, but little progress has been made.
Tens of thousands of innocent people have been confused with terrorists. These passengers have been questioned, searched, and even detained by authorities. Peace activists and other Bush administration critics have also been grounded.
Passengers with common names like "Robert Johnson" are being held at airports because they share the same moniker as someone on the no-fly list. Presumably there's an actual terror suspect named Robert Johnson out there somewhere, but there's no way to be sure. The TSA's not telling.
Even more disturbingly, many known terrorists are deliberately excluded from the list. The Trento/60 Minutes investigation determined that none of the suspects in the London liquid bomb plot was on the list. A.Q. Khan, the mastermind behind Pakistan's nuclear program, was also conspicuously absent.
For security reasons, TSA officials don't trust the individual airlines with information about people on the list. In some circumstances, very senior airport officials with government security clearance can get access to more details from the list. But these officials aren't likely to be standing at the security gate. Most often, the only information that low-level airport security officers have is a name and a date of birth. So anyone with the same name and birthday as a person on the list could be grounded. The result is a bureaucratic nightmare.
The TSA refuses to say who's on the list or why, and won't confirm whether the Tentros have a real copy. But several independent sources in the intelligence community have said the Tentros' list is authentic. The reporters were also able to interview many people on the list and confirm that they had trouble flying.
Experts say it would take years for the TSA to verify every person on the list. New names are being added all the time. The TSA compiles its no-fly list from a variety of intelligence sources in different agencies, each of which has its own secret criteria for passing on names to the TSA.
Once a name finds its way into the database, there's no way to get it out. Citizens can write to the TSA to protest and declare their innocence, but the best they can hope for is to be placed on a meta-list of people who have asked to be removed.
The net result is a no-fly list that is worse than useless. Many of the worst terrorists are kept off for security reasons, while innocent people are unable to clear their names. Far from keeping us safer, the TSA's no-fly list has become a bureaucratic, terrorist and civil liberties threat in its own right.
"Is the list effective? Is it accurate? No. The no-fly list is a remarkable study in intelligence manipulation," Tentro said.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HeroesAll on Oct 6, 2006 1:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I digress. This is so astonishingly, perfectly, absurd, it's almost a work of art. I love the bit about known terrorists not being on the list while innocent people are. I love the bit about not wanting to let the terrorists know the Feds are onto them. That's really gonna work. Oh, provided, of course, the administration stops trumpeting about the Turrrst Of The Week.
So let me just get this absolutely straight: the watch list is held by the people at security gates at airports. They use it to decide who gets on the plane, and who doesn't. They'll stop anyone whose name matches a name on the (admittedly often wildly inaccurate) list. They won't stop anyone whose name isn't on the list. Innocent people are on the list, known turrrsts aren't.
Strong on terror? Strong on complete bollocks, more like. This one's gonna last me for days.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You forgot...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: You forgot...
Posted by: sethmo
» RE: it actually makes sense
Posted by: cold2touch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 6, 2006 2:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Just an excuse
Posted by: nico
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Benjaminsjw on Oct 6, 2006 3:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about an airport security officer inspecting a passenger's carry-on luggage. After taking out of the passenger's carry-all bag after bag of narcotics (and completely ignoring them), he finally finds the little nail-clipper which he confiscates saying "those are forbidden, you know!", after which he nicely puts the drugs back in the bag, and lets the passenger continue.
(The idea of the ad is of course that had the officer taken this snack, he would still have been sharp enough to spot the dope)
Someone in the US clearly needs some snack...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Have a pleasant flight, Mr Bin Laden!
Posted by: liberalibrarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willie.horton on Oct 6, 2006 3:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first inkling that something might be wrong was when I moved to Delaware and went to the DMV for a new drivers' license. I was told, "No, you're revoked in New York State."
Looking at the printout, I said, "That [common name] was born on [my birthday in] 1951... I was born in '61." After pointing that out, I got my license.
The next evidence I had was purchasing a firearm: the transaction was "held" overnignt, then approved by the federal screeners. This still happens on about half of my gun purchases... it seems to be more likely after regular business hours. My gun dealer says that my background check calls get transferred up to a BATFE agent for final approval; if there isn't one available, the sale is delayed.
Finally, my wife and I flew to San Francisco this year. The ticket agent looked at her computer, took my drivers' license, and made a phone call. After reading the details from the license into the phone, she returned it to me and said, "OK, you can go ahead." I asked her what that was about: "You're on Do-Not-Fly."
I went through the same thing on the return flight; I was advised to carry my passport even for domestic flights. No big deal: that requirement is just like living in the Soviet Union, as so much of American life has become...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Rod in 83706
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: eringhorm
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» Welcome to the New Soviet America (NSA)
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: fatreader
Comments are closed-
Posted by: colinmeister on Oct 6, 2006 4:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Law suits are usually the American way of doing business, why not here too?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» My thoughts exactly
Posted by: ezilla
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suburban Dad on Oct 6, 2006 4:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xi_people on Oct 6, 2006 4:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't heard much on this tactic yet, but I'm sure its coming.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Identity Theft
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 6, 2006 5:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people have the Audacity to claim they are keeping us safe .They are the gang that couldn't shot straight .
They are the most INCOMPETANT people I have ever seen .They are however VERY good at spin and denying access to anything that would expose them and their nefarious deeds . All in the name of "keeping us safe"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Burtonger on Oct 6, 2006 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 6, 2006 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Oct 6, 2006 11:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Oct 6, 2006 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See Blu is the New Red, by Alan Cabal, New York Press, October 6 2003.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cold2touch on Oct 6, 2006 12:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If America was thus stripped of all Dick Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Chertoffs and so on, the population may be down by a thousand or so (fewer still than died in Iraq), but it would be a hell of a lot cleaner place, good for environment, economy, education, health care, hurricane protection, living wages, international relations.
Only Osama would be grieving their absence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Oct 6, 2006 1:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 5 2006
Revelations that the US government had been in possession of footage released on Sunday depicting alleged Al-Qaeda hijackers and Osama Bin Laden since 2001 and evidence that the footage itself was filmed by security agencies, went unquestioned by the media - who blindly towed the official line that the tape was released by Al-Qaeda. This is smoking gun proof that the U.S. government is staging the release of alleged Al-Qaeda tapes and it demands an immediate Congressional investigation.
Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the "laughing hijackers," Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts describe as surveillance footage taken by a "security agency."
This explains the lack of a soundtrack in the video and the fact that the tape does not focus solely on Bin Laden but pans around and shows the attendees in the audience.
Furthermore, film of the Bin Laden speech, reported by the dominant media as new footage, was previously broadcast in the UK docudramaThe Road to Guantanamo, which was first seen on British television nearly seven months ago in March.
News reports over the weekend contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend by Al-Qaeda.
Either Al-Qaeda has been given access to US intelligence surveillance tapes of its own organization or the tape was released by the US intelligence apparatus. The evidence provides no other explanation.
The fact that the same footage was used in The Road to Guantanamo is startling because the context of the clip in which it is seen portrays British and American intelligence agents showing doctored footage to detainees, whereby their likeness has been edited in with CGI to the Bin laden rally scene, using it to intimidate them into confessing to being Al-Qaeda members.
The latest video tape hoax is only the most recent of a dirty laundry list of past examples where old, re-hashed, or outright faked footage of Bin Laden and his followers was mysteriously obtained and released at the most politically expedient time. These examples are all referenced in our original investigation.
Recall that the Pentagon's stated intention to artificially magnify Musab Al-Zarqawi's role in Iraq was followed by the release of a video tape of Al-Zarqawi threatening the infidels.
The target of this leaked propaganda campaign to boost Al-Qaeda's profile was said to be the "U.S. home audience," and included planting fake stories in newspapers - one of which was later splashed on the front page of the New York Times.
The agenda dovetails with the necessity of the torture program - there are very few real terror cells in existence outside of the puppet mastery of the U.S. and British intelligence apparatus. To maintain a state of fear and obedience amongst the target "home audience," there need to be regular "two minutes of hate" intervals and the artificial creation of supposed terrorist networks and plots.
The tapes are also a desperate attempt to prop up the official version of 9/11 as its credibility crumbles globally and a firestorm of awakening to the fact that the attack was an inside job rages.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 6, 2006 1:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Why? Well, if Martial law is declared, say after another "attack," and internal dissent needs to be stifled, these same names are the start of the "round-up" list. The other thing, a "message" needs to be given to those who are "dissidents" to get "back into line." And, what better way then hassling them a bit wherever they go. Hassle them at demonstrations, do illegal arrests, hassle them at jobs, hassle them at airports, until they get into line.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mule17 on Oct 6, 2006 2:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Maryanne on Oct 7, 2006 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 8, 2006 12:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 8, 2006 12:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Oct 8, 2006 12:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some have admitted that the names they submit are randomly culled from passenger lists and they do not have to substantiate why these people should be added.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: globalgypsy on Oct 9, 2006 7:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The risk of an individual dying from terrorism is insignificant.
The most appropriate thing to do would be to simply dump most of our ‘’security’’ and get on with our lives. And put up with the occasional terrorist outrage, much as we put up with the casualties on the road, or drownings or deaths from smoking. And most of us would save money time and a whole lot of hassle. To say nothing of all our lost rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Graydon Wilson on Oct 11, 2006 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HeroesAll on Oct 6, 2006 1:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I digress. This is so astonishingly, perfectly, absurd, it's almost a work of art. I love the bit about known terrorists not being on the list while innocent people are. I love the bit about not wanting to let the terrorists know the Feds are onto them. That's really gonna work. Oh, provided, of course, the administration stops trumpeting about the Turrrst Of The Week.
So let me just get this absolutely straight: the watch list is held by the people at security gates at airports. They use it to decide who gets on the plane, and who doesn't. They'll stop anyone whose name matches a name on the (admittedly often wildly inaccurate) list. They won't stop anyone whose name isn't on the list. Innocent people are on the list, known turrrsts aren't.
Strong on terror? Strong on complete bollocks, more like. This one's gonna last me for days.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You forgot...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: You forgot...
Posted by: sethmo
» RE: it actually makes sense
Posted by: cold2touch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 6, 2006 2:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Just an excuse
Posted by: nico
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Benjaminsjw on Oct 6, 2006 3:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about an airport security officer inspecting a passenger's carry-on luggage. After taking out of the passenger's carry-all bag after bag of narcotics (and completely ignoring them), he finally finds the little nail-clipper which he confiscates saying "those are forbidden, you know!", after which he nicely puts the drugs back in the bag, and lets the passenger continue.
(The idea of the ad is of course that had the officer taken this snack, he would still have been sharp enough to spot the dope)
Someone in the US clearly needs some snack...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Have a pleasant flight, Mr Bin Laden!
Posted by: liberalibrarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willie.horton on Oct 6, 2006 3:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first inkling that something might be wrong was when I moved to Delaware and went to the DMV for a new drivers' license. I was told, "No, you're revoked in New York State."
Looking at the printout, I said, "That [common name] was born on [my birthday in] 1951... I was born in '61." After pointing that out, I got my license.
The next evidence I had was purchasing a firearm: the transaction was "held" overnignt, then approved by the federal screeners. This still happens on about half of my gun purchases... it seems to be more likely after regular business hours. My gun dealer says that my background check calls get transferred up to a BATFE agent for final approval; if there isn't one available, the sale is delayed.
Finally, my wife and I flew to San Francisco this year. The ticket agent looked at her computer, took my drivers' license, and made a phone call. After reading the details from the license into the phone, she returned it to me and said, "OK, you can go ahead." I asked her what that was about: "You're on Do-Not-Fly."
I went through the same thing on the return flight; I was advised to carry my passport even for domestic flights. No big deal: that requirement is just like living in the Soviet Union, as so much of American life has become...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Rod in 83706
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: eringhorm
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Sushi
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» Welcome to the New Soviet America (NSA)
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: I'm on the list...
Posted by: fatreader
Comments are closed-
Posted by: colinmeister on Oct 6, 2006 4:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Law suits are usually the American way of doing business, why not here too?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» My thoughts exactly
Posted by: ezilla
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suburban Dad on Oct 6, 2006 4:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xi_people on Oct 6, 2006 4:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't heard much on this tactic yet, but I'm sure its coming.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Identity Theft
Posted by: Benjaminsjw
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 6, 2006 5:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people have the Audacity to claim they are keeping us safe .They are the gang that couldn't shot straight .
They are the most INCOMPETANT people I have ever seen .They are however VERY good at spin and denying access to anything that would expose them and their nefarious deeds . All in the name of "keeping us safe"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Burtonger on Oct 6, 2006 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 6, 2006 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Oct 6, 2006 11:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Oct 6, 2006 11:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See Blu is the New Red, by Alan Cabal, New York Press, October 6 2003.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cold2touch on Oct 6, 2006 12:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If America was thus stripped of all Dick Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Chertoffs and so on, the population may be down by a thousand or so (fewer still than died in Iraq), but it would be a hell of a lot cleaner place, good for environment, economy, education, health care, hurricane protection, living wages, international relations.
Only Osama would be grieving their absence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Oct 6, 2006 1:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 5 2006
Revelations that the US government had been in possession of footage released on Sunday depicting alleged Al-Qaeda hijackers and Osama Bin Laden since 2001 and evidence that the footage itself was filmed by security agencies, went unquestioned by the media - who blindly towed the official line that the tape was released by Al-Qaeda. This is smoking gun proof that the U.S. government is staging the release of alleged Al-Qaeda tapes and it demands an immediate Congressional investigation.
Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the "laughing hijackers," Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts describe as surveillance footage taken by a "security agency."
This explains the lack of a soundtrack in the video and the fact that the tape does not focus solely on Bin Laden but pans around and shows the attendees in the audience.
Furthermore, film of the Bin Laden speech, reported by the dominant media as new footage, was previously broadcast in the UK docudramaThe Road to Guantanamo, which was first seen on British television nearly seven months ago in March.
News reports over the weekend contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend by Al-Qaeda.
Either Al-Qaeda has been given access to US intelligence surveillance tapes of its own organization or the tape was released by the US intelligence apparatus. The evidence provides no other explanation.
The fact that the same footage was used in The Road to Guantanamo is startling because the context of the clip in which it is seen portrays British and American intelligence agents showing doctored footage to detainees, whereby their likeness has been edited in with CGI to the Bin laden rally scene, using it to intimidate them into confessing to being Al-Qaeda members.
The latest video tape hoax is only the most recent of a dirty laundry list of past examples where old, re-hashed, or outright faked footage of Bin Laden and his followers was mysteriously obtained and released at the most politically expedient time. These examples are all referenced in our original investigation.
Recall that the Pentagon's stated intention to artificially magnify Musab Al-Zarqawi's role in Iraq was followed by the release of a video tape of Al-Zarqawi threatening the infidels.
The target of this leaked propaganda campaign to boost Al-Qaeda's profile was said to be the "U.S. home audience," and included planting fake stories in newspapers - one of which was later splashed on the front page of the New York Times.
The agenda dovetails with the necessity of the torture program - there are very few real terror cells in existence outside of the puppet mastery of the U.S. and British intelligence apparatus. To maintain a state of fear and obedience amongst the target "home audience," there need to be regular "two minutes of hate" intervals and the artificial creation of supposed terrorist networks and plots.
The tapes are also a desperate attempt to prop up the official version of 9/11 as its credibility crumbles globally and a firestorm of awakening to the fact that the attack was an inside job rages.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 6, 2006 1:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Why? Well, if Martial law is declared, say after another "attack," and internal dissent needs to be stifled, these same names are the start of the "round-up" list. The other thing, a "message" needs to be given to those who are "dissidents" to get "back into line." And, what better way then hassling them a bit wherever they go. Hassle them at demonstrations, do illegal arrests, hassle them at jobs, hassle them at airports, until they get into line.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mule17 on Oct 6, 2006 2:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Maryanne on Oct 7, 2006 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 8, 2006 12:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 8, 2006 12:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on Oct 8, 2006 12:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some have admitted that the names they submit are randomly culled from passenger lists and they do not have to substantiate why these people should be added.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: globalgypsy on Oct 9, 2006 7:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The risk of an individual dying from terrorism is insignificant.
The most appropriate thing to do would be to simply dump most of our ‘’security’’ and get on with our lives. And put up with the occasional terrorist outrage, much as we put up with the casualties on the road, or drownings or deaths from smoking. And most of us would save money time and a whole lot of hassle. To say nothing of all our lost rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Graydon Wilson on Oct 11, 2006 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




