Archive | October 25, 2014

U.S. Government Agents ‘directly involved’ in many U.S. Terror Plots*

U.S. Government Agents ‘directly involved’ in many U.S. Terror Plots*


“In many of the cases we documented, there was no threat until the FBI showed up and helped turn people into terrorists.”

A new report has revealed a disturbing set of tactics used in the pursuit of domestic terrorism in the USA. Among the findings was the fact that the FBI directly and repeatedly involves itself in planning a large percentage of foiled terror plots — often by convincing impressionable or mentally disabled people to join FBI plots, then arresting them.

Human Rights Watch published the 214-page report, titled “Illusion of Justice: Human Rights Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions.” It documents a number of cases which the group describes as being marred by overly-aggressive prosecution, entrapment, and draconian treatment of prisoners.

“Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the U.S.,” said Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report.

“But take a closer look, and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.”

Post-9/11 anti-terrorism investigations have often utilized secret evidence, anonymous juries, extensive pre-trial incarceration, and reached convictions for allegations significantly removed from actual plots, the report shows.

While noting that some terror plots are genuine, the report contends that “in some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act.”

This startling phenomenon occurs when the FBI uses its confidential informants — paid assets of the bureau — to incubate fake terror plots and lead individuals to act in ways that will lead to their arrest. There are about 15,000 paid informants employed by the FBI (2008 estimate). These assets played an “active role” in setting up sting operations to arrest suspects in fake terror plots in roughly 30% of terrorism investigations since 2001.

When approaching designated individuals, FBI actors would often make comments on “politically sensitive” subjects “that appeared designed to inflame the targets.” If the targets’ “opinions were deemed sufficiently troubling,” the FBI would often move forward with staging an event and enticing the target to play a role.

One such operative joined a mosque in a downtrodden community in Bronx County, NY. Bearing expensive gifts and touting radical opinions, he stood out amongst other locals; many living in boarded-up houses, and suffering from addictions, poverty, and high rates of crime. In the months that followed, the FBI operative meticulously planned every aspect of a completely fake scheme, promoting it to several black Muslim men he met at the mosque. The FBI operative even went so far as to offer one man $250,000 to participate. Ultimately, the sting operation netted 4 “terrorists” who each received 25-year prison sentences.

But without the persuasion and incentives, it is unlikely the so-called “Newburgh Four” posed any threat to national security.

“One had mental issues so severe his apartment contained bottles of his own urine. He also believed Florida was a foreign country,” the Guardian reported.

In fact, numerous other cases were also found to have involved mentally ill or disabled individuals. One suffered from seizures and had a full-time caretaker.

“In many of the cases we documented, there was no threat until the FBI showed up and helped turn people into terrorists,” HRW director Prasow said to the Washington Post.

The Human Rights Watch report found that 18% of the terrorism-related convictions since 9/11 — stemming from 494 cases — were for charges of “material support of terrorism,” not actual participation in any plots of violence. Following the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, it became criminal to have even mild associations or exchanges with individuals deemed to be part of blacklisted groups. Under this law, people have been charged with material support for donations of things like cash, calling cards, watches, socks, and sleeping bags. The same charge also allows the government to criminalize things like translating documents or providing web services for the wrong people. All of this is allowed to happen regardless of the existence of any plotting or malicious intent.

“The report clearly shows, in many respects, the American public is being sold a false bill of goods,” remarked Ms. Prasow, on the illusion of safety and justice created by this brand of crime-fighting. “Far from protecting Americans, including American Muslims, from the threat of terrorism, the policies documented in this report have diverted law enforcement from pursuing real threats,” she said.

The report also found numerous perversions of due process, including excessive delays before holding trials, lengthy periods of solitary confinement, and secrecy regarding the evidence used to convict suspects.


Related Topics:

Malcolm X’s Grandson Baited and Killed

The Black Stereotype: Socially Engineered in the FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Real Black Leaders*

Police Brutality: Protestors Shut Down Times Square*

Canada: ISIS False Flag Served to Bring in Draconian Laws*

Without Impunity for Killing a Sleeping 7-Year Old in the Head?*

ISIS: A CIA Trojan Horse to Justify War Abroad and Repression at Home*

Father Tasered, Beaten and Arrested for Picking up his Daughter*

Ferguson Police Delivered a Legal Blow*

Chart of Deaths from Police Shooting*

Pro-Israelis Finance U.S. Police Training*

From Factory Farming to the Dinner Plate: Livestock Sicker than Ever Due to Antibiotics*

From Factory Farming to the Dinner Plate: Livestock Sicker than Ever Due to Antibiotics*

By Willy Blackmore

A new study suggests that regularly dosing animals is a worse idea than was previously thought.

It has long been understood that feeding animals antibiotics can create resistant bacteria – bacteria that can cause problems for human health. That’s why the Food and Drug Administration has been concerned for decades over the practice of giving livestock subtherapeutic doses to promote growth. While the agency has yet to do much of anything to curb the problem, save for some voluntary regulations, new research suggests that the steady supply of drugs could make animals sicker – and cause disease to spread more rapidly.

The new study, published this week in the journal PNAS, looked at how salmonella bacteria was spread in a population of mice. When treated with antibiotics, mice that were sick but showed relatively low amounts of salmonella in their droppings started behaving more like “superspreaders,” shedding more bacteria and suffering more acute symptoms. Meanwhile, other mice that, before being treated, passed higher amounts of bacteria and showed fewer symptoms did not shed any less salmonella after receiving an antibiotic.

If the results hold true for other animals, such as chicken or cattle – and lead author Denise Monack, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, believes they will – then the amount of antibiotics fed to livestock may be even more troubling than was previously thought.

“We need to think about the possibility that we’re not only selecting for antibiotic-resistant microbes, but also impairing the health of our livestock and increasing the spread of contagious pathogens among them and us,” Monack told Science Daily.

While the findings aren’t quite as dramatic as higher-ups at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention talking about the post-antibiotic era, they are further ammunition for groups that are pushing for more, and more substantive, federal regulations.

This week also saw new action on that front, with Consumer Reports releasing the results from a survey of doctors. After speaking with 500 family doctors and internal medicine specialists, the group’s report that 93% of M.D.s said they are concerned with antibiotic use in livestock, while 47% said they are “extremely concerned” with the practice.

“The use of antibiotics in animals for non-therapeutic purposes is contributing to their failure in humans, including the youngest of children, who are most prone to complications from bacterial illness,” Maria Brown of the Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a press release from U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a partner on the survey.

“Simply put, sick infants and children and the doctors like myself that care for them need effective antibiotic drugs.”


Related Topics:

Herbal Remedies the New Antibiotics

Meat By Any Means 

It’s Time to Get Real About Halal/Kosher Meat!

Poisoned Meat Returned to Where it Comes from – the U.S!

Organic Food and Meat Shortages Hit a Morally Unstable Drought-Ridden America*

Britain’s Secret Plan for the Invasion of Grenada*

Britain’s Secret Plan for the Invasion of Grenada*

By Phil Miller

Today marks the anniversary of the 1983 Invasion of Grenada in the Caribbean…

… codenamed Operation Urgent Fury, which squashed a revolution on the tiny island that dared to challenge US control of the Caribbean. Margaret Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister at the time, felt put out because US President Ronald Reagan had kept her in the dark about his plans to land troops on the former British colony. But newly discovered documents reveal that the previous Conservative government had hatched a virtually identical invasion plan almost a decade before the Americans stormed the island in order deal with a younger version of those same revolutionaries.

Grenada was once a British sugar plantation worked by African slaves. By 1974, Grenadian strongman Eric Gairy looked set to become the country’s first prime minister when the Brits eventually left. His power led Gairy to believe in UFOs, compare himself to God, and rely on a personal militia called the Mongoose Gang to crush protests against his increasingly dictatorial leadership.

As mad and ruthless as Gairy was, his presence on the island represented stability for British interests. So, British spies in the Caribbean were busy trying to stop opposition elements from assassinating him on Independence day, “when his public presence amongst crowds, noise and fireworks might present a favorable opportunity,” according to declassified UK government files that I found at the National Archives in London.

One intelligence report, marked “secret,” was written by an MI5 officer. Describing his work as “intelligence” might be a stretch, however, as the British spook also reported,

“On the other hand, the West Indian temperament does not seem to lend itself to determined and fanatical action except sporadically.”

That sounds like a weird mix of guesswork and racial stereotyping rather than legitimate insider information.

Nevertheless, the files reveal that information from this officer prompted the British military to prepare a full-scale invasion plan on the eve of Grenada’s independence, “to restore law and order and constitutional government. This would involve a reversion to colonial rule,” the foreign secretary warned Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath in January 1974.

MI5 was worried about the New Jewel Movement (“Jewel” was an acronym for “Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education and Liberation”). It was viewed as “an extremist organization whose main aim is the overthrow of Gairy and his government (by force if other means fail) and the setting up in its place of a people’s revolutionary regime.” The files show that Britain’s economic interests in the Caribbean were comparable with investments in India and oil reserves in the Middle East. They reveal that MI5 spied on Grenada’s trade unions and ran informants inside the New Jewel Movement (NJM) in the months before independence, looking for plots against Gairy.

MI5 did this knowing that Gairy was no angel. Their intelligence reports refer to his Mongoose Gang as “ruthless” and described it as “an un-uniformed and undisciplined body… many of them have criminal records.”

In the end, the British invasion plan was never used, because Gairy clung to power during independence. It would be another five years before the NJM ousted Gairy in a coup, creating a progressive republic in the Caribbean that would be a thorn in the side of American free marketers with slogans like “Education: A Right, Not a Privilege.”

Chris Searle, a former speechwriter for the NJM leader, told me he was surprised to learn about the UK’s contingency plans, as the movement had viewed British imperialism as in the past, unlike the threat of American aggression. But the British plans were credible. The secret intelligence reports on Grenada were compiled by the MI5 station on the neighboring island of Trinidadwhich had orchestrated the overthrow of Guyana‘s democratically elected government in 1953 when Winston Churchill feared the country’s leader, Cheddi Jagan, was too left-wing.

British concerns about the NJM overthrowing Gairy in Grenada went to the very top of the government. On January 25, 1974, the foreign secretary advised the prime minister that “the internal situation in Grenada has deteriorated seriously in the last few weeks. There have been strikes, interruptions of public services, and demonstrations which have led to violence including shooting, with resultant casualties including three deaths. Nevertheless Mr. Gairy’s Government is still in control. There is a fair chance that, with the security forces at his disposal (the police and the newly recalled ‘police aides’ [the Mongoose Gang]), he will succeed in containing the situation at least until independence on the 7th February 1974.”

However, the foreign secretary warned the PM that drastic measures had to be contemplated.

“In the worst case it is possible that the government may not succeed in retaining control so that it becomes impracticable to transfer sovereignty on the 7th of February to a cohesive and effective authority,” he wrote.

This would put the UK in a difficult position, the minister explained, and an invasion to restore “colonial rule” had to be considered.

Britain’s defense secretary then convened a meeting on January 30 with the military top brass to discuss a secret paper titled “Grenada: Policy on Intervention by HM [Her Majesty’s] Forces.” On the scenario of “Intervention to restore law and order after a breakdown of the Gairy Government,” the briefing noted that “the Ministry of Defense has examined in general terms how such an operation might be mounted.”

The plan bears striking resemblance to the 1983 US invasion. It involved a battalion of Royal Marines or paratroopers, a squadron of helicopters, and warships with “sufficient logistic support for 28 days’ operation.” Military lawyers even asked,

“What would be the legal position of British forces sent into the Island? If a Marine, in the course of his duty, should kill a local inhabitant, would he be liable for trial by court-martial for the civil offense of, for example, manslaughter?”

The papers also show how British planners were concerned about deploying the Parachute Regiment in Grenada, “whose associations with Londonderry we might wish to avoid in the Grenada situation”—a reference to the paras’ role in the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre of peaceful protesters in Ireland. You can see why. In November 1973, Gairy’s Mongoose Gang had shot activists in an episode known as Grenada’s Bloody Sunday.

In fact, Whitehall had sanctioned Gairy’s crackdown. The foreign secretary sent a secret memo to the prime minister in May 1973 warning, “There are signs that the role of the official Opposition in Grenada may before long be taken over by a newly formed Black Power organization.” The minister suggested, “It might be better that Mr. Gairy should have a free hand to keep such developments under control in an independent Grenada than that we ourselves should run the risk of becoming involved in the task.”

The UK Foreign Office did not respond to requests for comment.


Related Topics:

Fourteen Caribbean Nations Demand Reparation from Colonial Britain*

The Taino of the Caribbean: the People Who Do Not Exist

J.C. Duvalier: An Evil Cloud Over Haiti Comes to an End*

100,000 Haitians Say: End Occupation, Remove Puppet Government*

Haiti: The Divine Right to Enslave Others*

Controling Haiti’s Gold

Canada: ISIS False Flag Served to Bring in Draconian Laws*

Canada: ISIS False Flag Served to Bring in Draconian Laws*

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Prime Minister Steven Harper and the Canadian federal government are using the shooting rampage on Parliament Hill as a justification for imposing surveillance and detainment measures that they were already implementing and going forward with.

On October 22, 2014 a solitary gunman named Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (originally Michael Joseph Hall) from the Québécois city of Laval went on a shooting spree in downtown Ottawa, the capital of Canada.

Firstly, it was reported that there were shootings in the Rideau Centre which from the northern side of the Mackenzie King Bridge faces National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), the nerve of Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND). This proved to be false or wrong. The gunman had killed a reservist guard in front of the National War Memorial and then made his way northward to Parliament Hill.

Secondly, it was reported that there were multiple gunmen. As a result all government employees were not allowed to enter or leave their respective buildings throughout the interprovincial National Capital Region, which includes the city of Gatineau. Although the police did the right thing in taking precautions to make sure that there were no other gunmen and declined to give explanations, the public was led to believe that there were multiple shooters. This justified the lockdown and suspension of mobility that took place for hours.

A lot of important questions also remain unanswered. NBC News reported on October 8, 2014 that US intelligence officials told it «that Canadian authorities have heard would-be terrorists discussing potential ISIS-inspired ‘knife and gun’ attacks» inside Canada. Canadian officials, however, dismissed the report. Did US intelligence know something that its Canadian counterparts did not know? Why the contradictions?

Another important question is the following:

How could an armed gunman that had already started a rampage make his way into the Centre Bloc of the Canadian Parliament unchallenged?

Anyone that has been to Parliament Hill knows that there is a relatively large armed presence on the whole area and, specifically, at the entranceway and doors which is comprised of Canada’s national police force (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), the local municipal police (the Ottawa Police Services), and two special federal forces (the House of Commons Security Services and Senate Security).

Framing: Media Discourse and Government Policy Links

Also, if he was indeed in touch with terrorist groups, how was he communicating with them?

Complicating the picture is the case of Martin Couture-Rouleau. Couture-Rouleau is a French-Canadian who became a Muslim in 2013. He deliberately hit two Canadian soldiers with his car in the Québécois town of St-Jean-sur-Richelieu on October 20, 2014. One of the soldiers would later die.

Couture-Rouleau would be chased by the police and then gunned down after his hit-and-run attack. Although the fatal hit-and-run murder in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a criminal act, it has been presented as terrorism and linked to Canada’s involvement in the fighting in the Middle East. The attacks in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa have no connection and are not part of some coordinated effort, but have been connected to one another. The hit-and-run attacks have been added to the narrative of what happened on October 22 to construct the image of an all-out battle. This is part of what sociologists call a moral panic, which will be explained anon.

What exactly motivated this gunman? It appears that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau/Michael Joseph Hall was not part of some intricate plot against Canada by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He had a criminal record and appeared to be psychologically deteriorating from increasing narcotics usage. He was troubled by hallucinations and heavy drugs, and became a Muslim relatively recently. According to information coming from people who knew him, it appears that he was upset with «the government» for not leaving him alone. This anger could be tied to the social workers and parole officers in his life and a suffocating feeling of being caught in a downward spiral.

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was staying at the Ottawa Mission, a homeless shelter, between two weeks and a month. Before he went on his rampage, he told other people at the homeless shelter to pray because the world was coming to an end. In this context, it is also important to ask: how a psychologically troubled man staying at the Ottawa Mission homeless shelter could get a weapon?

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, however, has been portrayed to varying degrees as an ISIL member, which is being used to support the narrative that Canadians are under immediate threat from the ISIL by societal actors that sociologists call «moral entrepreneurs». The goals of moral entrepreneurs are to change societal norms, values, laws, and regulations. In this case the moral entrepreneurs want to sell a security agenda.

Although the gunman that attacked Parliament Hill was a French-Canadian (who had adopted both the last name of his Arab-Canadian stepfather and biological mother’s maiden name) that spent most of his life being a Roman Catholic Christian (starting off as a devout Christian and then falling out of practice over the years), he has been portrayed or framed differently. From the start there was a tacit drive to give him an Arab and Muslim persona. Even when his identity was discovered, his Arab-Canadian stepfather was portrayed as his biological stepfather. The adoption of his stepfather’s Arabic last name was tacitly presented as a marker of his Muslim identity, even though he was a Christian when he adopted the Arabic last name alongside his mother’s maiden name due to legal reasons.

Very telling was how the media initially described Zehaf-Bibeau. He was referred to as a «Canadian-born man.» This is very deceptive language and discourse that needs to be critically analyzed. When someone is called «Canadian-born» it means that they are not really Canadian, but are merely born in Canada. Referring to a Canadian citizen in these terms conceptually strips them of their Canadian identity and otherizes them as a foreigner that does not belong to the collective.

The Media Reaction

Many Canadians are proud of their media’s reaction and have contrasted it to the sensationalism of US media. Although the media in Canada was much calmer than how the US media would have reacted under similar circumstances if the same incident took place in the United States, it was still emotionally charging the atmosphere with a sense of siege on Ottawa. Headlines and news broadcasts included titles like «Ottawa under attack.» Ottawans were liberally afraid that the ISIL was attacking Canada’s shores.

Speculation about a Middle East connection kept being raised throughout the day. By the time that Prime Minister Harper spoke in the evening, it was clear that he wanted to link the events to the Middle East and the terrorism panic to justify his security agenda.

The media coverage, the massive lockdown in Ottawa’s downtown core, and the national measures taken by the federal government created a degree of panic in Ottawa and among Canadians. Under this type of atmosphere, people can act unpredictability or abnormally and they are willing to make concessions to the government that they would not normally agree with making. In other words, when societies are gripped by fear many of their members are willingly to forfeit their civil liberties and let them be stripped by the authorities.

The New Normal and the Striping of Civil Liberties

When the Rideau Centre was stormed by three armed robbers in 2003 and half the local police force’s fleet was sent after the two of them that escaped, the same panic did not exist nor did the media give it as much urgency or attention. Arguably the danger to safety was much greater then, even though an important national institution was not being attacked.

Legally speaking, Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau are murders. Instead of treating violators of the law as criminals, the politicized and psychologically-charged terms of «terrorism» and «terrorist» are being applied. All the laws to deal with these criminals are in place in Canada, but new legislation is instead being made that also has the potential to be used against legitimate dissenters who oppose government policy.

Moreover, the police are being militarized under the new security paradigm of fighting terrorism. The day after the attack on Parliament Hill, on October 23, the severity of the police reaction to a homeless man crossing a yellow police line is testimony to the change in security habitus and tensions among the police in Ottawa. The measures that the Harper Government wants to normalize also include control and censorship over the internet, the unconstitutional and illegal act of taking citizenship away, and removing the mobility rights granted by the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The last measure has already begun with the confiscation of passports.

All Canadians have the right to leave and enter Canada freely, unless they have committed a crime. The government wants the ability to take passports away on mere suspicion without evidence. In the case of Martin Couture-Rouleau, he was detained and had his passport taken away when he wanted to go Turkey in June or July 2014. The police could not arrest him and had to let him go, because of his views. «We could not arrest someone for having radical thoughts. It’s not a crime in Canada,» RCMP Superintendent Martine Fontaine explained in an October 21, 2014 press conference.

The position of the RCMP says a lot about where the Harper Government wants to go with its new security paradigm. It wants the ability to arrest people for their views.

Revoking Citizenships?

Even more dangerous is the flirtation with the idea of revoking citizenship. Already unconstitutional precedents are being set for removing it among the so-called Western coalition of countries that consistently pay lip service to democracy and then stand shoulder to shoulder with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Qatar. For example, the British Parliament took steps to remove the British-born Asma Al-Assad’s British citizenship in 2012 simply on the account of the fact that she was Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s wife.

The Canadian legal system does not treat everyone equally and all people are not equal in the court system. Non-citizens are disadvantaged compared to Canadian citizens. In this context, the threat of stripping citizenship away is being viewed instrumentally as a way of circumventing the domestic laws and rights protecting citizens. Without these rights the government can indefinitely detain someone without charge, put them on trial in special security courts where they will not even be told what the evidence against them is, and be prevented from accessing a lawyer. This has been the case of some non-citizens living inside Canada that have been held on security certificates for years.

The idea of taking citizenship away is also a political issue being used to politically cater to segments of different societies in various countries that have xenophobic views and dislike certain strata in their societies for various reasons.

Ignoring the Roots of the Problem

There is an old saying that society gets all the criminals it deserves. What is meant by this is that many criminals arise out of a structural problem in society.

It is no coincidence that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau once asked to be detained to fight his cocaine and crack addiction. Both attackers were drug users and had psychological problems that needed to be helped. In the case of the gunman in Ottawa, he tried reaching out for help and felt a toxic feeling of hopelessness and not belonging.

Instead of looking overseas or blaming outside forces, Canada needs to look inside. The roots of the problem include the declining social services of Canada that have progressively faced government cutbacks and austerity measures. By blaming the ISIL and the internet the government is also refusing to acknowledge this failure and the marginalization of many members of Canadian society that are not getting the help they need.

The Slippery Slope and the Harper Government’s Dirty Hands

There is a call for Canadians to be vigilant against an inflated terrorist threat from the ISIL. This is why Prime Minister Steven Harper and his government are doing their best to portray the events in Canada as an extension of the front in the Middle East. Redefining criminals as terrorists is helping reinforce this perception. Canadians and the citizens of other countries, however, should be vigilant over their rights and freedoms that took centuries of struggle to obtain.

Changing the criterion for the granting of citizenship is a whole different topic, but its removal is a dangerous and slippery slope. Although the claims are that these type of measures are for the greater good or public safety, the historic record has shown that the suspension of civil liberties has been used for ulterior motives.

As a final note, the same people inflating fears of terrorism in Canada have also supported it overseas. It should never be forgotten that Prime Minister Steven Harper and his cabinet supported the «terrorists» they now claim to oppose. The Harper Government tacitly encouraged Canadians to go fight in places like Libya and Syria for the sake of assisting Washington’s foreign policy of regime change. Canada even armed the militants linked to Al-Qaeda in Libya with drones and weapons in 2011 and allowed private security firms (mercenaries) to assist them. This should not be overlooked when people question how such a state of affairs has arisen.


Important details have emerged that strengthen the case against the Harper Government as intellectually dishonest opportunists.

(1) The Toronto Star originally reported on October 20, 2014 that multiple witnesses confirmed that Martin Couture-Rouleau’s hands were in the air in surrender when he was shot. Here is a passage from the article: «Witnesses who spoke with the TVA network Monday afternoon said they saw a man emerge from the flipped vehicle that was lying in a ditch on the side of the road. The man had his hands in the air and was walking toward police when at least one officer opened fire on the suspect. The witnesses said they heard up to seven gunshots.» Later the article would redact this and be re-edited.

(2) A Canadian investigative journalism webpage (, noticed that before the scene was secured in Ottawa at 10:54 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) that the US news network CBS reported the following: «The gunmen has been identified by U.S. officials to CBS News as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian national born in 1982.» This was many hours before Canadians were even told the gunman’s identity or that he was alone. The CBS article would even be edited to remove Zehaf-Bibeau’s name or any mention that the US government was aware of it. Although security can be cited for this, it can also be looked at politically as part as a means of keeping the public in suspense and allowing a state of shock to reverberate across Canada so that the Harper Government can justify its foreign policy and security initiatives.


By Amy MacPherson

A terrible tragedy befell the nation’s capital yesterday, when a shooter opened fire at government sites in Ottawa. A full investigation must begin to assemble the details, as the flames of hysteria are fanned in the public consciousness. The words “terror” and “terrorism” have been tossed around so casually, that nowadays any hardened criminal would classify as a terrorist according to the Harper Government and mainstream news sources. For that matter, political activists who take issue with the government’s policies at home and abroad are referenced in the same manner.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, social media is rife with suspicion that this horrendous event may represent a false flag operation, to assist the government’s dismantling of civil liberty and human rights in the name of war, profit, political posturing and public control.

That’s not to say this wasn’t an act of terrorism. Maybe it was, but surely it’s too early to reach a conclusion when the names of suspects hadn’t been released to hypothesize a motive. Or had they?

At 10:13am EDT, The Globe and Mail‘s Josh Wingrove reported that tactical officers were pointing guns at every parliamentary journalist on site.  (Post since removed from Twitter.)

At 12:11pm EDT, The CBC’s Kady O’Malley reported her group was ordered to leave a local rooftop by police, as they continued to search for a culprit and attempted to secure the area.

By 1:14pm EDT, Ms. O’Malley reported a continuing lockdown that blanketed Ottawa. She was unclear if the event was over, as no further information was available.

While Canadian news personalities were at police gunpoint, American outlets like CBS News and the Associated Press had a full story to sell, complete with the dead shooter’s name.

Before the scene was secure at 10:54am EDT, a joint release was published to identify the culprit. It stated,

“The gunmen has been identified by U.S. officials to CBS News as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian national born in 1982.”

By 4:58pm EDT, the story was edited to remove the shooter’s name, or any mention of the U.S. government’s knowledge.

The only problem is no one could update the Google database quick enough with these changes, so the original information still appeared with general search results.

The story was altered again in the evening, when the Canadian government allowed the name of a shooter to be released and American media added law enforcement to their list of official sources.  They also added a middle name, Abdul, to emphasize the suspect’s Islamic ties with an accusation of terrorism.

As members of parliament begin to piece this tragedy together, they’re advised to inquire how American intelligence knew the name of a ‘possible terrorist’ as the mayhem was still unfolding. How did Americans know when Canadians didn’t, and how was this information so widespread that American media and Google had access to distribute, but domestic reporters on the scene did not.

Canadian parliamentary bureau chiefs didn’t posses the same information as their U.S. counterparts and faced the barrel of police guns as a press narrative was provided on their behalf by another country. If this is dubbed an act of terrorism that American sources had knowledge about to pre-report, then why weren’t steps taken to prevent the violence?

Many have questioned how a gunman could enter parliament with a rifle unnoticed, in spite of the massive security and busy lineups. Some are calling for greater state police control and warmed to relinquishing their Charter rights, in an effort to fight the new war on domestic terrorism. Something has to justify police militarization since the War on Drugs has been transformed into a lucrative product of capitalism.

The Liberal Party of Canada campaigned against the Harper Government’s ‘politics of fear’, but when they tasted the fear for real this time, the opponents relented and threw their support behind the Prime Minister. The party press release was carefully worded and commendable under the circumstances, but it does resort to the word “terrorize” and submits to the government’s long term agenda.

All Canadians who pay attention to the news are acutely aware of a creeping police state and the loss of privacy rights in the tradeoff. In fact, one Liberal MP, Joyce Murray, proposed Bill C-622 to gain oversight of CSIS and CSEC, so Canadian law enforcement can’t overstep its bounds to the degree that’s been revealed through Snowden leaks.

This shooting event also occurs at a time when the Mayor of Ottawa is seeking re-election, with a history of accommodating CSEC as a business partner.

The journalist who brought these Snowden leaks to light is in town to promote his new book about the overreaching powers of a surveillance state. Glenn Greenwald will be speaking just a few blocks from Parliament Hill, in the same neighbourhood that’s under lockdown. It’s purely coincidental that he wrote a scathing piece about the Canadian government and co-dependent media’s abuse of the word “terrorism” a day earlier.

Meanwhile, the NDP noticed a different terrorism anomaly regarding the violence in Quebec on the day before as well. The Prime Minister’s Office was accused of planting a foreboding comment in Question Period, that preempted police reports of a “possible terror attack against soldiers”.

Public Safety Minster Steve Blaney reported the Monday event was “clearly linked to terrorist ideology”, but the Toronto Star reported multiple witnesses saw the suspect with his hands in the air, when at least one police officer opened fire. They also say a knife was “lodged into the ground near where the incident occurred”.

Well, that’s what the original story by Allan Woods, Bruce Campion-Smith, Joanna Smith, Tonda MacCharles and Les Whittington stated. A syndicated copy had to be located at the Cambridge Times, because a newer, edited version at the Toronto Star appeared dramatically altered by Tuesday.

Forsaking journalism ethics, the Toronto Star surprised industry watchers by editing this story without providing a notice to reflect the consequential changes. Now the article claims the suspect was an Islamic radical, who emerged from the vehicle with a knife in his hands. There is no mention of any witnesses who saw his hands in the air and the knife was no longer lodged in the ground. All information from witnesses was removed without explanation, or apology for reporting incorrectly at the onset if indeed the witnesses were mistaken. The French press at TVA still values the eye witness accounts, but no English speaking media reflects these reports from the scene.

This TorStar article was more than edited and qualifies as being replaced entirely, having lost its tone, facts and spirit from the original published version. It was radically changed to support the government’s narrative and censored independent sources that previously appeared, replacing them with quotes from the Harper administration that focus on the suspect’s motive for Islamic terrorism.

If it wasn’t for smaller newspapers syndicating the Toronto Star‘s original content, there would be no proof of the first comprehensive version. Professional journalists don’t normally condone editors changing the spirit of their work without a disclaimer, especially when five reporters collaborated to produce the same entry. The history created by print newspapers also couldn’t be erased with the click of a button, before the media migrated to internet based reporting that appears to lack mechanisms of accountability.

These two examples oppose each other due to the disparity between facts and there is no footnote to reflect this glaring incongruency. The Toronto Star has been a leader in journalism ethics and wouldn’t alter published pieces to discredit their own reporting without a reason being provided. That is, until they and a bevy of established journalists who remained silent, had a taste of the politics of fear.

It remains to be seen if the New Democratic Party will throw its support behind the Harper Government, as Mulcair deliberates about a public statement that is yet to be released. NDP caucus members who were barricaded in an office describe a loss of safety and feelings of fear though.

Any reasonable person should be afraid when gunshots are flying from hostile individuals, but will the politics of fear be allowed to dictate a terrorism narrative in place of the facts? The Opposition’s privacy and ethics critic, MP Charlie Angus, also describes gunshots around 10am EDT, while American media had solved the event by 10:54am EDT and members of parliament were still being detained without access to the same information.

If the U.S government could assess a terrorist attack on Canadian soil before the Canadian government was aware, then why was it not prevented? On the same token, if the Canadian government was in the middle of mayhem, then how did Americans obtain information that wasn’t available to affected bureaucrats from their own intelligence and law enforcement agencies? What powers does America have over Canada that Canada doesn’t have itself? If a shooting on government property can be solved before it’s even finished, then why wasn’t CSIS, CSEC, DHS and the NSA capable of early intervention? After all, the Wednesday shooter was already placed on the government’s watch list.

The timing is incredible and may very well be motivated by the war against ISIS/ISIL. Canada shed its peacekeeping status for more aggressive combat that generates profits for the Canada Pension Plan and Nigel Wright, with the potential to invite ideological backlash. This is not disputed. An unbiased investigation is required, but the public should be patient for confirmed, judicial facts; bearing in mind political motives, various narratives and the race to sell fear.

On the very day terrorism was alleged in Quebec, the Harper Government passed Bill C-13 without much notice from the peanut gallery. Until Monday, Bill C-13 was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that was presented under the guise of cyber-bullying, but even the mother of Amanda Todd spoke against the exploitation of her daughter’s death as a tool to create a warrantless surveillance state in this vein.

Due to terrorism accusations made by the Harper Government that took up most of the day, no mainstream news reported the bill’s passage later in the same day. CBC was the only major outlet to mention the bill on Monday, but they neglected to note the House of Commons vote or passage of this legislation at any point in the story. They presented the information as incremental progress while failing to report its successful, parliamentary completion.

This too presents a problem with ethical journalism, but CBC has seen its fair share of challenges since the Harper Government appointed ten Conservative donors to the board of directors, with influence over the public broadcaster’s direction.

Regardless, the only mention of Bill C-13 passing arises from a Saanich News editorial. The smaller publication urges everyone to be vigilant as this legislation completes the last step of approval (ascent) with senate, that is dominated by a Conservative majority.

Surprisingly, the senate passed a first reading of Bill C-13 the very next day. It accomplished that hurdle expediently on Tuesday, but this wasn’t reported by any source whatsoever. Senators then scheduled a second reading in two days’ time, on Thursday, October 23, 2014. The only lapse in this process was the Wednesday parliamentary shooting.

By today Bill C-13 may see the quickest passage through any bureaucracy in the democratic world, without the public or media noticing and while legislators are reeling from the ominous smell of gun smoke. Neither the parliamentary reporters who stared down the barrel of a police gun on Tuesday, nor the members of parliament who were barricaded, would be rested very well.

Plus there’s an RCMP press conference about the Wednesday shooting that will surely distract attention from the new law. In the days ahead, it’s likely they’ll tout Bill C-13 as a way to catch terrorists, also under the guise of cyberbulling and even though being watch listed with preexisting surveillance powers didn’t prevent Michael Zehaf-Bibeau from taking action.

This brings us to what’s at stake. The taboo nobody wants to evaluate. The decision senators will have to make while recovering from a psychologically traumatic breach of personal security.

We’re talking about public data surveillance, or what closely resembles stalking.

There are plenty of ambiguous words used to describe big data monitoring, but few understand what it means or how deeply it’s abused behind the sealed doors at CSEC. Warrantless internet surveillance has the potential to track a target’s GPS movements with updating by the minute. It can penetrate the entire chain of communication between an individual and their contacts, including strangers who make reference to the target by any degree of separation across the world wide web. The technology has predictive behaviour capabilities. Every citizen caught in this widespread dragnet is psychologically assessed through language semantics and assigned a persuasion, to determine if any of them presents a public relations issue, or if the original target has too much influence to garner support for their business, political and/or social beliefs.

Five Eyes governments have established media surveillance programs specifically. They surveil news topics and journalists, to monitor the reporter’s effect on public perception. When anyone posts a news link on any form of social media, all comments are collected and ranked for government and law enforcement dissemination. Canada spent $20 million and hired 3,300 staff to spy on journalists and political opponents since 2012. The European Commission and United States does the same, in this vacuum of nonexistent legislation to protect the public’s privacy in the modern age. Instead of updating constitutional rights to reflect modern technology, they’ve crafted legislation like Bill C-13 that revokes those rights entirely.

This goes beyond the confines of metadata and only the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has taken up the cause, likely to the chagrin of political parties that have begun to use similar technology against their opponents during elections. Whatever good this intrusive spying could accomplish is outweighed by the bad. Michael Sona only possessed a list of phone numbers and intentions, let alone mapping of the entire public’s thoughts and updates on the location of political foes by the minute.

If anyone physically tailed a political candidate, volunteer or supporter every minute of the day and night, or attempted to record every one of their exchanges, it would be considered criminal harassment. If that person also tailed every contact who spoke about their target and psychologically assessed them to create charts, it would surpass Hollywood’s fascination with the complex plotting of serial offenders.

But this isn’t fiction and warrantless internet surveillance can be used to harm a civilian, based on their political beliefs. In the United States it’s already used to surveil judges in addition to journalists, adding a difficult challenge to the essence and appearance of democracy. The dialogue is strictly controlled to conceal these uses and they’re couched in the terrorist argument, to discourage the public from searching deeper.

The Harper Government was first to import these tactics to Canada. Then the Liberals and NDP followed suit, claiming they’d be at a disadvantage for electoral purposes. As the public was being shocked into the idea of domestic terrorism, Bill C-13 passed without discussion to transform Canada into a surveillance state that permits this behaviour outright.

Residents have been told if they don’t break the law there is nothing to fear. This subverts any purpose for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaces that document with a Trust Me clause from the government. It replaces the core legal relationship between citizens and law enforcement with unrestrained power and no need for oversight to justify its use. It imperils evidentiary laws that are designed to protect the innocent.

Perhaps lawyers have been quiet about this issue because one of the government surveillance contractors also controls their Quick Law program, as well as court and university databases. Perhaps professors have been quiet because they hire these surveillance companies to monitor their science and research fellows at a prominent Canadian university that partners with CSEC.

To hear what this technology and warrantless surveillance can do to ordinary families when abused, a comprehensive interview with an affected Canadian journalist can be heard at the season premier of The View Up Here. This clip begins at 3:15 (to avoid some technical issues) and surprising revelations develop as the process and ramifications of surveillance are explained by example. The interview further details government censorship of the press in North America, with international consequences. It’s two hours long and worth the investment if the public wishes to retain its right to have beliefs or join like-minded groups with one another.

Beyond the dry language of legislation, this is how the words of Bill C-13 can be utilized by an aggressive government, law enforcement and the Five Eyes intelligence community. Suggested reading provides the history and development of technology and related policies in Canada, the United States and Europe. It was becoming law in Canada when the airwaves were filled with terrorism accusations and the government expected no one to notice. It also relates to media surveillance that could explain a few altered stories, removed posts and political misunderstanding within the party apparatus itself.


Related Topics:

Hoaxville from Ottawa to Fake US Airdrop For ISIS

Foiled: The Simulated ISIS Attack on U.S. Soil*

Chechen President Calls the Kettle Black: Baghdadi is a CIA Agent*

ISIS: A CIA Trojan Horse to Justify War Abroad and Repression at Home*

The NWO’s ‘Grand Chessboard’ of Lies‏

Canada and Israel Partners in Racial and Humanitarian Crimes*

Face It Canada has No Sovereignty*

A Ruling that Highlights Indigenous Love of the Land and Canada’s Destruction of It*

ISIS Flags Found in Israel*

Dismantling Society: Becoming the Flesh-Eating System*

Putting Australia under Raps*

U.S. Opposes Proven Cure for Ebola Confirmed by Sierra Leone*

U.S. Opposes Proven Cure for Ebola Confirmed by Sierra Leone*

A government official in Sierra Leone says that some people are recovering from Ebola because of a new treatment. The Minister of Information Alpha Kanu recently wrote in a letter that “this works; people are getting better.” But efforts to get this information and the treatment itself to people have met with great opposition on the part of the United States FDA and others. At this point, every option to treat Ebola, both pharmaceutical and natural, remains experimental. So why is this one option being met with so much resistance?

The option that has Kanu’s enthusiastic approval is a nutrient that is not manufactured by a big-name pharmaceutical company. It is called Nano Silver, in a 10 parts-per-million solution, made by the non-profit Natural Solutions Foundation. But it has not been easy to get the product to the countries that need it most.

According to a statement by NSF’s Medical Director Dr. Rima Laibow, a shipment of the product was shipped to Sierra Leone on August 20. However, it didn’t arrive until “September 28, 5 weeks later while the disease spread and people suffered and died unnecessarily because international forces opposed the simple clinical demonstration of the nutrient.” The shipment follows a statement made by the World Health Organization on August 12, reported by Mashable, that acknowledges that there is not yet a proven treatment, but even unproven options should be made available to people afflicted with Ebola.

“In the particular circumstances of this outbreak, and provided certain conditions are met, the panel reached consensus that it is ethical to offer unproven interventions with as yet unknown efficacy and adverse effects, as potential treatment or prevention.”

The FDA in the U.S. has cracked down on the Natural Solutions Foundation, as well as two other companies marketing natural products, for making disease claims that they have not authorized, as reported previously by The Inquisitr. NSF is pushing back. According to the FDA’s website, nutritional supplements, essential oils, herbs, and other natural products cannot claim to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” Those products must post a disclaimer declaring such, because according to the American government, “only a drug can legally make such a claim.” No matter how effective a natural substance may be, there is, in effect, a gag order on any and all companies marketing them, preventing them from saying so.

Most of the companies selling such products maintain that their products strengthen the body so that it can repair and heal itself. Apparently, that is what is happening in Sierra Leone. Alpha Kanu sent a letter to Dr. Rima saying that “[t]here is no illness that doesn’t have a cure.”

Just before the shipment reached Sierra Leone, Kanu reportedly made it clear that his government did not need FDA approval to offer it as a therapy option, according to Star Africa. The Honorable Alpha Kanu is a trained chemist, who believes that the people who are suffering in his country have the right to use any and all treatment options that are available to them. It is “a matter of choice,” he believes, resting “on the patients or their families, as to whether to administer it as treatment for Ebola.” The Information Minister worked with President Ernest Bai Koroma to get the nutrient into Sierra Leone.

The American FDA has a long history of suppressing information and companies that offer non-pharmaceutical, natural therapy options, according to Natural News. The gag orders regarding non-drug options for Ebola are simply the latest in a long string of actions aimed at maintaining the monopoly. Nano Silver 10 PPM is not a drug but a nutrient, and as such, is not subject to FDA approval. Nutrients are not capable of being classified as “FDA approved.” Yet, Dr. Rima has collected links to dozens of studies verifying the effectiveness and safety of Nano Silver, including a declassified study by the U.S. Department of Defense from 2009 which found that silver nanoparticles neutralize hemorrhagic fever viruses, including Ebola and Marburg.

Kanu notes that, though the unproven drug Zmapp has been highly touted by drug companies as effective, his country has not yet been on the receiving end of that pharmaceutical option.

An article by Black Agenda Report accuses the drug companies of having sinister motives, saying that “the treatment and cure have been held up until now quite simply because of the need for pharmaceuticals to make profit.” Mohga Kamal-Yanni further elaborates.

“Large companies will not invest in research and development for rare and neglected diseases, due to the limited scope for profit. They will continue producing the medicines that can make the highest profits rather than the therapies that are desperately needed for public health.”

According to Kanu, a “philanthropic” Sierra Leonean who is based in Atlanta, Georgia, Imam Sheikh Massally has been credited with sending a shipment of the silver product to be tried for Ebola patients.

“He sent the nutrient Nano Silver – this works; people are getting better. The supply is enough for 300 people and we are going to bring some more.”

Dr. Rima reports that it is not only Ebola patients in Sierra Leone who are benefiting from the silver nutrient therapy.

“High level, reliable sources tell us from at least 4 countries in Africa that Ebola victims appear to be recovering from this deadly infection coincident with them receiving the remarkable nutrient, Nano Silver 10 PPM. This is very hopeful news.

Their own immune systems appear able to regulate disease-causing multiplication of the weaponized, patented, unleashed and otherwise deadly Ebola virus to maintain homeostasis. They are among those considered ‘lucky’ to have survived.

“Not one country, but several, are reporting these results. Nano Silver 10 PPM is helping people faced with the health disaster move from illness to health.”

Last week she wrote an open letter to the Dallas nurse who first contracted Ebola, offering the Nano Silver 10 PPM free of charge to her and any other person in the U.S. who tests positive for Ebola, for as long as they are able to provide it.

Questions must be asked.

Why is the FDA so intimidated by the free sharing of information about a substance that could work?

What harm is there in people choosing to take the product, even in conjunction with more traditional therapies?

If there is a serious crisis threatening a large part of the human population, why does it matter who gets the credit?

Would not true leaders be more interested in solving the problem and saving lives than in political agendas or lining the pocketbooks of certain interests?



Related Topics:

Nano-Silver Used in Eradicating Ebola in Nigeria Prevented from Reaching Liberia and Sierra Leone*

Research on Successful Ebola Drug Shut-down Two Weeks Before Proclaimed Outbreak*

Liberia: Ebola Vaccine Induced Fatalities and Formaldehyde Dumping in Water Wells*

In Ghana: Vaccine Induced Ebola*

Ebola Fears: Raising the Ugly Head of Racism*

Eugenics: The Genetic Engineering of Ebola in the 1980s*

Scientist Says U.S. Responsible for Ebola Outbreak in west Liberia*

Nigerian Logistics and How they Beat Ebola*

After the Profitable War on Drugs and Terror, National Guard are to be the Ebola-Busters*

Professor Connects the Dots between Ebola and the U.S. Military Complex*

Medical Mafia Gunning for the Medicine that Works Against their Interest*

A Herbal HIV-AIDS Treatment that Works!

Further Proof Bill Gates is Linked to Ebola*

A Rotten Smell Emanating from the Ebola Scare*

Ebola Victim Lives to Tell the Tale*

Closer to the Truth of the Latest Ebola Outbreak*