Thursday, March 23, 2006

Bundle of News

CNN Produces Balanced Piece On Sheen 9/11 Comments

911 Blogger | March 23 2006

Comment: We are amazed and flabbergasted by how fair this piece is and it should help encourage other high profile figures in the public eye like Charlie Sheen to come forward.

Tonight marks the first instance where those that question 9/11 were given a fair shake at voicing their opinions. While little can be said in just 10 minutes of coverage, it was at the very least a reasonable discussion and an important milestone for the 9/11 truth community.'s media coordinator Mike Berger did a great job with the short time he was allotted while the host A.J. Hammer allowed for a good live discussion and avoided the all-to-familiar Bill O'Reilly style of 'news'.

Despite the numerous questions surrounding 9/11 which have gone unmentioned by the mainstream media for the last 4+ years, and the growing number of respectable scholars, government officials, and family members demanding answers - this is the first time a major news station has covered 9/11 questions in any reasonable format, even if it was on a Hollywood celebrity show. If the mainstream media were to truly desire to cover 9/11 further I would hope in the future they might consider a longer format so that all of the news and facts they haven't bothered reporting over the last 4+ years might have a chance to finally be seen and heard. (Hey Showtime and HBO, are you listening?)

I urge all of those who support 9/11 being further discussed by CNN and their affiliates to contact them via their feedback form here. Be sure to reference the host A.J. Hammer, and the show 'Showbiz Tonight'.

MSM Attacks Charlie Sheen Over 9/11 Comments

Finally covers story, Neo-Cons start frothing at the mouth

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison | March 23 2006

The mainstream media has finally seen fit to cover Charlie Sheen's comments on 9/11with both the New York Post and the Boston Herald penning hit pieces that seek to smear Sheen as an unstable crackpot. Several smaller Neo-Con websites are also frothing at the mouth at the latest example of what they see as a Hollywood led 'vast left-wing conspiracy'.

On Monday Charlie Sheen appeared on the Alex Jones Show to go public on his serious doubts about the official story behind 9/11. Despite an early link on the Drudge Report which was quickly pulled, only the Defamer, a LA gossip rag picked up the story. Until today.

New York Post

The New York Post's popular and influential celebrity gossip 'Page Six' section ran with the story today and immediately castigated Sheen as a member of the tin foil hat wearing crowd.

"CHARLIE Sheen has joined the 9/11 gone-bonkers brigade," wrote the Post before quoting some of his statements from the interview.

If that's the case then the Post has just insulted half of its entire readership. A Zogby poll showed that half of New Yorkers believed the government were complicit in the attacks, a stretch that was not even made by Sheen in the interview, who was keen to stress that he didn't know who carried out the attacks, and 66% called for a new investigation. So in effect the Post has demonized two-third of its audience as demented nutcases, something they should perhaps consider in light of falling newspaper sales figures.

Boston Herald

The Herald immediately went for the yellow journalism tactic of attacking the messenger rather than the message, going for the throat of Sheen's personal life.

The Herald finished by quoting Sheen's call for an independent investigation and then stating, "Excuse us if we don’t exactly feel that Charlie’s the man for that job!"

If the Herald has bothered listening to the entire interview then they would have heard Sheen clearly state who he thought should carry out the investigation, retired political foreign nationals with no connections to the Bush administration. Not once did Sheen suggest he should be part of the investigative team, he was merely stating his informed opinion as a taxpaying American citizen, as again did 66% of New Yorkers who said the same thing.

It is quite obvious that the Herald did not listen to the interview and just copied and pasted the quotes over from the original Prison Planet article. This is proven by the fact that the Herald state, "Sheen pointed out that eyewitnesses recounted hearing what sounded like bombs and explosions coming from the basement levels of the buildings and discounted the theory that the damage to the towers’ lobbies was the result of fireballs traveling 110 feet down elevator shafts."

The 110 feet figure was a transcript error that we quickly fixed to the correct number of 1100 shortly after posting the article. The Herald obviously didn't hear the interview and just copied over the 110 feet figure from our original release.

Human Events

On the whole the Human Events piece was the most balanced, the bulk of it consisting of a elongated transcript of the interview. At least these guys, unlike those bastions of professionalism the Boston Herald, had bothered to listen to the interview.

"In an interview with Alex Jones this week, a liberal radio talk show host for GCN Radio Network, Sheen relived his thoughts and shared his theories on what happened that historic day four-and-a-half years ago," states the article.

Alex Jones a liberal? That one's going to keep us laughing all through until next winter! Alex Jones cut his teeth bashing Bill Clinton and in his youth even campaigned for Republicans before waking up to the false left-right paradigm. Within 10 seconds of meeting Alex Jones anyone would know that he is not a liberal. But in the upside down world of neo-cons and neo-libs, where the drumbeat of state worship has flipped them over so many times that they aren't even sure of their own phony political labels, Alex Jones is a liberal.

If George W. Bush, an assault weapons ban supporting, amnesty loving, abortion supporting, biggest spender on federal government ever, faux cowboy from Kennebunkport Maine is a conservative then I guess we're all Hollywood liberals. In truth both Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are real conservatives, adhering to the legacy of the founding fathers who advocated constant vigilance of government.

In addition, the headline, Hollywood Actor Charlie Sheen Calls 9/11 'Conspiracy Theory', is blatantly misleading. Sheen never said words to that effect throughout the entire interview.

Other Festering Neo-Cons

A smattering of smaller neo-con websites (compared to which Prison gets four times as much traffic or more) gnashed their teeth at Sheen's comments, including one poster at, an individual who said he lived in his own world called 'Matworld' - a place where Sheen's comments were not appreciated. Well we're in the real world, he can stay in 'Matworld', worshipping Bush for an hour a day and spending the rest of his time throwing his toys out of the pram eating expensive biscuits his mom bought.

In summary, pressure was brought to bear on the MSM government apologists and in the end they had to respond. The fatal flaw in their argument is that they are preaching to a disappearing choir. At least half of Americans are suspicious about 9/11 and want to see a new independent inquiry. Charlie Sheen is just one of those Americans.

Lords back down on glorification

BBC | March 23 2006

Comment: This is how Blair's authoritarian government works now, never mind that this terror legislation has been rejected SIX times, they just keep pushing it until it goes through. The ID card bill has currently been "defeated" FOUR times, how much longer before that goes through too?

The government has finally won its battle of wills with the House of Lords over proposals to outlaw the "glorification" of terrorism.

In the sixth round of parliamentary "ping pong", peers accepted the government plans by a majority of 112.

Charles Clarke warned peers that Labour had made a manifesto commitment to outlaw the glorification of terrorist attacks and intended "to honour it".

Many peers felt the new law was too vague and would curb freedom of speech.

'Easily understood'

It was also opposed by Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs.

Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland of Asthal urged peers to back the government, saying the glorification offence was easily understood by "the ordinary man in the street".

Conservative spokesman Lord Kingsland asked Tory backbenchers to abstain this time because otherwise the government would use the Parliament Act to push through the Terrorism Bill, which would cause a nine month delay.

He said Mr Clarke had given an undertaking to "reconsider all the measures on terrorism" that were already on the statute book and to replace them.

This would give peers the chance to look at a range of issues "that have given us deep discomfort in the course of this bill".

Will become law

Lib Dem Lord Goodhart said including the word "glorification" would inhibit genuine debate and cause "significant trouble" in the future.

But peers voted against a Lib Dem amendment to the bill omitting any reference to glorification by 172 votes to 60, majority 112. The bill will now become law.

The prime minister had said the measure would allow action to be taken against people with placards glorifying the 7 July bombers - which were seen in London during protests against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

He said the last Commons vote in favour of the new offence had sent a "signal of strength" on fighting terror and he made it clear he expected peers to respect that message.

Rocky ride

Critics say existing laws - and plans for a new offence to prevent indirect encouragement of terrorism - mean the glorification offence is not needed.

The Terrorism Bill was introduced after July's bomb attacks in London.

It has suffered a rocky ride in Parliament, with MPs voting down plans to allow police to hold suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

Former Iraqi minister refutes NBC report he told CIA about WMD

AFX | March 23 2006

Naji Sabri Hadithi, Iraq's foreign minister under Saddam Hussein, denied a report on US TV channel NBC that he provided the CIA with information about the deposed regime's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

'The information carried by the American channel NBC are lies, totally fabricated and unfounded,' Sabri Hadithi told Agence France-Presse in a telephone interview, in his first public remarks since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

'After the lies about the weapons of mass destruction which do not exist and the alleged links with Al-Qaeda, it seems that this new lie is aimed at giving a new fake pretext to justify the crime of the century: the invasion of Iraq.'

NBC reported on Monday that Sabri Hadithi spied for the CIA and traded information on Saddam's alleged weapons programme in return for a 100,000 usd payment, in a French-sponsored New York City hotel room meeting.

But Sabri Hadith described the report as a 'desperate attempt to undermine the reputation of nationalistic Iraqi leaders who opposed, with honour and courage, the Anglo-American-Zionist scheme to invade Iraq.'

He said the NBC report follows 'the failure of attempts (by the US administration) over the years to convince (Iraqi) civilian or military officials ... to betray their country.'

Sabri Hadithi accused NBC of having 'published the lies of the American administration to deceive the American people in a bid to promote the colonialist occupation of Iraq.'

'A few weeks ago, the American channel asked me, in a way that resembled blackmail, for an interview. I apologised, said I couldn't and refused to receive their correspondent,' Sabri Hadithi said.

He said he would be in touch with his lawyers in order to sue NBC.

According to the NBC report, Sabri Hadithi told a CIA middleman that Saddam possessed chemical weapons and wanted a nuclear bomb but needed much more time to build one than the CIA estimate of several months to a year.

He also denied Saddam had any biological weapons.

Straw to demand release of 'MI5 man' in Guantanamo after U-turn

Robert Verkaik / London Independent | March 23 2006

In a foreign policy U-turn, Jack Straw has agreed to intervene in the case of a British resident who has been held in Guantanamo Bay for the past three years.

The concession emerged during a court hearing yesterday after lawyers had alleged that the Iraqi-born businessman, who has lived in Britain since 1985, was an MI5 informer.

Until yesterday Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, had said that the British government would not make any representations on behalf of American prisoners who were not British citizens.

The Government maintains that - as foreign nationals - Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes have no legal right to the assistance they seek.

But the judges heard yesterday that the Foreign Office had conceded that representations would be made to the US authorities for the release of Mr al-Rawi because of the particular circumstances of his case.

His lawyers said afterwards that the decision to intervene was only an expedient way of avoiding the publication of sensitive information about MI5's relationship with Mr al-Rawi.

Bisher al-Rawi, 37, and his Jordanian business partner Mr el-Banna, who was granted refugee status in 2000, were detained three years ago in Gambia.

According to statements before the court, they were alleged to have been associated with al-Qa'ida through a connection with the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada.

Mr al-Rawi, who has a wife and five children living in the UK, has always maintained he had contact with Abu Qatada that was "expressly approved and encouraged by British intelligence", to whom he supplied information about the cleric.

He said representatives of security services had assured him that, should he run into trouble, they would intervene and assist him.
Yesterday, Timothy Otty, appearing for the detainees, told the High Court he would not be alleging that the British Government was "knowingly complicit" in the arrest and the detention of the two men. But, he said, documents attached to a statement made by a security service official, referred to as "witness A", established there had been "communications" between the British and US security services, relating to the two men prior to their arrest .

Mr Otty said: "Viewed objectively, and given the nature of these communications, it was foreseeable detention would occur. We will certainly be contending there has been real injustice and there is a causal link on the part of those acting for the UK in that injustice."

Reprieve, the human rights group that has acted for Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna in the US courts, believes the implication of yesterday's decision is clear.

Zachary Katznelson, senior counsel at Reprieve, said: "It's high time that the British government recognised their responsibilities to Bisher al-Rawi. He's always maintained, and the Government has never denied, that he was helping MI5 by acting as a go-between with Abu Qatada.

"That's his only connection and that is why he was detained - because he chose to help British intelligence."

The judges were told yesterday that there is now "compelling evidence" that the three British residents have been "severely tortured and suffered inhuman and degrading treatment."

The men also remained exposed to a "real risk" of further ill treatment at the detention facility in Cuba.

Now that Mr al-Rawi was likely to have a release request made on his behalf, it did not seem too much to ask, against that background, that all three British residents at Guantanamo Bay should receive assistance from the Foreign Office, argued Mr Otty yesterday.

The hearing continues.

Home Office has details of 35,000 Ulster people's DNA

Michael McHugh / Belfast Telegraph | March 23 2006

Fears over Big Brother-style government resurfaced today after it emerged that DNA samples from thousands of people in Northern Ireland are held on a central database.

Concerns were expressed by political representatives and civil liberties groups following revelations that details of approximately 35,500 people in Northern Ireland are held on a UK-wide DNA database.

The figure was disclosed following a Freedom of Information request by the Belfast Telegraph but officials from the Home Office, who administer the database, said they could not provide any breakdown of how many of those people had been convicted of an offence.

The news that one in every 50 people in Northern Ireland have entries on the system has split those concerned about use of the information from those who focus on the crime-solving benefits of DNA.

Sinn Fein Newry and Armagh Assemblyman Davy Hyland said questions had to be asked about which official agencies had access to the data.

"This seems to be a very large number of people to be on the files and I would have concerns from a civil liberties point of view that people who have not been convicted of anything are on this database," he said.

"People will say that if they have nothing to hide then why be worried about it but it is a different matter when people who have not been convicted of anything have their DNA recorded.

"It smacks a bit of Big Brother and if it could be utilised in some way in the future for a political reason then I would be concerned."

Mr Hyland's warning follow an early day motion in Westminster which noted with concern that 40% of the black population had details entered on the database as opposed to 9% of white people.

DUP Policing Board representative Sammy Wilson said: "I have some sympathy with the police having an extensive database to work from. I just think that as criminals become more sophisticated then the police need to have the means to combat them," he said.

"I can understand why identity cards would be a bit sensitive because of the amount of personal information which they hold but DNA is unique to yourself and I would not be as worried about the abuse of it."

Maggie Beirne, director of the Committee for the Administration of Justice, said she wanted to know who had access to the database and whose details were kept on the file.

"I think that if some of these people have never been arrested for anything, then their details should not be held," she said.

Sheen: What 9/11 Hijackers?

New York Post | March 23 2006

CHARLIE Sheen has joined the 9/11 gone-bonkers brigade. The "Two and a Half Men" star gave a bizarre interview on GGN Radio Network's conspiracy-minded "The Alex Jones Show," in which he suggested that the federal government was covering up what "really" happened.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with boxcutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions," Sheen said.

"A couple of years ago, it was severely unpopular to talk about any of this. It feels like from the people I talk to, and the research I've done and around my circles, it feels like the worm is turning." Sheen said the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "controlled demolition."

The out-there actor also expressed his disbelief over how one of the planes hit the Pentagon. "Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers . . . It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims, we owe it to everyone's life who was drastically altered, horrifically, that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Charlie Sheen doesn’t buy 9/11 spin

Boston Herald | March 23 2006

Charlie Sheen, following in the footsteps of his politically outspoken father, Martin Sheen, has joined the chorus of conspiracy theorists who don’t believe the official version of events surrounding 9/11.

The estranged husband of Denise Richards, who is better known for his affinity for prostitutes and gambling than his Homeland Security credentials, told the GCN Radio Network he doesn’t buy the government’s explanation that “19 amateurs with box cutters (took) over four commercial airliners and (hit) 75 percent of their targets.”

The “Two and a Half Men” star, who was shooting his former sitcom “Spin City” the morning the World Trade Center towers fell, said he was immediately suspicious about the official reason given for the buildings’ collapse. After watching in horror as the South Tower was hit, he said to his brother, “call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”

Sheen pointed out that eyewitnesses recounted hearing what sounded like bombs and explosions coming from the basement levels of the buildings and discounted the theory that the damage to the towers’ lobbies was the result of fireballs traveling 110 feet down elevator shafts.

The father of two also questioned whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon and how President George Bush was able to see the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried.

“I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don’t exist in the known universe,” the actor-turned-pseudo-intellect quipped.

“It is up to us to reveal the truth,” Sheen asserted. “We owe it to everybody’s life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.”

Excuse us if we don’t exactly feel that Charlie’s the man for that job!

What’s Become of Americans?

Paul Craig Roberts | March 23 2006

Imagine knocking on America’s door and being told, "Americans don’t live here any longer. They have gone away."

But isn’t that what we are hearing, that Americans have gone away? Alan Shore told us so on ABC’s Boston Legal on March 14:

When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true, I expected the American people to rise up. They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to régimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorist suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidently, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people even seem to notice. . . .

The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest. Stop for a second and try to fathom that. At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you’re wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This! In the United States of America.

Readers tell me that Americans don’t live here any more. They ask what responsible American citizenry would put up with the trashing of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, with wars based on deception, and with pathological liars in control of their government? One reader recently wrote that he believes that "no element of the U.S. government has been left untainted" by the lies and manipulations that have driven away accountability. So-called leaders, he wrote, "talk a great story of American pride and patriotism," but in their hands patriotism is merely a device for "cynical manipulation and fraud."

The Bush regime acknowledges that 30,000 Iraqi civilians, largely women and children, have been killed as a result of Bush’s invasion. Others who have looked at civilian casualties with greater attention have come up with numbers three to six times as large. The Johns Hopkins study accounted for 98,000 civilian deaths. Andrew Cockburn, using more sophisticated statistical analysis, concluded that 180,000 Iraqis died as a result of Bush’s invasion. The former prime minister Iyad Allawi says that Iraqi sectarian violence alone is claiming 50–60 deaths per day, or 18,000–22,000 annually, a figure that could quickly worsen.

Some were killed by “smart bombs” that weren’t very smart and dropped on hospitals, schools, and weddings. Others were mistaken for resistance fighters and killed. Still others were killed by spooked, trigger-happy U.S. troops. And many died due to the breakdown of the Iraqi health system.

Now comes a report in the online edition of Time magazine that U.S. Marines went on a rampage in the village of Haditha and deliberately slaughtered 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes. The Iraqis were still in their bed clothes, and 10 of the 15 were women and children.

The Marines turned in a false report that the civilians were killed by an insurgent bomb. But the evidence of wanton carnage was too powerful. Pressed by Time’s collection of evidence, U.S. military officials in Baghdad opened an investigation. Time reports that "according to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military’s initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which will conduct a criminal investigation."

If this story is true, under Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush’s leadership, proud and honorable U.S. Marines have degenerated into the Waffen SS. Those of us raised on John Wayne war movies find this very hard to take.

A fish rots from the head. Clearly, deception in the Oval Office is corrupting the U.S. military. One reader reported that on March 19 his local PBS station aired a program which discussed the deaths of two young American soldiers in friendly fire incidents similar to Pat Tillman’s death. In each case, he reports, "elements within the military falsified reports and attempted to shift blame to either enemy combatants or allied (Polish) forces."

The neocons have yet to tell us the real reason for their assault on Iraq, which has so far produced 20,000 dead, maimed, and wounded U.S. soldiers, between 30,000 and 180,000 (and rising) dead Iraqis, and demoralized U.S. Marines to the point that they commit atrocities on women and children.

Would real Americans accept these blows for the sake of an undeclared agenda? Perhaps it is true that Americans don’t live here any longer.



Blogger Bryan said...

Hi, whatever your name is. You've done some great writing here on your blog, but I would like to see you re-enable your post reply feature for comments. It would seem our views are pretty much the same.

Take care and keep up the good work.

7:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home