Friday, May 25, 2012

Supressing Historical Perspectives

U.S. Supresses 911 Defendants' Historic Perspective
Published in my blog Free Speech Beneath U.S. Homeland Security

Several of the lawyers amplified their complaints about restrictions on what they could discuss — including a Dec. 27, 2011, prison order about “contraband” information that includes details about the historic perspectives of jihadi activities and certain information about detention operations.
The New York Times article addresses somewhat the matter of detention operations, but not that of the "historic perspectives".

How surprising should that be really from such a publication that presents such ideas as Europe not having any religious wars since about 1648

Monday, May 21, 2012

Barry Chamish - JFK/RFK Kill Zones

TO: 1 More1 recipientCC: recipientsYou MoreBCC: 1 recipientsYou Hide Details FROM:Barry Chamish TO:Barry Chamish Message flagged Monday, May 7, 2012 7:22 PM

Guides To The JFK/RFK Kill Zones

By J. Bruce Campbell 11-26-6

The rhetorical questions I asked in the response to Carmichael's RFK piece got me to thinking. I studied reports of that night in the Ambassador Hotel, which I'd seen live on television, thinking at the time that Bobby was probably going to get it anytime. When it actually happened a few minutes later, it was of course disconcerting. Personally, I didn't like the Kennedys. But this was natural, I guess, for a cowboy who would have nothing in common with a bunch of Boston dudes. So I'm not going to get maudlin about our nouveau-royalty that was foisted on us in 1960. The problem was, the super-rats who had them killed were a hundred times worse. It is obvious that the Kennedy brothers were betrayed by their guards. Jack was driven into his kill zone by a guy named Bill Greer.

The astonishing thing about the Dealey Plaza hit was that Greer drove down the Elm Street hill and came almost to a dead stop seconds after the shooting started. Secret Service procedure is to gas it at the first hint of a discouraging word or a loud noise. Greer came to a virtual halt, so as to give the shooters a nice easy target. It probably never occurred to him that an old geezer with a Bell &Howell 8mm would be cranking away right next to him. He came to a stop and looked back at Kennedy until the massive head shot was made. Clint Hill was riding on the car behind and he was able to hop off that one, run forward and jump on the rear step of the Lincoln death car, just in time to keep Jackie from scrambling the hell away from where all the bullets were converging. She was going to bail but Hill got her back next to the corpse. Greer's work was done and then he gassed it, as if he remembered to follow procedure all of a sudden. It's pretty obvious, when you watch it a few times.

Pay no attention to the nonsense about him pulling a nickel-plated .45 and shooting Kennedy. All he had to do was come to a virtual halt and let the pros nail him in the head. He turned and watched carefully until it was time to go. In 1968 I was living in Reno.

I knew a guy there, an FBI agent named Doug Burau. I knew him pretty well. We were shooting buddies. Doug was involved in what the Bureau called "Security." Security had to do with counter-espionage. Maybe it still does. One time I asked him what he thought of the Lee Oswald legend? All of a sudden, he wasn't so friendly. I said, but it doesn't make any sense. He angrily cut off all discussion by insisting that Oswald was the one and the only one. So I saw right there what the FBI party line was. I never brought it up again because it was like a religious belief to him. I should have made the connection that Hoover, being involved, naturally gave orders that allowed no discussion of the assassination among his agents. Doug was a true believer in old J. Edgar, as he called him.

But Doug did tell me something that just came back to me as I began to study the Bobby Kennedy killing. He said that his old friend, a former FBI agent named Bill Barry, was Bobby's head security man. He told me that Barry really didn't like Bobby. He hadn't cared for his brother, either, and Doug related the lurid reports by Barry of the wild sex parties in the JFK White House, when the brothers would bring in uninhibited women for the enjoyment of themselves and their buddies, when Jackie was not present. Doug told me these things in the four or five months after I'd met him, before the June assassination. I thought it strange that Bobby's chief bodyguard really didn't like him, however considering Hoover's hatred of all three brothers, it was more understandable. And I forgot about it for all these years, until I read something today. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. Bobby's friend and part-time bodyguard, LA Rams lineman Roosevelt Grier, told the police that the plan had been to take Bobby and Ethel to meet the press in another ball room downstairs, I believe. And there was a set way they were going to get there. But at the last minute, Grier said, Bill Barry, the chief of security, changed the route. They'd be going through the kitchen instead, supposedly to avoid the big crowd. And Barry led the way off the podium, down some stairs to the pantry. But once they got in the narrow pantry, Grier said that Barry fell behind. Grier and Rafer Johnson were then leading the way, with the maitre'd, Karl Uecker, taking Bobby by his right wrist and leading him through the tight passageway.

A rent-a-cop named Gene Cesar was behind Kennedy's right shoulder and in fact had his left hand on Bobby's right shoulder. Kennedy stopped to shake hands with a busboy and a waiter, hovered over protectively by Uecker, when Sirhan came forward with his Iver Johnson 8-shot .22 revolver. He cursed Kennedy and opened up, managing to get off two shots before Uecker let go of Kennedy and grabbed Sirhan's gun hand and began twisting and banging it on a serving table, quickly joined by the athletes and others. Sirhan kept pulling the trigger, hitting five bystanders but missing Kennedy. Simultaneously, Kennedy fell over backwards, shot in the mastoid region behind his right ear and then twice more up through his right armpit. A fourth shot went through the shoulder pad of his coat. At least twelve shots were fired in all. One man saw the whole thing and immediately reported it to the police and to his television news team. Donald Schulman, of KNXT Television in Los Angeles, reported to his anchorman, Jerry Dunphy, that he had seen the Ace Security Company's part-time rent-a-cop named Thane Eugene Cesar, pull his revolver and fire it as he fell down with Kennedy. Cesar later admitted that he had pulled his gun from its holster but he "wasn't sure" that he'd fired it. But he was exactly where you'd have to be to put those three holes in Kennedy. He also admitted some other things, such as the fact that he detested the Kennedy brothers, who'd "sold out the country." What kind of a gun was he carrying? A .38 special. Did he have a .22, like Sirhan's? Well, yes, he did, but he wasn't carrying it that night. He said he'd sold it to a guy in Arkansas the previous February. This was June. It turned out that he still had it and sold it to the guy a few months later.

The cops never asked him about either gun. He said he'd rather not talk to the grand jury and the cops said, "Okay."

The .22 was a 9-shot Iver Johnson, almost identical to Sirhan's. Ted Chirach finally found it in an Arkansas pond years later. Chirach's the dogged reporter who nailed Cesar as the real killer, but no one would do anything about it because Kennedy was supposed to die. There's a lot more to the Gene Cesar story, but you get the idea. All he had to do was get behind Bobby and wait for some nut with a gun to start shooting. Almost nobody would notice him in the excitement. But Don Schulman did notice and stuck to his story, even insisting that Bobby had been hit three times when the cops were saying twice. Then even his own television colleagues betrayed him, insisting that he'd never said anything about seeing Cesar draw and fire. Years later, former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates had a radio show on KFI Radio in Los Angeles. He made some crack about "assault weapons needing to be banned" so I called in and objected to a guy who was a public servant violating the Bill of Rights. He tried to laugh me off but then I accused him of sending his captains and lieutenants off to Ventura County the day the Rodney King jury was due to come back and of trying to blame some poor underling for letting the riot get out of control. That knocked him off balance because he wouldn't allow any talk about the L.A. Riot on his show. Then I said, "But you're also the guy who destroyed all the evidence from the Ambassador Hotel kitchen. You had all the ceiling panels and door frames with the bullet holes in them destroyed. You did this, Chief, because you've been an asset of the CIA for your whole career as a Los Angeles policeman, haven't you?" He was flabbergasted. The next day, he was fired from KFI. It was so easy! The main thing in all these assassinations, starting with Lincoln, is the complicity or negligence of the bodyguards combined with fake investigations and destruction of evidence by the police. It's always the same. The more important the murder, the more mundane the murderer, the more prosaic the weapon. Robert F Kennedy assassination witness says FBI covered up fact there was a SECOND gunman | Mail Online

'There definitely was another shooter': RFK assassination witness says FBI covered up fact there was a SECOND gunman * Sirhan Sirhan was not only gunman, claims eyewitness Nina Rhodes-Hughes * 'Heard 12 to 14 shots, more than the eight he could have fired from his gun' *

FBI altered her account, and never called her to testify during trial * Sirhan contesting his shots killed Kennedy and now calling for review * Robert F Kennedy killed in Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968 By Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 03:20 EST, 30 April 2012 | UPDATED: 05:59 EST, 30 April 2012 Robert F Kennedy was shot dead by two gunmen and not just 'lone wolf' Sirhan Sirhan, a witness stood just metres away from the presidential candidate in a Los Angeles hotel has claimed.

Nina Rhodes-Hughes, of Vancouver, Canada, is convinced Sirhan - sentenced to life imprisonment after the killing - was the not the only man firing shots that fateful 1968 day. She told CNN: 'What has to come out is that there was another shooter to my right.

The truth has got to be told.

No more cover-ups.' Scroll down for video... Claims: Nina Rhodes-Hughes (left), pictured with Robert F Kennedy (centre), has said the presidential candidate was hit by two shooters Claims: Nina Rhodes-Hughes (left), pictured with Robert F Kennedy (centre), has said the presidential candidate was hit by two shooters Aftermath: Robert F Kennedy in the moments after he was shot in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles Aftermath: Robert F Kennedy in the moments after he was shot in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles Aftermath: Robert F Kennedy in the moments after he was shot in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles Rhodes-Hughes, now 78, claimed she had told FBI investigators she heard much more than eight shots, which was the maximum Sirhan could have fired with his small-caliber handgun. The former television actress, who was working as a volunteer fundraiser for Kennedy's campaign at the time, also said some of the '12 to 14' shots came from a different location to where the convicted murderer was standing. But the 'official reporting' of the incident has left her frustrated after it was changed by the FBI, she claimed, to say that she only heard eight shots. She added: 'For me it's hopeful and sad that it's only coming out now instead of before - but at least now instead of never. 'I never said eight shots. I never, never said it. There were more than eight shots. There were at least 12, maybe 14. And I know there were because I heard the rhythm in my head. 'When they say only eight shots, the anger within me is so great that I practically - I get very emotional because it is so untrue. It is so untrue. She said she ran out of the pantry, where the shooting took place, yelling: 'They've killed him! They've killed him! Oh, my God, he's dead! They've killed him!.' 'Now, the reason I said, 'they' is because I knew there was more than one shooter involved. Although it was 44 years ago, I will swear that this is exactly what happened. 'I remember it like it was almost yesterday, because you don't forget something like that when it totally changes your life forever. 'It took a great toll on me. For a while, even the backfiring of a car would send me into tears.' Sirhan Sirhan, now 68, is currently serving a life sentence at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California. He was the only person arrested, tried and convicted for the murder, and never contested the case, during his 1969 trial, that he was the only gunman. Initially handed the death sentence, it was reduced to a life sentence in 1972. But he is now trying to engineer his release on the grounds that he was not the only gunman and that it was not him that killed Kennedy. He is now awaiting a U.S. District Court ruling which could see him released, re-tried or granted a hearing. The hearing would take place on the production of new evidence - including Rhodes-Hughes' eyewitness account. His lawyer William Pepper called the alleged FBI alteration of her story 'deplorable' and 'criminal' and said it 'mirrors the experience of other witnesses'. Other witnesses have also mentioned hearing more than eight shots, but these have only been detailed in Los Angeles Police Department summaries and not FBI reports. These included Estelyn Duffy LaHive, who thought she heard 10 shots, and Booker Griffin who said there was 'two quick shots, followed by a slight pause, and then another 10 to 12 additional shots'. A recently uncovered tape recording at the Ambassador Hotel's pantry by freelance journalist Stanislaw Pruszynski also suggests there were 13 shots on June 5. Analysis has revealed five of the shots could have been fired from another direction to where Sirhan's weapon was positioned. Kennedy's autopsy report also revealed his body and clothing were struck from behind, at right rear, by four bullets fired at upward angles and at point-blank range. But witnesses said Sirhan fired somewhat downward, almost horizontally, from several feet in front. Rhodes-Hughes, whose witness account is now being reviewed by the federal judge, first met Kennedy two-and-a-half years before his death at NBC-TV studios in Burbank, California. In the make-up room being prepared for her role in Morning Star, she said she was 'starstruck' when he entered. He was there to pre-record an interview. She said: 'I saw Robert Kennedy and everything else disappeared from view. There was an aura about him that was very captivating. He kind of pulled you in. 'His eyes were very deep set and they were very blue. And when you looked at him, you got very drawn in to him.' She said it was at that point she decided to help Kennedy, who was then a Senator for New York, should he ever decide to run for the top job of President. Kennedy, the most seriously wounded of the six people shot, was gunned down just moments after claiming victory in California's Democratic primary election. He died the next day, while the other victims survived. Although Sirhan's lawyers are calling for his release, Rhodes-Hughes, who was never called to testify at the trial, said he should remain in prison. She said: 'To me, he was absolutely there. I don't feel he should be exonerated. There definitely was another shooter. The constant cover-ups, the constant lies - this has got to stop.'

The US-led coalition went to war, and in the process killed almost a million people, in order to capture Usmah bin Laden, who allegedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks from the caves in Afghanistan.

To avenge the killing of innocent civilians, by killing many more innocent civilians is a perverse notion of justice.

If dispensing collective punishment is the policy, then it makes little sense to talk of innocence or guilt. Thus a suicide bomber is no different to those dropping bombs from a distance, both dispensing collective punishment on a community.

Yet there was constant talk of guilt, and everybody pointed the finger at Usamah Bin Laden. He was conveniently killed, instead of being captured and put on trial � which would have provided the perfect opportunity to discover who was telling the truth. Of course, that is assuming he was going to be given a fair trial, rather than one based on �evidence� acquired from water-boarding and other forms of torture that are regularly used by the Americans, euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation". Today we hear Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others are being tried as the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon has already said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted he was responsible "from A to Z" for the 9/11 attacks. In that case, chasing Bin Laden for 9/11 was a lie, unless one can provide clear evidence that Usmah Bin Laden liaised with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plan the 9/11 attacks or he was ordered by Bin Laden to do so. It would be interesting to hear what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said about the role of Usamah Bin Laden in planning the 9/11 attacks. Everyone knows the maxim � innocent until proven guilty; it is implied that the process is carried out through a court of law that is fair. Accordingly, the Taliban at the time offered to hand over Bin Laden to a neutral court that would offer a fair trial. The Americans were not interested, and preferred the cowboy �justice� of water-boarding in the hellish dungeons of Guantanamo Bay or Abu-Ghraib to get their evidence. Indeed, official documents have shown that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to water-boarding - or simulated drowning - 183 times in 2003 [1]. The limited access given to the legal representative of the defendants and the secret nature of the �evidence� presented along with the �evidence� obtained from torture makes this legal process a laughing stock. Even the former chief US prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay has denounced the military trial as unfair, simply because the world will never see any trial as legitimate where evidence was obtained through torture [2]. This farcical trial serves one purpose - that is to pretend that the US has been civil and upheld the values it preaches to other countries. To be fair, the current US President did suggest trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a normal city court in New York, but met resistance. Some residents objected, saying the security hazard and the disruption the trial would pose to city life would be too much to bear. What security hazard, given that Al-Qaeda is almost finished, and the US has ample resources at hand? Or do they think Al-Qaeda men will appear like X-Men with extraordinary powers? Isn�t justice more important than minor inconvenience to city life? Even the US President knows that Guantanamo Bay is an embarrassment, especially if you want to lecture other nations like China, Iran, Sudan, and North Korea. One of his pre-election promises was to close down the prison, but he failed due to so much opposition from within; it reconfirms the perverse nature of the American mindset when it comes to the notion of justice. Yamin Zakaria (

Friday, May 4, 2012

Strange Traffic

NOW there are NO cameras from me or US- (PLEASE as I have a very limited perspective and ability)

The camera that I was holding I tossed into the woods with a right throw when I saw the Merceedees SUV pull up and pause.

That was meant as det... to thwart something that MUST NOT HAPPEN -- think about that RED Van -- as it was ROCKY, our 2nd shizu dog waiting in the driveway, that refused to get out of the driveway on his own will.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Sharon Tate ... You Said Their Names

Please- this is meant to be without ANY disrespect to the memory of Sharon Tate nor any of the other victims of the utterly depraved Charles Manson Cult.

added May 24, 2012
on the days around August 10

We Were Living in Political Madness

As we pass from The Age of Darkness to The Eternal Age of The Light


Living in politicial madness

Sam Smith

After three decades
of national policies damaging the average American, it is amazing that the reaction has been as calm has it has been. Highly deceptive propaganda, the collapse of liberalism, and the atomizing ipodization of ordinary life have all contributed, but even these can't permanently conceal the fact that most Americans are being badly screwed. And know it.

The arrest of "anarchists" allegedly plotting to blow up an Ohio bridge is a reminder that just because something is delayed doesn't mean it isn't coming. A reasonable expectation is that the number and intensity of violent reactions will increase substantially. And the reasons won't simply be public anger. It has been part of the strategy of our government since 9/11 to create fear in order to justify actions to protect themselves. One thing our leaders understand is that the anger is directed at them far more than at ordinary citizens. It was, after all, the World Trade Center and not Dubuque that was attacked.

The rise in public anger will vary from the heroic to the inspiring to the badly misguided. The corporate media will inevitably use the latter examples to characterize all of what is happening and to justified new police assaults on our Constitution and communities.

Hence we can expect to hear much about the Ohio bridge episode, even as we hear virtually nothing about the numerous bridges on the verge of collapse due to Republican [* AND Democrats] greed and indifference. It is one of the characteristics of such times that only those with the power to enforce the law may violate it with impunity. Thus our president can
murder at will, trash the law and never have to worry that those three reporters in the corner of the press room might actually be FBI agents. [Emphasis' added]

In such times - when some are blowing up bridges and others blowing up the law  - a sense of anarchistic chaos develops. A plethora of madness and a paucity of common sense.

Central to maintaining one's own sanity at such times is to not let the media, bomb throwers, the FBI or politicians define our world and situation.

Ignore that rule and you find yourself falling into a fantastical miasma. For example, consider this report by NPR:

The FBI announced this morning that it "has arrested five people on terrorism charges, accusing them of planning to blow up a bridge near Brecksville, Ohio," our colleagues at WKSU report.

The station says the bridge on State Route 82 "crosses over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park near Brecksville and Northfield." And it adds that "the FBI says the five were identified as self-proclaimed anarchists with no connection to international terrorism. They're accused of conspiring to get C-4 explosives that would be detonated remotely."

According to CNN, the FBI says in a statement that "the public was never in danger from explosive devices ... [the suspects were] closely monitored by law enforcement ... [and the explosives were] inoperable and posed no threat to the public."

Cleveland's Plain Dealer writes that, according to the FBI, the men had "planted what they believed were explosive devices under the Ohio 82 bridge ... as part of a May Day protest today."
Now, one might ask, where did they get these inoperable explosive devices? Based on past experience, the most logical source was the FBI. We might also ask, to what extent did the FBI encourage and create this enterprise in the first place? Did the agents con some not so intelligent "anarchists" into doing something they probably wouldn't have done if the FBI had never been there to show them how?

We won't know the answers, if at all, until a lot of other things have happened. But we do know that, as David Shipler wrote in the NY Times:

The United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years ­ or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts. But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.
Now count the number of laws that President Obama, law enforcement agencies, and public officials of all sorts have routinely broken. Then consider the anger this has created and the encouragement to meet fire with fire that it has caused. For every bomb that explodes or envelope of white powder that appears on the desk of someone in power,  ask yourself: would this have happened if those in power had operated within the law and with respect and sanity?

There is, of course, no way to sort all this out without the distance of history. But in the meanwhile, those seeking a road back to democracy and decency have to avoid getting caught in the cauldron  of craziness. Bridge bombers, much of the police and media, and many of our political leaders have enormous vested interest in chaos. The answer is not in judging righteousness of specific acts but in resolving the conflicts that created the problem in the first place.

The rest of us need to keep helping to build an alternative reality unruled by chaos and violence. We can not let ourselves be defined by the madness of others.