How Obama Officials Cried ‘Terrorism’ to Cover Up a Paperwork Error
Feb. 11, 2014
After seven years of litigation, two trips to a federal appeals court and $3.8 million worth of lawyer time, the public has finally learned why a wheelchair-bound Stanford University scholar was cuffed, detained and denied a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii: FBI human error.
FBI agent Kevin Kelley was investigating Muslims in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2004 when he checked the wrong box on a terrorism form, erroneously placing Rahinah Ibrahim on the no-fly list.
What happened next was the real shame. Instead of admitting to the error, high-ranking President Barack Obama administration officials spent years covering it up. Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and a litany of other government officials claimed repeatedly that disclosing the reason Ibrahim was detained, or even acknowledging that she’d been placed on a watch list, would cause serious damage to the U.S. national security. Again and again they asserted the so-called “state secrets privilege” to block the 48-year-old woman’s lawsuit, which sought only to clear her name.
Rahinah Ibrahim. Photo: University Putra Malaysia
Holder went so far as to tell the judge presiding over the case that this assertion of the state secrets privilege was fully in keeping with Obama’s much-ballyhooed 2009 executive branch reforms of the privilege, which stated the administration would invoke state secrets sparingly.
“Under this policy, the Department of Justice will defend an assertion of the state secrets privilege in litigation, and seek dismissal of a claim on that basis, only when necessary to protect against the risk of significant harm to national security,” reads an April signed declaration from the attorney general to U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who presided over the Ibrahim litigation in San Francisco.
The state secrets privilege was first upheld by the Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era case and generally requires judges to dismiss lawsuits against the United States when the government asserts a trial threatens national security.
In his declaration, Holder assured Judge Alsup that the government would not be claiming national security to conceal “administrative error” or to “prevent embarrassment” — an assertion that is now nearly impossible to square with the facts.
Elizabeth Pipkin, the San Jose attorney who represented Ibrahim in her legal odyssey pro bono, said the Obama administration should be embarrassed.
“The idea that any of this poses any threat to national security is ridiculous,” Pipkin said in a telephone interview. “These government state secret privileges are to protect national security. They are not supposed to be used to cover up government errors.”
The Justice Department did not respond for comment.
The Justice Department nearly got away with the cover up, which commenced under the President George W. Bush administration.
At one point, Judge Alsup dismissed the case. A federal appeals court reinstated it in 2012, more than a year after Alsup tossed it. A month before Ibrahim’s trial, the judge said he learned the Kafkaesque truth. “I feel that I have been had by the government,” he said in a November pretrial conference.
Last week he laid it out all in his final order in the case, ruling for Ibrahim following a five-day, non-jury trial that was conducted largely behind closed doors in December.
At long last, the government has conceded that plaintiff poses no threat to air safety or national security and should never have been placed on the no-fly list. She got there by human error within the FBI. This too is conceded. This was no minor human error but an error with palpable impact, leading to the humiliation, cuffing, and incarceration of an innocent and incapacitated air traveler. That it was human error may seem hard to accept — the FBI agent filled out the nomination form in a way exactly opposite from the instructions on the form, a bureaucratic analogy to a surgeon amputating the wrong digit —human error, yes, but of considerable consequence. (.pdf)
Ibrahim was a Stanford University doctoral student in architecture and design from Malaysia and was headed to Hawaii to give a paper on affordable housing. Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005. She was eventually released and allowed to fly to her home country of Malaysia.
She sued, seeking to learn if she was on the no-fly list and to clear her name. Her case ping-ponged across the legal landscape for years as the government tried everything it could to have the lawsuit tossed.
The woman was even barred a return flight for her own trial. So was one of her daughters, a U.S. born American citizen, who witnessed her mother’s humiliation at the San Francisco airport.
It’s not the first time the government pushed the envelope in declaring state secrets in litigation. The same was true when the state secrets privilege was born in a 1953 Supreme Court case.
At the time, three widows of civilians whose husbands died in a Georgia military aircraft crash sued. The government refused to release the accident report, on the grounds that it would disclose information about secret military equipment. That report was declassified in 2004, however, and did not mention any secret military equipment.
“Praise to God for this win,” Ibrahim, who is in Malaysia, said in a statement provided by her lawyers.
Here are selected quotations, gleaned from the public court docket, of government officials who sought to have Ibrahim’s case dismissed over a span of two presidential administrations:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP
“My assertion of the state secret and statutory privileges in this case precludes defendant or any other agency from making any response, including through document production or deposition testimony, that would serve to disclose classified information regarding plaintiff or any other individual; the sources, methods, and means by which classified information is collected; and information which would confirm or deny whether information regarding plaintiff or any other individual is in NCTC’s TIDE database.” — James Clapper, director of national intelligence, April 23, 2013.
“Second, I agree with the FBI that disclosure that an individual is not a subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation could likewise reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security. As the declaration explains, if the fact that some persons are not subject to investigation is disclosed, while the status of others is left unconfirmed, the disclosure would reveal that the FBI has had an investigative interest as to those other particular persons. Allowing such disclosures would enable individuals and terrorist groups alike to manipulate the system to discover whether they or their members are subject to investigation. Further, individuals who desire to commit terrorist acts could be motivated to do so upon discovering that they are not being monitored.” — Eric Holder, attorney general, April 23, 2013.
Attorney General Eric Holder. Photo: USDOJ
“But a trial on the central harm identified by Plaintiff and the Court — the alleged inability to travel internationally, including to the United States — cannot fully be adjudicated without the information subject to the state secrets privilege.” — *Paul G. Freeborne, Department of Justice senior trial counsel, Nov. 12, 2013.
“Public disclosure of the identity of individuals on the No Fly List or Selectee List would compromise the safety and security of passengers by providing terrorists with information that may reveal which of their members have been compromised, and which of their members may board an aircraft without any form of enhanced security. For these reasons, TSA’s regulations expressly prohibit the disclosure of the contents of Security Directives and Emergency Amendment…” – Joseph C. Salvator, Transportation Security Administration then-deputy assistant administrator for intelligence, May 22, 2006.
“Plaintiff directly challenges the No Fly list, arguing that her alleged placement on this list violated her First and Fifth Amendment rights, and caused her to be arrested by local law enforcement personnel allegedly in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. These claims are inescapably intertwined with the procedures and merits of the No Fly list itself and must, therefore, be dismissed. — John R. Tyler, Department of Justice trial attorney, May 22, 2006.
David Kravets is a WIRED senior staff writer and founder of the fake news site TheYellowDailyNews.com. He’s a dad of two boys and has been a reporter since the manual typewriter days. His PGP fingerprint is 066F 245D 22A0 7511 B36B CB4F 0F53 B742 5919 4A18.
Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
Paul Craig Roberts
February 12, 2014
The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department, and by Washington, and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.
The US and EU were initially cooperating in the effort to destroy the independence of Ukraine and make it a subservient entity to the EU government in Brussels. For the EU government, the goal is to expand the EU. For Washington the purposes are to make Ukraine available for looting by US banks and corporations and to bring Ukraine into NATO so that Washington can gain more military bases on Russia’s frontier. There are three countries in the world that are in the way of Washington’s hegemony over the world: Russia, China, and Iran. Each of these countries is targeted by Washington for overthrow or for their sovereignty to be degraded by propaganda and US military bases that leave the countries vulnerable to attack, thus coercing them into accepting Washington’s will.
The problem that has arisen between the US and EU with regard to Ukraine is that Europeans have realized that the takeover of Ukraine is a direct threat to Russia, which can cut Europe off from oil and natural gas, and if there is war completely destroy Europe. Consequently, the EU became willing to stop provoking the Ukraine protests.
The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was “fuck the EU,” as she proceeded to describe the members of the Ukraine government that Washington tended to impose on a people so unaware as to believe that they are achieving independence by rushing into Washington’s arms. I once thought that no population could be as unaware as the US population. But I was wrong. Western Ukrainians are more unaware than Americans.
The orchestration of the “crisis” in Ukraine is easy. The neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told the National Press Club in Washington on December 13, 2013, that the US has “invested” $5 billion in agitation in Ukraine. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm) The crisis essentially resides in western Ukraine where romantic ideas about Russian oppression are strong and the population is less Russian than in the eastern Ukraine.
The hatred of Russia in western Ukraine is so dysfunctional that the duped protesters are unaware that joining the EU means the end of Ukraine independence and rule by the EU bureaucrats in Brussels, the European Central Bank, and US corporations. Perhaps Ukraine is two countries. The western half could be given to the EU and US corporations, and the eastern half could be reincorporated as part of Russia, where the entire Ukraine resided for as long as the US has existed.
The disaffection from Russia that exists in western Ukraine makes it easy for the EU and US to cause trouble. Those in Washington and Europe who wish to destroy Ukraine’s independence portray an independent Ukraine as a hostage of Russia, while a Ukraine in the EU is allegedly under the protection of the US and Europe. The large sums of money that Washington funnels into NGOs in Ukraine propagate this idea and work the population into a mindless frenzy. I have never in my life witnessed people as mindless as the Ukrainian protesters who are destroying the independence of their country.
The US and EU-financed NGOs are fifth columns designed to destroy the independence of the countries in which they operate. Some pretend to be “human rights organizations.” Others indoctrinate people under cover of “education programs” and “building democracy.” Others, especially those run by the CIA, specialize in provocations such as “Pussy Riot.” Few if any of these NGOs are legitimate. But they are arrogant. The head of one of the NGOs announced prior to the Iranian elections in which Mousavi was Washington’s and the CIA’s candidate that the election would result in a Green Revolution. He knew this in advance, because he had helped to finance it with US taxpayer dollars. I wrote about it at the time. It can be found on my website,www.paulcraigroberts.org and in my just published book, How America Was Lost.
The Ukrainian “protesters” have been violent, but the police have been restrained. Washington has a vested interest in keeping the protests going in the hopes of turning the protests into revolt so that Washington can grab Ukraine. This week the US House of Representatives passed a resolution threatening sanctions should the violent protests be put down by the police.
In other words, if the Ukrainian police behave toward violent protesters in the way that US police behave toward peaceful protesters, it is reason for Washington to interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Washington is using the protests to destroy the independence of Ukraine and has ready the list of puppets that Washington intends to install as Ukraine’s next government.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week.
The video associated with the short article is definitely worth listening to. It is about 44 min.
Sandy Hook Lies Crash Down! Ex-State Trooper Exposes Cover-Up, Is Threatened
Friday, February 14, 2014 6:50
Former Florida state trooper Woolfgang Halbig does not believe that ANYONE was killed at the Sandy Hook gun confiscation hoax and has done the research to prove it. Not only does he believe that no one was killed there but he has ALSO been threatened for exposing this horribly played out hoax. KateSlate11 gives us her take on this new bombshell information in the first video below while the second video contains the entire interview with this wise man, an interview that must go viral for Americans to finally take back our country from the criminals who have stolen it away. Sandy Hook WAS an attempt to TAKE Americans guns and forever enslave us; this interview goes a long way towards proving that fact.
Wolfgang W. Halbig doesn’t believe anyone was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, and he’s looking for some answers. So many answers, in fact, that he was paid a visit by some police investigators telling him to back off.
Mr. Halbig isn’t your average “conspiracy theorist.” He’s worked in public education as a teacher, dean, assistant principal, principal of an alternative school and as the Director for School Safety and Security for the Seminole County Public Schools, a school district of approximately 65,000 students.
A former Florida State Trooper and United States Customs Inspector, Mr. Halbig was invited by the U.S. Department of Justice to train over 3,500 school police officers, school superintendents and school principals. He travels the country providing presentations and keynotes to a variety of school board associations and conferences and is a nationally-recognized school safety and security expert and consultant, who provided safety training and school assessments for more than 4,000 school districts nationwide.
Dead JPM Bankers Worked Together, ‘Uncovered Something’
By The Doc
February 14, 2014
Wednesday we reported that another JP Morgan banker has been found dead, as the latest banker to meet a sudden and untimely demise is Ryan Henry Crane, the Executive Director in JPMorgan’s Global Equities Group.
Today, Steve Quayle’s banker source “V”, who predicted that a wave of banker hits was imminent when the very first bankers began dropping last week, has dropped a bombshell regarding the death of Ryan Henry Crane.
V states that Crane oversaw all of the trade platforms and worked closely with Gabriel Magee of JPM’s London desk (who fell 32 stories off the JPM London roof moments after texting his g/f he would be home shortly), and that the pair had access to the exact same info.
V concludes Crane & Magee: “Knew each other and had uncovered something”.
V’s update on the latest JPMorgan banker to turn up dead is below:
One other thing he was the head at the program trading desk. Meaning he over saw all of the trades and was familiar with all of the software (trade platforms) that these trades were done in. This job works closely with guess what? That’s right the London desk and who died last week in London? That’s right Gabriel Magee the one who jumped off the 33rd floor. What was his post? Head of IT and trade platforms meaning he had access to info that Ryan Henry Crane would have.
They knew each other and uncovered something; they were about the same age and these hits happen when two big announcements by JPM.
1. They are out of commodities, and
2. The wholesale selling of their HQ downtown to the Chinese.
“V” The Guerrilla Economist:
V’s claim aligns with what Jim Willie’s sources informed SD readers on the recent rash of banker deaths, that we are witnessing bankers taken out who are on the verge of revealing BIG DATA details on FOREX fraud.
Other Top Stories:
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
Most Americans do not think the country’s system of government was designed for a president to act on his own and a majority disapproves of President Barack Obama bypassing Congress, a new poll shows.
The Fox News poll found that 74 percent think the president using executive orders to get around Congress is not how things are supposed to work, including 54 percent of Democrats.
Eighty percent of independents and 93 percent of Republicans believe it goes against our system for the president to act independently to advance his policies.
According to the survey, 90 percent of Republicans disapprove of Obama acting without lawmakers while 66 percent of independents.
Overall, only about one in five voters approves of Obama’s use of executive orders even though they do not believe it is the way things are supposed to work.
The poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted from February 9-11.
US Soldier Explains Why Military Hasn’t Saved US – Vid (3:42) (Don’t miss. –B)
What FDA Knew Of Antibiotics In Animal Feed – Vid (5:02)