Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth declared homegrown terrorists

[Original_Intent]

This was posted on another forum by Dr. Steve Jones, the BYU professor who found nano-thermite in the 9/11 dust samples. The link he provided in his post did not work, so I am simply reposting his post from that forum.


Hard to believe -- but OTOH, expected...


http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/new-o...000-americans/

Posted by EU Times on May 31st, 2010 // 77 Comments



Quote:
Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.

First introduced in the US Congress in 2007 by Democratic Representative Jane Harmon, this new law passed the US House of Representatives by a secretive voice vote, but failed to pass the US Senate, after which it was believed dead until this past week when it was embraced by Obama who became the first American President to name his own citizens as a threat to his Nations security.

In what is called the National Security Strategy document, that is required of US Presidents by their Congress, that embraces the dictatorial ideals of the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”, Obama has ordered his Federal police and intelligence forces to begin targeting Americans opposed to him and his radical socialist polices.

Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, in speaking to reporters about this new “strategy” says it makes the problem of home-grown terrorists a top priority because an increasing number of individuals in the US have become “captivated by extremist ideology or causes.”

The Times of London is further reporting that Obama’s new National Security Strategy “officially” ends America’s “War on Terror” in what they call “a sweeping repudiation of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes.”

And as Obama begins re-focusing his forces from fighting America’s foreign enemies, to those opposed to him in his own country, it is important to remember the warning about this new law given by the former CIA official, Philip Giraldi, who had previously warned of the Bush-Cheney plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, and who said:
“The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Harman’s bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as “homegrown terrorists.”

The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out.
Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country.

The ten commission members will be selected for their “expertise,” though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them.

Harman’s bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn’t.
Language inserted in the act does partially define “homegrown terrorism” as “planning” or “threatening” to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label.
The act also describes “violent radicalization” as the promotion of an “extremist belief system” without attempting to define “extremist.”

As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting, Giraldi further writes that The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in testifying before the US Congress in support of this new law, swore that an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” was an example of a homegrown terrorist organization, leading one Russian diplomat in this report to state “If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore”.

As another example of how dictatorial the Obama regime has become, and as the Gulf of Mexico oil debacle has now become the worst ecological disaster our World has ever seen, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this past week slammed American reporters for “asking too many questions about BP”. Leading one to ask that if Obama’s regime can’t be asked about this disaster, what can they be asked about?

The answer is apparently none, as Obama himself, just this past week, in announcing his signing of a new law called the Press Freedom Act refused to answer any reporters questions and abruptly left them standing in stupefaction over the irony an ordeal that shows how far America has fallen.

Another irony apparently lost upon the American people is that their President Obama, who has been dubbed “The Great Communicator”, now holds the dubious distinction of having held less press conferences than any American President in modern history. And if yesterday’s press conference, his first in nearly a year, was any example one can see why as incredulous press corps was left astounded that Obama had no knowledge of the firing/resignation of one of his top officials.

[JenH88]

no questions no questions.. dont think... these arent the ones youre looking for... lol... darn that extremist philosophy of having questions...

[lynnf]

try this one:


http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/new-obama-law-warned-will-jail-500000-americans/

[dannno]

The anti-truthers are going to bring down our movement by keeping all important information like this under wraps so the media doesn't harass us for not following lock-step with their agenda.. we'll all be sitting in fucking FEMA camps and the anti-truthers will be like, damn, I didn't know the government was that malevolent :rolleyes: and it will be too late...


BTW, non-truther and anti-truther are not the same. Don't want to believe in '9/11 truth'? Great. Want to debate on the topic? Fantastic. Want to call truthers names and tell them to stfu? You are the problem.

[jclay2]

The anti-truthers are going to bring down our movement by keeping all important information like this under wraps so the media doesn't harass us for not following lock-step with their agenda.. we'll all be sitting in fucking FEMA camps and the anti-truthers will be like, damn, I didn't know the government was that malevolent :rolleyes: and it will be too late...


BTW, non-truther and anti-truther are not the same. Don't want to believe in '9/11 truth'? Great. Want to debate on the topic? Fantastic. Want to call truthers names and tell them to stfu? You are the problem.

Totally Agree Danno. Asking questions is good and should not be frowned upon.

[erowe1]

The anti-truthers are going to bring down our movement by keeping all important information like this under wraps so the media doesn't harass us for not following lock-step with their agenda.

It's not "all important information." It's just another made up story by Sorcha Faal like everything else she puts out.

If the Simon Wiesenthal center had submitted testimony to Congress claiming that Architects and Engineers for Truth were a terrorist organization, then we wouldn't need to read a report from Sorcha Faal based on some secret Russian intelligence that only she has seen, which got the information from various other rumors on websites. We'd be able to read it in the Congressional Record.

And even if the Simon Wiesenthal Center had done that, it still wouldn't be any basis for saying that the Homegrown Terrorism Act itself defines Architects and Engineers for Truth as terrorists, which, again, would be something we could learn just by reading the law itself altogether apart from any secret Russian intelligence.

[erowe1]

Totally Agree Danno. Asking questions is good and should not be frowned upon.

Asking questions is good. Propagating unfounded stories just because they fit the conspiracy theory of one's choice is bad.

[paulitics]

The anti-truthers are going to bring down our movement by keeping all important information like this under wraps so the media doesn't harass us for not following lock-step with their agenda.. we'll all be sitting in fucking FEMA camps and the anti-truthers will be like, damn, I didn't know the government was that malevolent :rolleyes: and it will be too late...


BTW, non-truther and anti-truther are not the same. Don't want to believe in '9/11 truth'? Great. Want to debate on the topic? Fantastic. Want to call truthers names and tell them to stfu? You are the problem.

I agree, it would be like taking the heart out of the movement. We can all be a bunch of drones philosophising about the merits of libertarianism, but that will get us nowhere since their are libraries of progressive thought vs our small bookshelf.

How do we counter the lies? We can't if we accept the false parameters that the establishment has built for us.

People need to be shaken up, their worldview must be shattered in order for them to give up their time to do their own research. Otherwise, they will just trust the TV and newspapers to do their thinking for them.

[Fredom101]

The anti-truthers are going to bring down our movement by keeping all important information like this under wraps so the media doesn't harass us for not following lock-step with their agenda.. we'll all be sitting in fucking FEMA camps and the anti-truthers will be like, damn, I didn't know the government was that malevolent :rolleyes: and it will be too late...




BTW, non-truther and anti-truther are not the same. Don't want to believe in '9/11 truth'? Great. Want to debate on the topic? Fantastic. Want to call truthers names and tell them to stfu? You are the problem.

Agreed. ;)

[nobody's_hero]

I don't understand why it is so difficult for truthers to believe in the concept of "blowback" (as Ron Paul does).

But, for the government to label them "homegrown terrorists"? These people are harmless. Illogical, maybe, but harmless, and I'm not pleased at how whimsically our government labels people as terrorists.

[jmdrake]

It's not "all important information." It's just another made up story by Sorcha Faal like everything else she puts out.

If the Simon Wiesenthal center had submitted testimony to Congress claiming that Architects and Engineers for Truth were a terrorist organization, then we wouldn't need to read a report from Sorcha Faal based on some secret Russian intelligence that only she has seen, which got the information from various other rumors on websites. We'd be able to read it in the Congressional Record.

And even if the Simon Wiesenthal Center had done that, it still wouldn't be any basis for saying that the Homegrown Terrorism Act itself defines Architects and Engineers for Truth as terrorists, which, again, would be something we could learn just by reading the law itself altogether apart from any secret Russian intelligence.

The report is accurate. I'm surprised you are surprised after the MIAC report said we were all terrorists.

Anyway the actual testimony is available online:

http://homeland.edgeboss.net/wmedia/homeland/chs/internetterror.wvx

You can skip ahead to about 44 minutes in and watch from their. Note that the presenter tries to link people who want border security in with "Al Qaeda" also. :eek:

Also note the the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth contacted the presenter about this, posted his response, and their response to his response.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/23

[erowe1]

The report is accurate. I'm surprised you are surprised after the MIAC report said we were all terrorists.

Anyway the actual testimony is available online:

http://homeland.edgeboss.net/wmedia/homeland/chs/internetterror.wvx

You can skip ahead to about 44 minutes in and watch from their. Note that the presenter tries to link people who want border security in with "Al Qaeda" also. :eek:

Also note the the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth contacted the presenter about this, posted his response, and their response to his response.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/23

I'm still trying to get the video to work. But from what I just read both in the correspondence at ae911truth and in the official transcript of Weitzman's testimony (http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20071106144414-90408.pdf), it doesn't look to me like he said anything about them being terrorists, only that they some websites like theirs propound conspiracy theories. And even if he did call them terrorists, that's not the same thing as the law itself declaring them terrorists or any actual government policy declaring them terrorists, which is what was implied in the tread title and the article, it would only be some guy's opinion expressed in a testimony. The MIAC report was despicable, but it didn't declare any of us (much less all of us) terrorists, and even that was still just someone's report and not a law.

And, incidentally, if Sorcha Faal is such a good source for us to uncover these secret U.S. government conspiracies that only she knows about from her secret anonymous Russian spy sources, why can't her articles actually present worthwhile primary sources like you just did, rather than second hand rumors? And why should we treat her reports as "valuable information," for what they claim about official American government policy that, if true, could be easily verified, rather than just base our claims about what American law says on the actual words of the laws that we're talking about?

[carlos1215]

the ZioGlobalist crime family has one chink in their armor...and that chink is - the ridiculous fairy tale that is the 911 official story.

we need to exploit this unblievable fairy tale...and expose it

u non-truthers need to man up and look at the actual facts...


www.ae911truth.org

[dannno]

I don't understand why it is so difficult for truthers to believe in the concept of "blowback" (as Ron Paul does).


What makes you think that they don't :confused:

[jmdrake]

I'm still trying to get the video to work. But from what I just read both in the correspondence at ae911truth and in the official transcript of Weitzman's testimony (http://homeland.house.gov/SiteDocuments/20071106144414-90408.pdf), it doesn't look to me like he said anything about them being terrorists, only that they some websites like theirs propound conspiracy theories. And even if he did call them terrorists, that's not the same thing as the law itself declaring them terrorists or any actual government policy declaring them terrorists, which is what was implied in the tread title and the article, it would only be some guy's opinion expressed in a testimony. The MIAC report was despicable, but it didn't declare any of us (much less all of us) terrorists, and even that was still just someone's report and not a law.


Ummmm.....the Simeon Weisenthal Center isn't the government so nothing they said could be "law" anyway. I thought that was clear, but maybe it's confusing. Any non government entity can "declare" someone to be a terrorist. In fact the government can "declare" someone to be a terrorist without that "being the same thing as the law itself". District attorney's often use the term "unidicted co conspirator". That's the government "declaring" you to be part of a conspiracy. It could be a terrorist conspiracy. It has no force of law.

If you want to split hairs over the MIAC report find. It declared us "potential" terrorists. Irrelevant anyway because a declaration of "terrorist" or "potential terrorist" does not in itself carry the force of law. (Joe Lieberman's disgusting bill hasn't passed yet thank goodness).

As for the report on the website, I haven't read all of it. I jumped straight to the video. And in the video the presenter clearly linked "9/11 truth" sites with "terrorism" just like he linked "gay bashing" sites and "anti immigrant" sites to terrorism. It was all lumped under "terrorist training material". Apparently terrorists need to know how to build bombs, how to beat up gays, how to shoot illegal immigrants coming across the border, and that 9/11 was actually done by people pretending to be them.



And, incidentally, if Sorcha Faal is such a good source for us to uncover these secret U.S. government conspiracies that only she knows about from her secret anonymous Russian spy sources, why can't her articles actually present worthwhile primary sources like you just did, rather than second hand rumors? And why should we treat her reports as "valuable information," for what they claim about official American government policy that, if true, could be easily verified, rather than just base our claims about what American law says on the actual words of the laws that we're talking about?

I'm not defending Sorcha Faal. I could care less about her. (I didn't even know he was a she). I'm pointing out that this story wasn't "made up". Maybe you disagree with the title. Maybe you disagree with the wording. But the gist of it, that the Simone Wiesenthal center attempted to link 9/11 truth with terrorism, is accurate.

[Wesker1982]

I must have missed it when AE911 became violent...

[erowe1]

Ummmm.....the Simeon Weisenthal Center isn't the government so nothing they said could be "law" anyway. I thought that was clear, but maybe it's confusing.
Of course you're right about that. But the article was deliberately unclear on exactly that point, such as when she quotes the anonymous Russian spy source saying, "If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore" in a paragraph that begins with the words, "As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting..."


you disagree with the wording. But the gist of it, that the Simone Wiesenthal center attempted to link 9/11 truth with terrorism, is accurate.

I definitely disagree with the wording, and it definitely was designed to make it look not just like some guy from SWC attempted to link 9/11 truth with terrorism, but it tried to leap from the existence of that testimony to the U.S. government "declaring" 1,200 members of ae911truth terrorists. Sure, there are ways that could happen apart from being written into laws. But those other things too, such as the MIAC report, or federal indictments of co-conspirators would still be things where there would be official government documents making those declarations, not some connecting dots using an implication someone made in a testimony to Congress.

If people want to complain about whatever the SWC guy did in his testimony, then just do that without adding the sensationalistic connection with the Homegrown Terrorist Act.

[Slutter McGee]

I am going to do something weird and agree with danno.

I have spoken out against promoting 911 truth...but only when associating it with Dr. Paul in a way that politically damages our movement.

I have no problem with the 911 truth movement in and of itself, and to suggest that people who distrust the government are terrorists is completely assinine and a bit scary.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[jmdrake]

Of course you're right about that. But the article was deliberately unclear on exactly that point, such as when she quotes the anonymous Russian spy source saying, "If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore" in a paragraph that begins with the words, "As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting..."



I definitely disagree with the wording, and it definitely was designed to make it look not just like some guy from SWC attempted to link 9/11 truth with terrorism, but it tried to leap from the existence of that testimony to the U.S. government "declaring" 1,200 members of ae911truth terrorists. Sure, there are ways that could happen apart from being written into laws. But those other things too, such as the MIAC report, or federal indictments of co-conspirators would still be things where there would be official government documents making those declarations, not some connecting dots using an implication someone made in a testimony to Congress.

If people want to complain about whatever the SWC guy did in his testimony, then just do that without adding the sensationalistic connection with the Homegrown Terrorist Act.

Except the connection with the "Homegrown Terrorist Act" isn't "sensationalistic" IMO. The act itself doesn't declare any group as "terrorist" but it leaves that up to the discretion of the congressional commission. And to me that article is clear on that.

Again from the article:

Harman’s bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn’t.
Language inserted in the act does partially define “homegrown terrorism” as “planning” or “threatening” to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label.

The act also describes “violent radicalization” as the promotion of an “extremist belief system” without attempting to define “extremist.”

As an example of those American’s Obama will be targeting, Giraldi further writes that The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in testifying before the US Congress in support of this new law, swore that an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” was an example of a homegrown terrorist organization, leading one Russian diplomat in this report to state “If 1,200 of America’s top architectural and engineering professionals are deemed terrorists simply because they question their governments propaganda than truly no one is safe in the United States anymore”.


I don't see how an honest reading of the article could lead anyone to conclude that the government had at this point deemed anyone as a terrorist. But it is instructive to know the kinds of people the government thinks might be terrorists because these are the types of people that might be brought in before this commission. On the back of the MIAC report there are photos of the movie Zeitgeist (crap movie in my opinion), America from Freedom to Fascism and The "Turner Diaries". That wasn't put on the MIAC report for decoration. Maybe the title is wrong. But anyone looking at this new (potential?) law without considering who the government may be fingering as potential terrorists is not being wise IMO.

[erowe1]

But anyone looking at this new (potential?) law without considering who the government may be fingering as potential terrorists is not being wise IMO.

I agree on that.

But there's a difference between using examples like the MIAC report and the Wiesenthal Center guy's testmony to support the reasonable suspicion that affiliation with certain non-terrorist groups may factor in as part of the profile the government uses when trying to find homegrown terrorists and saying, "Here's an example of whom Obama will (not might) go after as terrorists - all 1,200 members of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth." I also think that the claim that the SWC "swore" that members of that group are terrorists in his testimony is completely inaccurate. I still can't see the visual aid he used, but I heard the audio, and I get how it was a problem. But he didn't swear in his testimony that they were terrorists.

The article should just use rhetoric that states the facts accurately. To me those little words make a big difference. If the article just gave the unembelished facts it wouldn't be very sensational, and people probably wouldn't bother posting it on any forums.

Edit: Also, I'm not really up to speed on what all is in the Homegrown Terrorist Act. But I'm not sure that its failure to define the word "terrorist" means that the commission can define it however they want like the article claims.

The U.S. code already has a detailed definition of what qualifies as terrorism and domestic terrorism. Part of that came from the Patriot Act, but for the most part it's a definition that has been part of the law since well before that. It doesn't include anything about being a member of a group like AE 911 Truth, at least not all by itself apart from actual involvement in some violent crime. I don't agree with the way terrorism is defined, or even the fact that such a crime exists at all. I object to it the same way I object to hate crimes laws, since I think the crime of murdering someone should be murder, whether your motivation is political difference (now defined as terrorism), or racism (now defined as a hate crime), or because your a sadistic cannibal satanist (now defined as simple, run-of-the-mill, murder). But, all that being what it is under current law, I don't think you can just combine the fact that this new law doesn't define "terrorism" with the fact that the things you've mentioned have been associated with terrorism by various people and conclude that the new law would mean the government could charge someone with terrorism just for their being the member of one of these groups.

[carlos1215]

I don't understand why it is so difficult for truthers to believe in the concept of "blowback" (as Ron Paul does).

But, for the government to label them "homegrown terrorists"? These people are harmless. Illogical, maybe, but harmless, and I'm not pleased at how whimsically our government labels people as terrorists.

cuz "blowback" doesnt cause 900.000 tons of concret to turn into instant powder

[carlos1215]

op....and/or mod

can u change thread title so that AE doesnt show up on google linked to "dt"?

[jmdrake]

The text of the Homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization act can be found here.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

I put "violent radicalization" in bold because I think you are overlooking that. From the definitions in the bill.

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

9/11 truth could be seen as an "extremist belief system". Further because the presenter tied 9/11 truth to "terrorist training sites" it fits the definition (by his argument) of "facilitating ideologically based violence".

Also I think the "might" part that you think is missing is in fact implied. The commission clearly hasn't been set up yet. Technically a home grown Al Qaeda sell fits the definition of something that "might" be targeted by this commission. And the article only said this was an "example" of some future occurrence as a fact.

Anyway, I will simply agree to disagree on your interpretation of the article. If the article has gotten you to now read the act itself and realize that it's not just aimed at "terrorism" but also what it deems as things that facilitate "violent ideology" then the article has done some good.