FBI: Populace With 9/11 Doubts Potential Terrorists

A Department of Justice memo instructs local police, under a program named "communities against terrorism," to consider anyone who harbors "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 to be a potential terrorist.

The memo thus adds 9/11-official-story skeptics to a growing list of targets described by federal law enforcement to be security threats, such as those who express "libertarian philosophies," "Second Amendment-oriented views," interest in "self-sufficiency," "fears of Big Brother or big government," and "Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties."

A newly released national poll shows that 48 percent of Americans either have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, or do not believe it at all.

The FBI memo entitled "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sleepers" says that people who should be 'considered suspicious' of possible involvement in "terrorist activity" include those who hold the "attitude" described as " Conspiracy theories about Westerners." The memo continues: "e.g. (sic) the CIA arranged for 9/11 to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands."

fbi.gov

Section of FBI circular to local police, "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sleepers."

Like this image2

"Sleepers" refers to "sleeper cells," in FBI jargon, which are terrorists awaiting orders to be activated into terrorist activity.

In 1998 it was declassified by the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had approved a plan, in 1962, to attack and kill US citizens to "provide justifications for US military intervention in Cuba." The plan was code-named Operation Northwoods, the face page of the declassified document is below.

government archives

Face page, Operation Northwoods memo.

Like this image1

The plan was signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer. It was rejected by President John F. Kennedy, who demoted Lemnitzer.

According to the polling firm YouGov, 38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it.

The FBI memo, issued by the Department of Justice Assistance, an arm of the US Department of Justice, is posted at, among other departments, the Columbus, Ohio, police department website. The citizen's watchdog PublicIntelligence.net has also posted a copy. The FBI document also includes as reason for suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities:

"Excusing violence against Americans on the grounds that American actions provoked the problem."

The latter is an apparent reference to thinking such as the "blowback" doctrine, which criticizes US foreign policy and links alleged errors in that policy, such as the invasion of iraq, to terrorist activity.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine

Like this image

The document cites "fury" at the "global policies of the U.S."

Among well-known doubters of the official 9/11 account are many military officers, law enforcement personnel, firefighters, and pilots, all working through affinity groups. One is US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine, who has said of the three buildings which fell on 9/11:

"They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition."

Most recently, former Fox News anchorman Ben Swann has questioned the official 9/11 story.

This September 11th a group of citizens, architects, and engineers, led by families of 9/11 victims, unveiled an international ad campaign questioning the official version of 9/11. The campaign is sponsoring signs and billboards around the world which ask the question: "Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?"

http://rethink911.org

Rethink911.org billboard in Dallas.

Like this image1

The 9/11 issue has been actively pursued on the Internet, and largely excluded by the major media. However, news organizations such as Time have covered the architects and engineers billboard campaign, sponsored by a group called 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Bloggers and other citizens have long argued that the science employed by the official story is impossible, and that the three towers must have been destroyed by some other means. As the FBI memo states, some argue that 9/11 was planned by a covert, relatively small but well-placed coup faction within the US government "to legitimize the invasion of foreign lands," notably Iraq and the Middle East. In 2005 General Wesley Clark, former presidential candidate, said that he was given a copy of a memo by a ranking member of the Bush administration that revealed that war hawks in the Pentagon planned on attacking "seven countries in five years," with Iraq only the beginning.

Other federal law enforcement agencies have been criticized for sweeping characterizations of potential terrorists, which demonize Constitutionally protected activity. In 2011, 18-year law enforcement veteran James Wesley Rawles warned that the Department of Homeland Security was being trained to consider as potential terrorists, among other people, those who had expressed "libertarian philosophies, "Second Amendment-oriented views," "Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies,) "Fear of economic collapse," "fears of Big Brother or big government," and "Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties." Since Hurricane Katrina, food stockpiling consultants and merchants have reported greater-than-ever activity and interest in storing long-term supplies of non-perishable food and water supplies.

in 2009, an uproar was created when the Department of Homeland Security issued a report describing returning Iraq veterans as potential terrorists. Public outcry prompted Speaker of the House john Boehner to denounce the characterization as "offensive." In 2012, NetworkWorld.com reported on an entire set of "Communities Against Terrorism" circulars coming out of the Bureau for justice Assistance.

Boston Bombing - What You Aren't Told

Courtesy Of Russia Today's Truth Seeker

The Unanswered Questions Of 9/11

James Corbett writes:

In his latest weekly address to the nation, President Obama asserts that America’s questions about 9/11 have been answered. If only it were so.

The questions of 9/11 have only continued to pile up higher since that fateful day, and despite official platitudes we are no closer to having those questions answered today then we were when they first arose. In fact, for some of the most important 9/11 questions, the government’s own documents and records that could conceivably answered them have been destroyed, meaning we may never have answers.

The unanswered questions of 9/11 are too numerous to enumerate, but they include:

-Why has NIST classified the data that they used to make their computer animation of the WTC7 collapse? Would knowledge of how NIST believes the building collapsed really “jeopardize public safety“?

-Why did the DIA destroy more than 2.5 terabytes of data on their Able Danger investigation that reportedly identified four of the alleged hijackers years in advance of the attack? Why did the Pentagon buy up and burn the entire first print run of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer’s book on the program?

-Why did the SEC destroy their records on the 9/11 insider trading question, presumably the most important investigation in the agency’s history?

-Why did the alleged “mastermind” of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confess not only to plotting 9/11 “from A to Z” but also confess to masterminding numerous crimes that he could not have committed?

-Why did Osama bin Laden repeatedly deny any involvement in the attacks until a series of mistranslated and otherwise manipulated videos came along appearing to portray him as taking credit for those attacks?

-Why was the report of US State Department official Frank Taylor supposedly proving the case for Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, which NATO used to justify its invasion of Afghanistan, presented in a classified briefing? Why is that report still classified to this day?

-Why did the 9/11 commission rely so heavily on the confessions extracted through torture which even the Senate’s Armed Services committee points out is specifically used to extract false confessions?

-Why did the CIA destroy 92 videotapes of their illegal torture sessions after being specifically ordered by a court not to do so? Why did the courts eventually absolve the CIA of any culpability for this crime?

-Why did Donald Rumsfeld announce a new “war” on September 10, 2001? What was the reason for the 2.3 trillion missing dollars which the Pentagon had lost up until that point, what did Rumsfeld’s “war on bureaucracy” hope to achieve, how was that “war” hindered when the budget analyst officein the Pentagon was destroyed the following morning, and where are the public records into this accounting scandal?

-Why did Rumsfeld go into a regularly scheduled meeting with a CIA officer in his office on the morning of 9/11, after both of the Twin Towers had been struck by airplanes and it had been determined that “America was under attack.” Why did the highest ranking official in the US military remain in that meeting and unavailable for contact even by his highest staff members as the worst attack on US soil in history continued to unfold? Why did he suddenly come out for a photo op on the Pentalawn after the explosion instead of helping to coordinate the defense of the nation?

-Why is there such a massive discrepancy between the 9/11 commission’s official finding of the time of entry of Dick Cheney into the Presidential Emergency Operation Center on the morning of 9/11 and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s testimony of the timing of that arrival?

-Why did the US government contract with Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm, to install its backdoor access software on some of the most sensitive databases in the US government? Why did they continue to use Ptech even after it was discovered that its sweetheart investor was a specially designated global terrorist on the Treasury’s own terror list? Why did they declare that there was nothing untoward in the software mere hours after raiding Ptech’s offices in 2002? And what was Ptech doing in the basement of the Pentagon on 9/11? What interoperability tests was it running on the link between FAA and NORAD systems on 9/11, and how did that interfere with the FAA and NORAD’s response?

-And, perhaps most tellingly of all, how did four highjacked aircraft fly so wildly off course for such lengthy periods of time without being confronted by a single fighter interceptor, and why did the Pentagon admittedly and on the record lie to the American public about the timing of its response that day?

These and many, many questions like them have been asked by the victims’ family members, thefirst responders, members of the US military, American congressmen and women, intelligence agents, foreign dignitaries and heads of state, and concerned members of the public across America and around the globe. And still, 11 years after the events themselves, the American president has the gall to suggest that all questions have been answered and it is time for Americans to move on.

On the contrary, Mr. President. Those who are concerned with 9/11 truth and justice will continue to fight on, to answer the questions that your government cannot and will not answer, whether those answers come now, 11 years from now, or generations from now. Those who fight for 9/11 truth will not give up until these questions have been answered. Echoing the words of those brave souls in the wake of that other great American tragedy, the OKC bombing:

“We search for the truth. We seek justice. The courts require it. The victims cry for it. And God demands it.”

For more on the unanswered questions of 9/11 truth, please watch the latest episode of The Corbett Report podcast, “The Meaning of 9/11 Truth“:

Via: "Global Research"

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Watch 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out on PBS. See more from KBDI.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In this new film, over 40 experts in the fields of structural engineering, high-rise architecture, controlled demolition, physics, chemistry and metallurgy lay out the case for a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center on 9/11. The experts cite evidence showing that high-temperature incendiaries and explosives were planted throughout the twin towers and the lesser-known Building 7 which collapsed later the same day. 

The film also addresses the seeming implausibility of the implications of a controlled demolition. Eight experts in psychology (including four from Colorado) discuss the difficulties many people have in confronting this possible reality and how necessary the truth is for healing – both at the individual and collective levels. 

Two years in the making, 9/11: EXPERTS SPEAK OUT is the latest film from Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, represented by founder Richard Gage, AIA. 

SPECIAL GUESTS 

During the film's live television broadcast premiere on Saturday, August 18 at 7:00 pm on Channel 12.1, Richard Gage, member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will appear live in the CPT12 studio. Gage, who directed and produced the film, will comment on the film's finding and his group's rejection of the official World Trade Center reports. 

“The official story about the attacks of September 11 falls apart when you look squarely at the facts and apply basic scientific principles to interpret them," says Gage. "After more than ten years, a high-level investigation of the evidence is long overdue. Too much is at stake here to sweep the concerns under the rug. Family members of 9/11 victims speak to the viewers of this film. They explain why they are still not happy with the answers they've been given by our government. And they are asking you to join them in looking at what our experts have to say." 

Frances Shure will also be joining co-hosts Shari Bernson and Tom Colbert during the broadcast.  

---

ABOUT RICHARD GAGE

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He has been an architect for over 23 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space – altogether with about 1,200 tons of steel framing. Mr. Gage became interested in researching the destruction of the WTC high-rises after hearing on the radio the startling conclusions of reluctant 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin in 2006, which launched his own unyielding quest for the truth about 9/11. Since founding Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Gage has presented Blueprint for Truth all over the world, and he has appeared on radio shows and television spots.

ABOUT FRANCES SHURE

Frances Shure is a retired business owner, Licensed Professional Counselor specializing in-depth psychology, and adjunct instructor at Naropa University. She has long worked for world peace and a sustainable environmental, is co-founder ofColorado 9/11 Visibility, one of the of the9/11 Consensus Panel members, and is listed with Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth. She is the mother of four and the grandmother of eight grandchildren.

ABOUT ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001.

---

RELATED VIDEOS

Solving the Mystery, the destruction of WTC Building #7: This 15-minute documentary, narrated by Ed Asner, highlights the third worst structural failure in modern history – the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11. The 47-story skyscraper "collapsed" nearly into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration in under 7 seconds.

A wide variety of technical experts – high-rise architects, structural engineers, controlled demolition technicians, chemists, physicists, and more – present explosive evidence that controlled demolition, not "normal office fires" as claimed by NIST, caused the total destruction of the building. Produced by Richard Gage, AIA, founder of AE911Truth, "Solving The Mystery of WTC 7" sheds light on this little-known event, and makes apparent the need for a new WTC investigation.

The Oklahoma City Bombing

Debris hangs from the front of the federal building after a 1200 pound car bomb blew off the north side of the building in downtown Oklahoma City April 19 (Credit: © Jeff Mitchell Us / Reuters


Two Seasoned Journalists Explore The Disturbing, Unanswered Questions About The Oklahoma City Bombing Of 1995

BY LAURA MILLER
SUNDAY, APR 22, 2012 04:00 PM EDT
Courtesy Of "Salon Magazine"


In the hours after the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, cable news breathlessly reported that authorities were searching for three Middle Eastern men supposedly seen fleeing the scene. True, this was just two years after the bombing of the World Trade Center by a Islamist cell led by Ramzi Yousef, but even so, the notion that foreign terrorists would target an ordinary office building in the middle of flyover country was far-fetched. Yet not as far-fetched, it seems, as the idea that Americans would do it, and end up killing 168 of their fellow citizens, 19 of them little children.

An FBI agent from Dallas, Danny Coulson, knew better. As Andrew Gumbel and Roger Charles relate in their impressive new book,“Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missed — and Why It Still Matters,” Coulson jumped in his car and headed to Oklahoma City as soon as he heard about the bombing, fielding a call from a CBS correspondent along the way. She told him “everybody in Washington” said the perpetrators were Middle Eastern, but he said no way. “It’s a Bubba job,” he told her. “It’s Bubbas.”

It was Bubbas. But how many of them? Timothy McVeigh was convicted on 11 counts of murder and conspiracy and was executed for his role in the crime. Terry Nichols, who helped McVeigh construct the truck bomb, is still in federal prison serving a sentence of life without parole. A third conspirator, Mike Fortier, received a reduced sentence (and immunity for his wife, Lori) in exchange for testifying against the other two. Officially, these are all the parties responsible for the bombing, the most devastating act of terrorism committed in this country until 9/11. But many, many people are not satisfied with the official account.

Of course, a lot of these malcontents are cranks, offering paint-by-numbers scenarios in which 1) the attack really was “Middle Eastern” after all and 2) the government rigged the whole thing in order to discredit the right-wing militia movement to which McVeigh and Nichols belonged. Gumbel, an investigative journalist, and Charles, a former Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who consults with national news organizations on military and national intelligence stories, are obliged to distinguish themselves from such fantasists. Nevertheless, they assert, there are good reasons to feel “skeptical that all the perpetrators have been caught,” a sentiment they say is shared by many of their sources both outside the government and within it.

Their argument, unlike other conspiracy theories about Oklahoma City, is not outlandish. Gumbel and Charles (who also worked as an evidence analyst for McVeigh’s defense team) suspect that McVeigh had other accomplices in planning the attack, in assembling the materials for the bomb and in planting it on April 19. This help came from several nodes in a loose network of right-wing extremists — gun nuts, would-be-revolutionaries and separatist Christian sects — who have never been fully investigated or called to account.

Not a fanciful change, but at the same time a bold one, given that the multi-agency federal investigation collected a Brobdingnagian quantity of evidence: 13 million hotel and motel records, 6 million truck rental records, 28,000 interviews — an estimated 1 billion pieces of information. Yet for all this exhaustiveness, certain promising trails in the investigation went largely unexplored: over 1,000 latent fingerprints found in McVeigh’s car and motel room, for example, as well as his links to a gang of bank robbers belonging to the Aryan Republican Army, a rich gun dealer and a creepy fundamentalist compound called Elohim City.

The authors believe that federal agencies, shamed and stinging after bloody clashes with right-wing militants at Waco and Ruby Ridge, preferred not to mess with leads that might end in further confrontations. The prosecution concurred, having tried and failed in an earlier sedition trial against similar militants. They felt they’d learned not to test a jury’s ability to follow complex conspiratorial narratives with too many characters, or that asked it to believe that trash-talking backwoods paranoids could pose a serious threat to the U.S government.

“Oklahoma City” compiles a hefty collection of those unplumbed leads, some of it gleaned from newly released files and a jailhouse interview with Nichols that, they report, went into “great detail.” Given the milieus McVeigh and Nichols frequented, there are enough freak-show touches to keep an FX drama stocked for three seasons: a double-wide trailer full of snakes, a neo-Nazi with a secret life as a cross-dresser, a hot blonde with a swastika tattoo who agreed to act as an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and so on. The authors refrain from milking this material for all its lurid charm, but somehow their deadpan delivery only makes it more grotesque.

They have excellent reasons for not treating this pack of alienated misfits as merely contemptible. As Gumbel and Rogers point out, McVeigh and many of his pals were veterans whose Gulf War battlefield experience left them with both military skills and emotional damage. “It is not difficult to see,” they write, “how new McVeighs could emerge from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lingering devastation of the 2008 economic meltdown and the anti-establishment rage embodied by everyone from the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street to the violent racists threatening to put a bullet in the brain of America’s first black president.”

The book does suffer a bit from its authors’ submersion in the story. The narrative thread — so necessary for readers whose memories of the attack and investigation have faded — occasionally gets lost as they jump around chronologically to demonstrate the shakiness of some points in the government’s version of the story. Still, it’s shocking to learn that over two dozen eyewitnesses reported having seen McVeigh with at least one other person on the morning of the bombing, contradicting the prosecution’s assertion that he acted alone on that day. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but that’s a lot of people, and the ones the authors describe in detail had direct, highly memorable encounters with the bomber(s).

Perhaps the most persuasive aspect of “Oklahoma City” is its refusal of paranoia. The typical crackpot conspiracy theory relies on a masterly, Luciferian characterization of the conspirators, who are invariably depicted as puppet masters capable of pulling off elaborate illusions, feints and coverups without a hitch. As Gumbel and Rogers tell it, the bombing investigation fell short of discovering the truth because of sloppiness, failure of will, self-serving intra-office politics and, above all, idiotic and obstructive turf wars among law enforcement agencies. Now, that sounds more like the government that left us vulnerable six years later and that may well let us down again.

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site,magiciansbook.com.

The Most Transparent Administration Ever

(Credit: AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)


BY GLENN GREENWALD
FRIDAY, MAR 30, 2012 11:44 AM EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME
Courtesy Of "Salon Magazine"

(updated below)

New York Times, Editorial, November 1, 2004:

[O]ne of the more worrisome domestic policy developments of the past four years [is] the Bush administration’s drastic expansion of needless government secrecy.

John Dean, Worse than Watergate, 2007:

In fact, the Bush-Cheney presidency is strikingly Nixonian, only with regard to secrecy far worse.

New York Times Editorial, June 24, 2007:

President Bush has turned the executive branch into a two-way mirror. They get to see everything Americans do: our telephone calls, e-mail, and all manner of personal information. And we get to see nothing about what they do. Everyone knows this administration has disdained openness and accountabilitysince its first days. That is about the only thing it does not hide.

Governments have to keep secrets. But this administration has grossly abused that trust, routinely using claims of national security to hide policies that are immoral and almost certainly illegal, to avoid embarrassment, and to pursue Mr. Bush’s dreams of an imperial presidency.

Dawn Johnsen, Boston University Law Review, 2008:

The privilege is especially vulnerable in the wake of a President who has abused it or operated with unwarranted secrecy, both of which describe the Bush presidency . . .President Bush’s . . .pervasive secrecy . . . It has consistently engaged in excessive secrecy about the substance of its legal interpretations . . .  an administration shrouded in secrecy.

LA Times, Editorial, January 14, 2009:

[A] last round of restrictions on access to information under the Freedom of Information Act [from the Bush administration] . . .is sadly characteristic of an administration that has insulated itself from scrutiny at every opportunity. . . . Curbs on the FOIA thus represent not just inconveniences for journalists and historians but restrictions on the rights of citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable; as such, they compromise a fundamental right of a democratic people.

Barack Obama, January 21, 2009:

A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.

Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Tuesday, detailing huge increase in U.S. drone attacks on Yemen:

The ACLU, yesterday, quoting New York Times Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal on the Obama administration’s refusal to confirm or deny even the existence of its CIA drone program in order to evade FOIA disclosure, even as it boasts about drone attacks in the media:

The Bush administration kept secrets largely for bad reasons: It covered up its torture memos, the kidnapping of innocent foreign citizens, illegal wiretapping and other misdeeds. Barack Obama promised to bring more transparency to Washington in the 2008 campaign, but he has failed to do that. In some ways, his administration is even worse than the Bush team when it comes to abusing the privilege of secrecy.

This devolution speaks for itself, but I’ll nonetheless add three brief points:

(1) Note that secrecy abuses, during the Bush years, weren’t spoken of as a mere side issue or bad policy option, but rather as a fundamental threat to democracy itself. That’s certainly how I constantly wrote of secrecy abuses during the Bush years: secrecy is the linchpin of abuse of power, and transparency is the paramount tool against it. As Obama himself put it the day after he was inaugurated: “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.”

(2) It’s hard to overstate how difficult (and commendable) it is for the ACLU to endorse propositions such as “in some ways, [Obama's] administration is even worse than the Bush team when it comes to abusing the privilege of secrecy,” or for its Executive Director tosay things like: “I’m disgusted with this president.” The ACLU has long been one of the most admired organizations among liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc., and many of its donors, members, and the like do not want to hear that Obama is worse than Bush in many of these vital areas, or that his actions should provoke “disgust” (indeed, to this day — in fact, today — you still have Democratic partisans hilariously insisting with a straight face that, except for some people “of Arab descent,” there is not “a single freedom the administration has curtailed”). Not only are these remarkable statements from the ACLU a reflection of its typical organizational integrity, but they are also an obvious reflection of just how extreme and radical the Obama administration is.

(3) The harms from excessive governmental secrecy vastly outweigh the harms from excessive disclosures; they’re not even in the same universe That’s why WikiLeaks is such a vital and important movement. It’s also why I have zero respect for those who so vehemently denounced WikiLeaks’ supposed disclosure recklessness without devoting even a fraction of the same rage to the obsessive, anti-democratic, dangerous government secrecy regime being not only maintained, but vigorously increased, even a full decade after the 9/11 attacks. Such critics have little interest in issues of transparency v. secrecy; their manifest agenda (like the often-overlapping  American “terrorism expert” industry: more on them in the next couple days) is to serve the state, demonize its adversaries, and protect its interests. That’s what indiscriminate secrecy achieves, and it’s why such people are so rarely bothered by it.

 UPDATE: In a separate article today, Rosenthal, the Editorial Page Editor of the NYT, observes what was a major theme of my last book: that the U.S., in the name of Terrorism, now has “what’s essentially a separate justice system for Muslims.” That startling, extremely disturbing and historically significant fact has no impact on the 2012 election and affords nobody any partisan gain from decrying it, and therefore, it (like the increasing fixation on anti-democratic secrecy) will be largely ignored in establishment political venues.