* GAO expects to issue its report on the FBI anthrax investigation in the “later part of the summer or early fall”

CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

It wasn't Ivins! It wasn’t Ivins!

My email to GAO (6/23/14) …

GAO … Some months ago you wrote to me that your report on the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks would be issued sometime this summer. Now that summer is here, do you have an update on when the report might be forthcoming? … LEW WEINSTEIN

GAO’s response (6/27/14) …

Lew … We expect it will be the later part of the summer or early fall … Chuck

Chuck Young, Managing Director, Public Affairs, Government Accountability Office (GAO)

http://www.gao.gov

***

View original post

Advertisements

Cheney doesn’t want to talk about ‘what happened 11 or 12 years ago’

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney listens as his wife Lynne Cheney speaks about her book "James Madison: A Life Reconsidered" May 12, 2014 in Washington, DC.
Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney listens as his wife Lynne Cheney speaks about her book “James Madison: A Life Reconsidered” May 12, 2014 in Washington, DC.

 

It was discouraging last week when discredited conservatives, who failed spectacularly on U.S. policy in Iraq, were given a media platform to talk about U.S. policy in Iraq. Last week’s Sunday shows alone, featuring the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol, led James Fallows to argue, “In the circumstances, they might have the decency to shut the hell up on this particular topic for a while. They helped create the disaster Iraqis and others are now dealing with. They have earned the right not to be listened to.”
 
And yet, these discredited voices remain ubiquitous. Kenneth Pollack, for example, was on CNN yesterday, presented to viewers as a credible expert. Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, and went on serve on the Bush/Cheney National Security Council as head of the Mideast bureau, had a lengthy piece in Politico yesterday describing President Obama as “the man who broke the Middle East.” 
 
And then there was ABC’s “This Week,” which welcomed Dick Cheney for his third Sunday show appearance since March. It went about as expected, though I was struck by the failed former vice president’s response to some of his catastrophic errors of fact and judgment.
“With all due respect, Jon, I was a strong supporter then of going into Iraq, I’m a strong supporter now. Everybody knows what my position is. There’s nothing to be argued about there.
 
“But if we spend our time debating what happened 11 or 12 years ago, we’re going to miss the threat that is growing and that we do face.”
In “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” there’s a scene in which John Cleese’s Sir Lancelot, certain he’s doing the right thing in behalf of a damsel in distress, storms into a castle during a wedding party, indiscriminately slaughtering most of the guests with his sword. The castle owner, eager to curry favor with Lancelot, urges the survivors to let bygones be bygones.
 
“Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom,” he tells his few remaining guests.
 
Cheney’s rhetoric is similar in its own pathetic way. Sure, he failed miserably, helping launch a disastrous war under false pretenses, the consequences of which we’re still struggling with today, but let’s not bicker and argue about who lied to whom about a deadly and unnecessary catastrophe. Pesky niceties such as accountability, credibility, and responsibility just aren’t important at a time like this, the argument goes
 
The difference is, in Monty Python, it was funny.
 
In the same Sunday show appearance, ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked Cheney about his recent op-ed in which he argued that Obama is trying to deliberately undermine the United States’ global standing, effectively suggesting the president is guilty of treason.
 
“I don’t intend any disrespect for the president, but I fundamentally disagree with him,” Cheney said.
 
Of course. All Cheney did was accuse a war-time president in the middle of a crisis of wanting to hurt the country on purpose. Why would anyone think the failed former V.P. intended “disrespect”?
 
Nevertheless, the divisions within the Republican Party on foreign policy were also on display over the weekend. While Cheney was condemning the president who’s tried to clean up Cheney’s messes, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was doing largely the opposite, arguing that it’s a mistake to point fingers at the White House.
 
“I don’t blame President Obama,” Paul said. “Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry.”

 

FBI Hanky-Panky On Guantanamo—Part Of Larger 9/11 Mystery?

 

by Russ Baker

What in the world is the FBI up to at Guantanamo? Why is it harassing the defense team of the accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his alleged accomplices?

The FBI is hip-deep in yet another dubious activity but, this time, even the not-so-adventurous New York Times is kinda-sorta on the trail. The self-proclaimed “paper of record” has produced several articles, albeit confusing ones, on the mysterious doings of our much-vaunted national police force.

What should be made clear is that by connecting a few dots, one can make out a major—even explosive—story hiding just out of plain sight. This story has a lot to do with the larger pattern of FBI misbehavior and points to at least one of the reasons why we never get better, more complete answers about the events of 9/11.

***

Readers of WhoWhatWhy are familiar with a growing litany of troubling actions on the part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the last few years (see for example this, this and this), compounding a disturbing legacy that has attended the outfit for much of its history. The Bureau has occasionally been scrutinized by the media, but as our Steve Weinberg reported, the G-men and journalists have just as often colluded to keep the public in the dark.

Now, for whatever reason, the New York Times has started to dig into….something. Unfortunately, the presentation is so grueling to get through and the core of the story so buried that it is impossible to say for sure what is going on.

It’s possible that neither the reporter, his editor, nor even conceivably their sources in the Guantanamo defense team understand the full magnitude of the story.

We can only guess that what’s at stake here is the FBI’s need to bury evidence of its own behavior—a baffling combination of incompetence and what seem to be deliberate actions running counter to the public’s s interest in full disclosure of events leading up to the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

For some perspective, we’d point you to reporting we did a while back about a prominent Saudi family living in South Florida—a family connected to a Saudi prince responsible for aviation issues—that interacted directly with a number of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. In that case, the FBI investigated hijacker visits and phone calls tied to the family’s house in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, near where a number of the 9/11 suspects trained to fly planes.

Since shutting down that investigation, the Bureau has tried to act as if it never happened.

Connection? What Connection?

More recently, documents released to our friends at the South Florida investigative nonprofit organization, Broward Bulldog, reveal something decidedly hinky going on. Within this packet of documents, the FBI both denies that the Sarasota inquiry turned up anything of interest—and says the exact opposite.

A lot of interesting morsels are in the packet. But for now, let’s just focus on two documents. See the one stamped “SARASOTA-1” (continues on “SARASOTA-2”). The summary states that the FBI’s investigation found no evidence that connected the Saudi family members in Sarasota to any of the 9/11 hijackers, nor was any connection found between the family and the 9/11 plot.

Based on new reporting by WhoWhatWhy’s team, including a recent trip I made to the area and conversations with sources there, I can unequivocally state that the above statement….is a lie. And the FBI knows it is.

But don’t take our word for it. Have a look at the document labeled “SARASOTA 5.” Right there, plain as can be, it says:

Further investigation of the ____ family revealed many connections between the _____ and individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001…..

Enough other details in that document set, along with general knowledge of what went down in the days after 9/11, make it clear that the redacted words are the name of the Saudi family. And who is making the assertion of “many connections”? The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

***

“A spy within our team”

OK, now let’s shift to the recent reporting on the strange events at Guantanamo. According to the Times, in an article with the incredibly off-putting headline of “Guantánamo Detainees’ Lawyers Seek Further Delays” (we can only assume that’s the work of some editor hoping no one will read the story), the reporter chronicles a series of curious happenings. (An earlier, related Times article is here) The details are so obscurely rendered that one can get almost no sense of a larger narrative. But two remarkable quotes, lower in the story, stand out:

“I feel that I’m under scrutiny,” said David Nevin, the lead lawyer for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of the attacks. Mr. Nevin said that he had postponed a fact-finding trip to the Middle East because of the F.B.I. scrutiny, adding: “I am trimming my sails. I am being extremely careful about how I proceed.”

So basically, the main guy defending the man who we are told confessed to authorship of 9/11 under torture is afraid.

Here’s the other quote, from another defense attorney:

“We have had basically a spy within our team for a number of months,” Mr. Harrington said.

Wow. How come the headline wasn’t: “Attorneys for 9/11 Suspects Under Intense FBI Pressure”? Or: “FBI Accused of Illegally Harassing 9/11 Defense Lawyers.” Or: “FBI Spy Hidden Within 9/11 Defense Team?”

Consider that, then take another look at those documents we link to above about the “Sarasota connection.”

You will notice that the document in which the FBI denies any awareness of a Sarasota Saudi-9/11 connection is on the letterhead of the Guantanamo prosecution unit, with the FBI seal.

This may well be part of a wider pattern: one in which the Bureau seems determined to block all serious inquiry into those deadly events.

– See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/06/27/fbi-hanky-panky-on-guantanamo-part-of-larger-911-mystery/#sthash.wxk0PdlT.dpuf

 

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Marching in Lockstep with the Police State

By John W. Whitehead 
June 23, 2014

rutherford.org

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas                                                                                               

The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.

Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security.In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”—they are not accountable for their actions—in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.

Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them.

Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside. In Florida v. Harris (2013), a unanimous Court determined that police officers may use highly unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog has received proper training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension of the police state.

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King(2013), a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious offenses.” While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike. The Supreme Court declared inArizona v. United States (2012) that Arizona police officers have broad authority to stop, search and question individuals—citizen and non-citizen alike. While the law prohibits officers from considering race, color, or national origin, it amounts to little more than a perfunctory nod to discrimination laws on the books, while paving the way for outright racial profiling and destroying the Fourth Amendment.

Police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington (2012), the Court declared that any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a virtual strip search by police or jail officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

Immunity protections for Secret Service agents trump the free speech rights of Americans. The court issued a unanimous decision in Reichle v. Howards (2012), siding with two Secret Service agents who arrested a Colorado man simply for daring to voice critical remarks to Vice President Cheney. However, contrast the Court’s affirmation of the “free speech” rights of corporations and wealthy donors in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which does away with established limits on the number of candidates an entity can support with campaign contributions, and Citizens United v. FEC  (2010) with its tendency to deny those same rights to average Americans when government interests abound, and you’ll find a noticeable disparity.

Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King(2011), the Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers, rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.

Police can interrogate minors without their parents present. In a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families—the Court threw out a lower court ruling in Camreta v. Greene (2011), which required government authorities to secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement against the rights of the people.

It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (2004), a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime, have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police officer.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases, turned away in recent years alone, have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police. Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas(2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.

The military can arrest and detain American citizens. In refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.

Students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school. The Court refused to hear Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools (2013), a case involving students at a Missouri public school who were subjected to random lockdowns, mass searches and drug-sniffing dogs by police. In so doing, the Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the searches and lockdowns were reasonable in order to maintain the safety and security of students at the school.

Police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law. The Supreme Court let stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Brooks v. City of Seattle (2012) in which police officers who clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution. The Ninth Circuit actually rationalized its ruling by claiming that the officers couldn’t have known beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions—tasering a pregnant woman who was not a threat in any way until she was unconscious—violated the Fourth Amendment.

When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses—that is, you and me.

Keep in mind that in former regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the complicity of the courts was the final piece to fall into place before the totalitarian beast stepped out of the shadows and into the light. If history is a guide, then the future that awaits us is truly frightening.

Time, as they say, grows short.

Obama cites Israeli Supreme Court to justify killing Americans without trial

 by Rania Khalek

Obama’s extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens justified by Israeli precedent. (Pete Souza / White House Photo)

Almost three years have passed since the United States government extrajudicially murdered American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki, although described by the government as a “terrorist” mastermind, had never been charged with any crime.

The Obama adminstration refused to disclose the legal reasoning behind the killing. But thanks to Freedom Information Act lawsuits by The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a redacted version of the Department of Justice memo which outlines the Obama administration’s rationale for killing American citizens abroad without trial is now public

Authored by David Barron — former chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, who has since been appointed by Obama to a federal judgeship — the 41-page document seeks to legitimize so-called targeted killings, a practice Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, vigorously condemned Israel for using against Palestinians during the second intifada. 

Shout out to Israel

This makes it all the more ironic that the Obama administration’s kill memo cites an Israeli Supreme Court decision to justify al-Awlaki’s summary execution. 

On page 40, the kill memo — using an alternative transliteration for al-Awlaki’s name — states:

In addition to the nature of the threat posed by al-Aulaqi’s activities, both agencies here have represented that they intend to capture rather than target al-Aulaqi if feasible; yet we also understand that an operation by either agency to capture al-Aulaqi in Yemen would be infeasible at this time.

Below that, the memo cites Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) v. Government of Israel, a 2006 Israeli Supreme Court decision that ruled that the targeted assassinations of hundreds of Palestinians since the start of the second intifada were legal and did not violate international law. The memo provides this as the basis for determining the infeasibility of al-Awlaki’s capture, with the following explanation in parentheses:

although arrest, investigation and trial “might actually be particularly practical under the conditions of belligerent occupation, in which the army controls the area in which the operation takes place,” such alternatives “are not means which can always be used,” either because they are impossible or because they involve a great risk to the lives of soldiers.

War of terror

It should not come as a surprise that the US is echoing Israeli rationale to validate its own belligerence in the “war on terror,” which bears a striking resemblance to Israel’s decades-long war on the Palestinians and its neighbors. 

In the summer of 2001, then US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk declared, “The United States government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.” 

This philosophy was thrown out the window following the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania. Even so, the Bush administration carried out extrajudicial killings sparingly in comparison to Obama, who has embraced assassination as the centerpiece of his counterterrorism strategy, killing thousands in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia in the process.

What happens in Israel never stays in Israel

In 2007, the Yale Law Journal warned in an editorial that as the “the world’s first judicial decision on targeted killings,” the Israeli ruling would weaken international law because it expanded the scope of who could be targeted for due-process free execution by broadening the definition of “direct participation in hostilities,” which ultimately “weakened the protections that international law affords to all civilians, not just to terrorists.”

The Journal was prescient in concluding that the Israeli decision would “influence others analyzing targeted killings, including the United States.”  

In 2009, Daniel Reisner, the former head of the Israeli army’s International Law Division, admitted as much. “International law progresses through violations,” he told Haaretz in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead — Israel’s invasion of Gaza in December 2008-January 2009.

“We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it,” Reisner said. “At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.”

Today, Israel’s assassinations in Gaza are so routine that barely anyone bats an eye. The same is true for drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, which have killed at least four Americans, including Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, a crime the Obama administration refuses to explain and the American justice system refuses to probe

What began as an Israeli method to suppress Palestinian resistance is now being used to kill people over a vast swath of territory with a population of hundreds of millions. This is what happens when countries like the United States and Israel are allowed to push the boundaries of international law with impunity.

Shared values

“The United States and Israel both seek to subvert international law by putting forth flawed legal interpretations to advance their extreme and unlawful positions and their own impunity, whether in support of arbitrary and indefinite detention, torture, or in this case extrajudicial killings,” said Maria LaHood, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an email.

LaHood was one of the Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys working on the cases challenging Obama’s killings of American citizens. 

She was also one of the attorneys on the class action lawsuit against Avi Dichter, the former head of Israel’s Shin Bet secret police, who in 2002 ordered that a one-ton bomb be dropped on a Gaza City apartment building as part of an extrajudicial assassination.

The atrocity killed fifteen Palestinians and injured 150. The case was dismissed in 2007 by US district judge William Pauley on immunity grounds after the US government weighed in on Dichter’s behalf. 

LaHood added, “If the interpretation of international law were up to the US and Israel, there would scarcely be any law left.”

The Art And Science Of Lies, Liars And Lying

By 

 

CaptureA selection of quotes on lying. At WhoWhatWhy, a big part of our job is asking questions. And a lot of the time the answers we get include a big portion of lies, half-truths, and misdirection. While lying is often seen as a crass act, it’s also been viewed, by its practitioners and observers alike, as something akin to an art or a science. So here are some of our favorite quotes about lies, lying and liars to ponder the next time you run into a serious absence of the truth:

Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is. (Barbara Bush)

Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes? (Chico Marx)

Lady, I do not make up things. That is lies. Lies are not true. But the truth could be made up if you know how. And that’s the truth. (Lily Tomlin)

Bullshit makes the flowers grow and that is beautiful. (Gregory Hill)

Always tell the truth. Even if you have to make it up. (Author Unknown)

I never lie because I don’t fear anyone. You only lie when you’re afraid. (John Gotti)

Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn’t insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable. (Bill Maher)

I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy. (Samuel Butler)

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place. (Henry Louis Mencken)

There are only two ways of telling the complete truth — anonymously and posthumously. (Thomas Sowell)

Lying is done with words, and also with silence. (Adrienne Rich)

A half-truth is a whole lie. (Yiddish Proverb)

Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half. (Author Unknown)

What we have to do, what at any rate it is our duty to do, is to revive the old art of Lying. (Oscar Wilde)

The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way. (Samuel Butler)

Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth. (Mark Twain)

No mask like open truth to cover lies, as to go naked is the best disguise. (William Congreve)

The Devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape. (William Shakespeare)

© Robert Bowen, reproduced with permission.

On the whole, lying is a cheerful affair. Embellishments are intended to give pleasure. People long to tell you what they imagine you want to hear. They want to amuse you; they want to amuse themselves; they want to show you a good time. This is beyond hospitality. This is art. (Isabel Fonseca)

Sometimes you can learn things from the way a person denies something. The choice of lies can be almost as helpful as the truth. (Laurell K. Hamilton)

Man is not what he thinks he is. He is what he hides. (André Malraux)

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. (Oscar Wilde)

If we were all given by magic the power to read each other’s thoughts, I suppose the first effect would be to dissolve all friendships. (Bertrand Russell)

“The real reason we have faces,” Margot Lassiter observes, “is to hold back what we’re thinking from the world.” (Eli Gottlieb)

Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened. (Winston Churchill)

One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. (George Washington)

I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won’t. (Mark Twain)

Somewhere between the honest truth and the deceptive lie is the deceptive truth and the honest lie. (Robert Brault)

A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. (Mark Twain)

You can’t lie a lifetime, son. Either you gon’ tell the truth, or the truth’s gon’ tell on you. (Daniel Black)

I would lie, of course. I lied a lot, and with good reason: to protect the truth—safeguard it like wearing fake gems to keep the real ones from getting stolen or cheapened by overuse. I guarded what truths I possessed because information was not a thing—it was colorless odorless shapeless and therefore indestructible. There was no way to retrieve or void it, no way to halt its proliferation. Telling someone a secret was like storing plutonium inside a sandwich bag; the information would inevitably outlive the friendship or love or trust in which you’d placed it. And then you would have given it away. (Jennifer Egan)

© Robert Bowen, reproduced with permission.

I know that sometimes a lie is used in kindness. I don’t believe it ever works kindly. The quick pain of the truth can pass away, but the slow, eating agony of a lie is never lost. That’s a running sore. (John Steinbeck)

People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty.   (Richard J. Needham)

A truth that’s told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent. (William Blake)

It is an occupational hazard that anyone who has spent her life learning how to lie eventually becomes bad at telling the truth. (Ally Carter)

The people who lie the most are nearly always the clumsiest at it, and they’re easier to fool with lies than most people, too. You’d think they’d be on the lookout for lies, but they seem to be the very ones that will believe almost anything at all. (Dashiell Hammett)

All the dead bolts, pulled shades and hidden knives in the world couldn’t protect you from the truth. (Wally Lamb)

The hardest tumble a man can take is to fall over his own bluff. (Ambrose Bierce)

We need falsifications to make the past inhabitable. (Frans Kellendonk)

Not much music left inside us for life to dance to. Our youth has gone to the ends of the earth to die in the silence of the truth. And where, I ask you, can a man escape to, when he hasn’t enough madness left inside him? The truth is an endless death agony. The truth is death. You have to choose: death or lies. I’ve never been able to kill myself. (Louis-Ferdinand Céline)

© Robert Bowen, reproduced with permission.

The truth is more important than the facts. (Frank Lloyd Wright)

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Always telling the truth is no doubt better than always lying, although equally pathological. (Robert Brault)

Truth shrieks, she runs distraught and disheveled through her temple’s corridors…. ‘I can endure lies,’ she cries. ‘I cannot survive this stifling verisimilitude.’ (Thornton Wilder)

When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts. (Michael Ende)

We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies. (Pablo Picasso)

All drama is about lies. All drama is about something that’s hidden. A drama starts because a situation becomes imbalanced by a lie. The lie may be something we tell each other or something we think about ourselves, but the lie imbalances a situation. If you’re cheating on your wife the repression of that puts things out of balance; or if you’re someone you think you’re not, and you think you should be further ahead in your job, that neurotic vision takes over your life and you’re plagued by it until you’re cleansed. At the end of a play the lie is revealed. The better the play the more surprising and inevitable the lie is. Aristotle told us this. (David Mamet)

© Robert Bowen, reproduced with permission.

Semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to lie. If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth: it cannot in fact be used “to tell” at all. (Umberto Eco)

Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? The lies of the Bible have been the cause of the one, and the lies of the Testament of the other. (Thomas Paine)

 

– See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/06/20/the-art-and-science-of-lies-liars-and-lying/#sthash.E6pqwdrX.dpuf

9/11 in Academia: Anthrax, Tom Clancy, and the Fictions of the National Security State

 

Full Lecture Here 9/11 in Academia: Anthrax, Tom Clancy, and the Fictions of the National Security State

TORONTO TRUTH SEEKERS handheld footage of most of the event An Evening With Professors Graeme MacQueen and Michael Keefer presenting on ‘9/11 and the Fictions of the National Security State’ hosted by Phyllis Creighton of Scientists for the Right to Know, and featuring a preview and DVD release of the award winning documentary ‘9/11 in the Academic Community’ by Adnan Zuberi

9/11 IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY awarded for “Documentary Achievement” at the University of Toronto Film Festival 2012, is now available for purchase through its website: http://911inacademia.com

Dr. Graeme MacQueen, founder of McMaster University Centre for Peace Studies, presents on ‘Anthrax and the Strategy of Tension’ connecting the 2001 Anthrax attacks the framing of Bruce Ivins with the 9/11 attacks and cover-up

Dr. Michael Keefer is a past President of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English, presenting on the fictions of the national security state, 9/11 and the works of Tom Clancy three days prior to the untimely passing of renowned author Tom Clancy