Members of the European Parliament say the EU has conspired with the United States to commit acts of terror by providing it with secret torture centers, Press TV reports.
A US senate committee revealed a report last week, saying EU members including Poland, Romania and Lithuania were home to secret CIA interrogation centers following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.
According to the report, waterboarding, rectal feeding and chaining people to walls were among the torture techniques used against detainees by the CIA.
“The problem is that there are Fascist MEPs that defend the practice of torture. The problem is that they are wearing a jacket and a tie and they are considered democrats. The problem is that in this chamber, some of these MEPs, collaborated with the CIA on the rendition of prisoners that were about to be tortured. That is the problem,” a Spanish MEP, Pablo Iglesias, said. …
There is a disturbing phenomenon that unfortunately must be addressed. Criminals and their supporters are creating chaos and undermining peaceful efforts to step back the police state.
On June 8th, Jerad Miller and his wife Amanda walked into a Las Vegas restaurant and murdered two police officers while they ate lunch. On July 13th, Lawrence Campbell staged an ambush at a Jersey City pharmacy and murdered a police officer who responded to the call. On September 12th, Eric Frein used a rifle to ambush and murder a Pennsylvania State Trooper as he walked to his car. On December 20th, Ismaaiyl Brinsley walked up to a police cruiser and murdered the two officers sitting inside it.
In each case, the perpetrator(s) sought out police officers at random with the express purpose of murdering them because of their profession. Each perpetrator initiated the confrontation. Each committed a deliberate, cowardly attack on people who had done nothing and had no chance to defend themselves.
The most disturbing bit of commonality between these cases is that a certain subset of people have shown sympathy for killing police officers, or even openly celebrated the murders. To see some examples, check out this revolting collection of social media posts released after the most recent murder. Comments ranged from “I’m glad” to “Salute the shooter.” …
Heavily redacted FBI memos confirm that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was aware of a plot to assassinate the Houston organizers of “Occupy Wall Street,” but the agency has managed to withhold the details from the American public using the worn-out excuse that transparency compromises national security.
According to the agency’s official memos, an unnamed party or agency “planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary… [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”
The plot was allegedly devised in October 2011, shortly after the national debut of Occupy Wall Street in September of the same year. It wasn’t until 2013 that any mention of the plot was made known to the public, when Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral student Ryan Noah Shapiro noticed startling references in the course of his extensive efforts to pursue transparency in the FBI. Mr. Shapiro subsequently filed a Freedom Of Information (FOIA) request for additional details…..
Well I’m sure protecting would-be murderers of american protesters is far more important to national security than prosecuting those they were protesting against. Like, you know, the people who destroyed the US economy?
The modern hospitalized birthing process usually goes something like this in the U.S.. The mother gives birth to a child, while being thoroughly drugged, and the child’s umbilical cord is immediately clamped. Soon after; male children are circumsized (usually without any pain killers) and then given a round of vaccines on his first day of birth. This is the modern version of birthing.
There was a time when the umbilical cord was not cut until the cord stopped pulsating. This would take somewhere between 2 and 20 minutes. Nowadays, that practice has been abandoned, but it is not due to health considerations. Early cord clamping provides no known medical benefits to either the child or the mother. With most deliveries, the cord blood is taken to be sold, because it contains valuable stem cells, including hematopoietic cells. These are sold for scientific research. Before this highly lucrative market developed, the blood was allowed to travel to the infant to help him become stronger. Instead, it is now stolen from him by the hospital staff. This practice has become such a standard procedure that whenever the blood is not to be saved, it is just thrown away.
Early cord clamping restricts blood that was intended for the infant. There is usually about a cup of blood transferred through the umbilical cord to the infant at birth. A huge number of studies show that early cord clamping is a dangerous procedure, which weakens a newborn, and can eventually lead to brain and lung problems (if not immediately). If the umbilical cord is attached, and the infant is receiving the highly-oxygenated blood, then there is not an urgency to immediately get the infant breathing. The oxygen from the blood will ensure the survival of the infant.
Waiting for the cord to stop pulsating has become unusual in American hospitals. Although, there was a time when an infant would have breathed well, and his skin color would have become normal before his cord was clamped. An infant will naturally begin breathing without any assistance or encouragement if the cord is not immediately clamped. However, the cord is now clamped long before the infant takes his first breath; producing obvious problems that stem from cutting off his oxygen supply.
Just Sign This Form
Parents usually have no clue that the blood of their child is being taken for research, and this is not accidental. Parents usually sign the fine print allowing their hospital to “dispose” of the cord blood and placenta, which is actually saved, and then sold to the highest bidder. Late cord clamping does not go well with the profit agenda. Ironically, the aim of the research is often to find cures for disorders which are caused by this early cord clamping. In other words, should we hurt John to help Luke? We can be sure that early cord clamping is, in some cases, creating future life-long ‘customers’ of the medical establishment, but this seems to be the normal pattern with allopathic medicine. Since the cord blood can contain one quarter of the total blood volume of an infant, the loss is a huge blow to his immune system.
Premature Deliveries: Here’s Where It Really Gets Evil
The cord blood of pre-term infants contains more stem cells than normal infants, and interestingly; early cord clamping is particularly promoted for these infants by the medical establishment, due to its higher market value. The welfare of the child is not even considered. For the hospital, this blood is a premium sales item because it contains more nutrients and stem cells than are normal. These are desperately needed by the weaker infants. This need is ignored, and the cord blood is literally stolen from the sickly child (by his own doctors — no less), and then sold for maximum profit. There is no doubt that this cord blood would result in much healthier premature newborns. ….
Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport:
“If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination.”
[Editor’s Note: This interview was posted by Jon Rappoport in early January 2002. You will discover by reading it that the very issues we now face of FORCED vaccination of a laboratory-created vaccine to “protect” us against a laboratory-created “disease” (Swine Flu, Bird flu, etc.) was set into motion a long time ago. The vaccine researcher quoted here flat out says that the World Homicide Organization, WHO, is driven by a DEPOPULATION agenda, and that many African leaders know full well that the explosive spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa was caused by WHO-sponsored vaccinations of the 1970s. This former pharmaceutical insider also debunks the widespread ASSUMPTIONS of vaccine “safety” promoted by orthodox medicine, the CDC, the National Institute of Health, state health departments, and their compliant media propagandists who are all parroting SUPERSTITIONS, rather than FACTS. ..Ken Adachi]
From Jon Rappoport (www.nomorefakenews.com)
… Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no “if.” They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn’t. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you’ve said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it’s true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network. …
The world quietly celebrated Human Rights Day (December 10) earlier this month. That week, two big, interrelated human rights events occurred.
The first was the well-publicised revelations that America’s CIA ran and participated in a global torture program which, more than anything, produced vast ambivalence – especially from the top.
The US Senate report recounted, in at times excruciating detail, the CIA’s program after September 11. The program detained – often incorrectly – and tortured those suspected of terrorism. This report not so much provided a watershed moment in America’s self-understanding, but rather revealed how much further it has to go. The report did not lay to rest the public debate on torture: former vice president Dick Cheney said he had “no problem” with detaining innocents.
The second was not so well-publicised, but equally as significant. In Brazil, the National Truth Commission submitted its final report. It was the first time that the Brazilian state began to account for its human rights violations and atrocities during the military regime of 1964-85. This forced a public discussion on a regime that Brazil had previously buried in the past.
As history can strangely often do, these serendipitous events provide a snapshot of where countries are in their national reckoning.
US torture schools
For many, the reports’ revelations do not come as a surprise. Many in Latin America and human rights groups have known for years that the US has been practising, and teaching the world, torture. These techniques and shared intelligence with the US were widespread through Latin America as part of what was known as Operation Condor.
Operation Condor was a secret intelligence system in the 1970s through which South American military states shared intelligence and seized, tortured and executed political opponents in one another’s territory, under the United States’ watch and instruction.
… behind the scenes with the Latin American military and intelligence forces that comprised the Condor Group, providing resources, administrative assistance, intelligence, and financing.
The result was state run-terror across nearly the entire continent. Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was the most well-known head of state responsible for torture. In this time, hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans were tortured, killed, disappeared or imprisoned without trial, with the help of Washington.
The training of Latin American security forces for Operation Condor, as well as other human rights violations, occurred at the now-infamous School of the Americas, now known as the Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation.
At this “school”, they explicitly taught unlawful and brutal interrogations and the targeting of civilians to instil fear. However, no-one has been prosecuted for the creation of this school, nor for the “torture manuals” which were distributed to governments all over the continent.
Brazil’s search for truth
The National Truth Commission report not only revealed what the Brazilian dictatorship did, but how US military officials spent years teaching torture techniques to Brazilian forces.
Importantly, the Brazilian report had much more scope and power than that of the United States. It named officials and recommended a revision to the 1979 Amnesty Law so that perpetrators can be prosecuted. It called on the military to take responsibility for its “grave violations” and noted that problems still exist within the armed forces.
… “To practice torture is to self-identify as a repressive police state, even if the practice is reserved only for conduct outside one’s own borders. But it’s just a matter of time before it spills back into domestic territory. Historically, it always has.”
This is why it’s so very important that everyone reflexively believe washington’s fairy tale on 9/11. For god’s sake don’t actually check the evidence for yourself. You might be tortured sooner rather than later.
At least the germans under hitler could say they had no way of knowing the truth about the reichstag fire. Americans have no such excuse.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”. –Voltaire
Puppets Get Strings Crossed, Abduct U.S. Nun
The abduction and torture of U.S. nun Diana Ortiz in Guatemala last fall generated little press interest here. Yet the reactions of the Bush administration, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala — especially towards a recent religious delegation visiting Guatemala on behalf of Sister Diana — suggest that the case is political dynamite.
These developments have thrown into sharp relief once again the role of the U.S. in Central America — particularly the relationship between the Embassy and mysterious foreigners who work with Guatemalan “death squads.” Sister Diana’s torturers were interrupted by a man who burst into the room and halted them. The nun swore under oath that he was an American.
Sister Diana was forced away from a retreat house last November by two armed men. They took her to a deserted place where a member of the National Police was parked. The three then took her, blindfolded, to a warehouse where Sister Diana could hear screams and moans of men and women in pain. There they taunted her, sexually molested her, and burned her 111 times with cigarettes. When Sister Diana said she was a U.S. citizen, the men just laughed. In her affidavit, Sister Diana said, “The men who had stopped me in Guatemala City [previously] knew I was a North American nun, so I knew their laugh was from their sense of power, not disbelief.”
The terror abruptly stopped when the fourth man entered, uttered a common U.S. expletive in English, and then said in Spanish, “Idiots, she is a North American. Let her alone. It’s already on the news on television.” The foreigner took the nun out of the place and put her in a car, saying he would take her to “A friend from the U.S. Embassy” who would help get out of the country. However, Sister Diana escaped from the car in heavy traffic.
The case was immediately met with hostile responses from the Guatemalan government. on November 10, _Prensa Libre_ reported that Guatemala’s President Cerezo expressed doubt as to whether the attack had occurred at all. Defense Minister Hector Gramajo — the de facto head of state — stated the case was a self-kidnapping, staged in order to conceal a lesbian tryst. Interior Minister Morales (also a General) repeated the same accusations and officially closed the case.
Not only did the U.S.Embassy fail to defend Sister Diana — at least one official was reported to be making jokes to journalists about “the lesbian nuns” — but the State Department and President Bush have maintained a deafening silence about the case. The State Department told me November 20 that no protest had been filed, as the case fell under Guatemalan jurisdiction, and the Guatemalan police were investigating. This despite the fact that one of Sister Diana’s kidnappers _was_ a policeman. Moreover, according to human rights organizations like the International Human Rights Law Group and Amnesty International, the Guatemala National Police function as a virtual arm of the Guatemalan army’s counterinsurgency apparatus. Members of the police often comprise the “deaths squads,” usually under direct orders from their superiors. Further, the U.S. remained silent after the Guatemalan investigation was terminated.
When the U.S. Ambassador Stroock complained about the level of human rights violations the Guatemalan government last February, Sister Dianas’ case was conspicuously absent from his list of abuses. Despite complaints from Father Joseph Nangle and Paul Soreff, Sister Diana’s lawyer, this “omission” was never corrected in the official record, despite their complaints to the State Department.
In April, the Ursuline community in Kentucky, Sister Diana’s order, sent a delegation to Guatemala expressly to protest the false statement by Guatemalan officials and the U.S. Embassy’s indifference. Soreff reported that the delegation was immediately summoned to the Embassy where, “evidenced by the array of stone cold faces and the tone with which the encounter began, the Embassy people were most upset with the Ursulines.” The Embassy aggressively defended its conduct in the case and protested allegations of collusion, arising from the foreigners’ comment to Sister Diana about his “friend from the Embassy.”
Father Nangle, another member of the delegation, expressed dismay at the conduct of the Embassy. He reported that the Embassy was silent in the face of public accusations by top Guatemalan officials that Sister Diana was lying, and the Embassy inexplicably failed to publish medical finding of cigarette burns on sister Diana’s body — clear evidence of torture.
Father Nangle continued, “It must be said that once Sister Diana left Guatemala, the U.S. official presence there was inimical to her good name and interests. The Embassy did seem to show concern for her safety while she was in captivity and again before she took lease of Guatemala. But it is my distinct impression that afterward the chief concern of U.S. representatives in that country was `damage control’… Further, I am left with the strong impression that the identity of the mysterious American, named by Sister Diana under oath as the one with sufficient authority to take her away from her torturers, has the Embassy so upset that their chief concern is to sweep this case as far away from them as possible.”
The total impunity with which Sister Diana’s captors operate gives direct evidence of several of the shady structures of Guatemala’s national security state. The Guatemalan government has long denied the existence of secret places of detention and torture — places beyond the reach of the law. Yet the nuns’ testimony is proof of such clandestine centers, and the involvement of the national police. Inevitably, questions about the precise U.S. and CIA role in Guatemala’s national security structures again arise.
Patti McSherry is a human rights activists and a doctoral student in political science. She writes frequently on Guatemala and counterinsurgency
A former Iran analyst for the central intelligence agency said yesterday that his reports characterizing Shah Pahlevi as thirsty for power and a megalomaniac were repeatedly rejected by the agency as being contrary to official US policy.
Jesse Leaf said in an interview that for five years had had been the chief CIA analyst on Iran before resigning from the agency in 1973…. A spokesman for the CIA confirmed that Mr. Leaf had been an employee there but said, “We will not discuss former employees.”
Mr. Leaf also said in the interview that he and his colleagues knew of the torture of Iranian dissenters by Savak, the Iranian secret police set up during the late 1950’s by the Shah with help from the CIA.  Furthermore, Mr. Leaf said, a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak on torture techniques, although Mr. Leaf said that to his knowledge no americans did any of the torturing. The CIA’s torture seminars, Mr. Leaf said, “were based on German torture techniques from World War II.”
The Shah himself was “one of our sources” of information, Mr. Leaf said. “He was a regular contact for a case officer.”
Mr. Leaf said that because of the CIA’s complacency about the Shah, no one considered protesting about the Savak’s use of torture. “Why should we protest? We were on their side, remember?” 
Although the Iranian use of torture was widely known inside the agency, Mr. Leaf said, he knew of no americans who admitted that they witnessed such treatment. “I do remember seeing and being told of people who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the USA.”
Mr. Leaf said he decided to resign from the CIA after receiving an adverse fitness report in 1973. His basic complaint, he said, was that “policy pretty much determines reporting rather than the other way around.”