White House U-turns on Pakistan drone deaths. “Deaths by CIA strikes not included in the numbers” now will be

Global Research, May 29, 2016
Reprieve 26 May 2016

droneThe Obama Administration has reversed its position on which countries will be included in its upcoming estimate of the civilian deaths caused by the US drone program, according to a report in yesterday’s Washington Post.

Earlier this week, a report in the Post – based on briefings from anonymous Administration officials – stated that strikes taken in Pakistan by the CIA would not be included in the numbers. However, an article in yesterday’s Post – also based on anonymous US government sources – now suggests that the White House has changed its position, and will include strikes taken in Pakistan in its tally.

The exclusion of Pakistan would have meant that as many as two-thirds of known US drone strikes – including some of the worst reported errors – would have been left out of the US tally of deaths. Strikes in Pakistan have included an attack on a funeral in June 2009 that killed as many as 50 civilians, and a strike on a meeting of tribal elders in March 2011 that killed 41. Pakistan has reportedly seen the use of some of the most controversial aspects of the US drone program, such as ‘signature strikes’, where individuals are targeted on the basis of patterns of behavior.

The absence of the Pakistan numbers would also have avoided any need to address controversial claims made in June 2011 by John Brennan, now Director of the CIA. At the time, Brennan said that no civilians had been killed during a yearlong period from 2010 to 2011. However, in August that year, he altered his position slightly, saying there was no “credible evidence” of such deaths. The Administration has never publicly disputed or corrected his statement.

Recent research by the human rights organization Reprieve – which assists the civilian victims of drone strikes – has found that the US is frequently unable to identify those killed by covert strikes in countries including Pakistan and Yemen. Reprieve has found that, in targeting 41 named individuals, US strikes killed 1,147 unknown men, women and children – often leaving the original target still alive.

Commenting, Jennifer Gibson, staff attorney at Reprieve, said:

It’s been three years since President Obama promised long-overdue transparency over the most dangerous legacy of his Presidency – a drone programme that has reportedly killed thousands in countries where the US is not at war. In that time, we have been inundated with repeated and contradictory claims about the program from ‘anonymous’ sources who cannot be held accountable for their claims.

This week, the Administration’s spin machine was once again in action, first leaking that the government’s numbers would not include Pakistan – a country that accounts for three-quarters of all strikes – and then absurdly walking back that position. Enough panicked legacy spinning – the Administration must reveal the true scale of the civilian deaths it has caused, and at the very least, offer an apology to the victims.


1. Reprieve is an international human rights organization. Reprieve’s London office can be contacted on: communications [at] reprieve.org.uk / +44 (0) 207 553 8140. Reprieve US, based in New York City, can be contacted on Katherine [dot] oshea [at] reprieve.org / +1 917 855 8064.

2. The US Government’s claim that Pakistan will be included in its tally was reported by the Washington Posthere, while the previous claims can be found in the Post’s earlier report, here.

3. The 2011 comments by John Brennan can be found here.

4. Reprieve’s recent research into deaths under the US drone program is available here.

Martin Luther King: Honored by the government that shot him in the face … A “forgotten” extrajudicial political assassination

Written on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 18, 2016

Global Research, January 18, 2016

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was signed into law as a federal holiday in 1983. I do not wish to trivialize this accomplishment: it took great persistence by civil society groups and it had to conquer serious opposition. Yet what it has established is an indigestible paradox in the nation’s list of saints and heroes.

Recall that the jury in the 1999 civil trial examining the assassination reached a startling conclusion on December 8, 1999: US government agencies had conspired successfully to kill Dr. King.

Mainstream media carried little about this trial and verdict in 1999 and they persist in ignoring it to this day.

See Global Research article: 


Court Decision: U.S. “Government Agencies” Found Guilty in Martin Luther King’s Assassination by Carl Herman, January 18, 2016










When challenged they tend to say that the claims were muddy and confused and vulnerable to easy refutation. Actually, the plaintiffs’ case was strong, and the jury, after sitting and listening to presentation of evidence and argument from November 15 to December 8, was quickly able to reach consensus on the verdict. The great variety of evidence presented by attorney William Pepper pointed to the impossibility of the lone assassin hypothesis (James Earl Ray) and to the conspiring of several bodies, including the local police (Memphis Police Department), the mafia (local representative Frank Liberto), and federal police, intelligence and military units. In other words, the combination of forces that carried out the murder was not very different from that which had killed President Kennedy. Such was the planning, the commitment, and the determination of the assassins that there was little chance Dr. King could have survived the day. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel.

Reading the transcript of this trial takes some time (it’s about 2700 pages long), but having done so I am impressed by attorney Pepper’s persistence and skill in getting to the heart of this matter. Yet if the findings are to have political force, and if the mainstream media persist in pretending the trial never took place, it falls to active citizens to do their part to make the trial and the findings known. They should tell people about this trial, encourage people to read it, quote from it, and emphasize its importance. They should not let it be trivialized (as the current Wikipedia article on Martin King tries to do) by pretending the claims of government conspiracy were weak and have been refuted—they have not.

King was killed not just because he was a civil rights activist, but because he was planning the Poor People’s Campaign, which would have involved nonviolent disruption of business as usual in Washington on behalf of all of the nation’s poor, whatever their colour. This made the 1% uncomfortable. King was also killed because he had passionately criticized his country’s pursuance of the Vietnam War—his major denunciation of that war at Riverside Church in New York City had taken place one year to the day before he was killed. The eloquent and uncompromising talk had made everyone from President Johnson to the U.S. military and intelligence communities uncomfortable.

Far from being confused and muddy, I think the central arguments presented in 1999 have been quite well established. Moreover, there was little sophistication in the attempts to buy off and threaten James Earl Ray [Ed.: Authorities also attempted to murder him and he was subjected to inhumane conditions in prison that could be described as torture], to discourage and even kill eyewitnesses, and to pretend against all evidence that government investigations had been thorough and had found nothing to seriously question the case against Ray.

The truth is that the lone gunman theory bit the dust in 1999, and anyone who attempts to resurrect it had better be able to challenge chapter and verse of this civil trial.

For those who have not read the trial transcript, I shall end with an exemplifying segment—worth quoting to friends who might be unfamiliar with it.

This material is taken directly, with only minor omissions, from the court transcript of testimony given in mid-afternoon, November 30th, 1999.

A former Memphis Yellow Cab driver, Louis Ward, is on the stand answering questions put to him by attorney William Pepper. Ward describes what a fellow cab driver, Paul Butler, saw and reported as an eyewitness to the assassination and its aftermath. Why Butler himself was not on the stand will eventually become clear.

Some of these details were reported by Butler via car radio right after the assassination, while Ward heard other details face-to-face from Butler a bit later in the day.

 “…as I raised up and looked, that rifle 
popped — it didn’t sound like a rifle, it sounded like two boards clapped together. And he said, I seen his jaw and part of his neck blowed away. It was like he had a stick of dynamite in his mouth. He said, as I wheeled and looked, I seen a cluster of smoke coming up out of the bushes, and then I seen the guy come running up. He didn’t have no rifle. But he said, I know that he is the one that had to shoot him. And then he
 headed towards the — headed north towards 
the squad car.
 And, of course, we thought the 
police had picked him up. Because it was a
 black and white squad car… 

Q. So he’s telling you that after the
 shot he saw a man come out of the bushes –

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — run up north on Mulberry Street –

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — and get into a squad car — a 
traffic –

A. Traffic squad car, black and white,

Q. Which was parked where?

A. He said about a half a block north of 
the motel.

Q. And then what happened to that car?

A. Well, he said they headed north. We thought he picked — well, he come back on the radio and said the police has picked him up and they headed north with him. You could hear the tires were squealing. So we thought the police had already picked up the guy that done the shooting.

Q. I see. So both you and Mr. Butler 
had thought that the police had apprehended the shooter.

A. Yes.

Q. What happened next? Did any police 
come out to the airport?

A. Yes. While I’m standing there
 talking, a squad car drove up with a
 lieutenant and a patrolman…And the lieutenant wrote the report down that he [Butler] had and told him that they would be back in contact with him. So they got in the squad car and left after they got the report.

Q. So they took a report from Mr. Butler 
and they — they left. Where were you standing when that report was being taken? 

A. Oh, probably — when they came up, I 
was standing up next to him. When they came up, I backed away, probably 3 or 4 feet out of their way, where they would have plenty of clearance. But I was close enough that he gave them the same report that he gave me. 

Q. You overheard this report being given?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Then what happened next?

A. Well, they called — the dispatcher 
called him to come in to the headquarters. We have a headquarters. Said he was wanted down there. Well, later on that night, not 
too much later, I was in town and drove by
 the cab company and there was several squad
 cars down there. And I figured that they 
were, you know, taking some more reports.
And then I found out later that he was
supposed to be at court at 9 o’clock the next

Q. He was supposed to give a
 statement –

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — the next morning? And how many
 squad cars were around Yellow’s offices that 

A. There were several. I would say
 seven or eight. Might have been more, might 
have been five or six. But I just noticed 
there were several squad cars sitting there.
I didn’t count them.

Q. Seven or eight Memphis Police Department cars around Yellow’s headquarters that night?

A. Yes, sir.

[Two weeks then pass before Ward goes back to Yellow’s headquarters, when the following takes place.]

Q. When was the next time you actually 
went into the offices and –

A. Oh, it was — well, I went into the
 office when I first came back to work. I 
went in then. That’s when I — I asked him
 about Mr. Butler.

Q. Who did you ask about Mr. Butler?

A. There was four or five cab drivers 
standing around talking. And I just asked 
them. And that’s when they told me — I
 don’t even remember which one told me. But he said he had been throwed out of a high-speed automobile between Memphis and West Memphis. And they found him about 10 o’clock the next day.
[April 5, 1968]

Q. They said he was thrown out of a 
high-speed automobile. When was he thrown out of that automobile?

A. The next — the next morning. They 
said they found his body about 10 o’clock or 10:30 the next morning. He was supposed to 
have been in court at 9 o’clock that morning 

and he wasn’t there. They found his car
 there at the cab company. And — but he 
wasn’t — he wasn’t — never made it to
court. But then about 10:30 they said they 
found his body between Memphis and West 

[Ed.: Mr. Ward further testified that he went through the local newspapers and never found anything in the papers about Mr. Butler’s death.]

And so it is that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, finding its way into the nation’s calendar of saints and heroes, has the potential to shake this calendar of myths and fibs into pieces.

Court decision: U.S. government agencies found guilty in Martin Luther King’s assassination

Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, December 1999

Global Research, January 18, 2016

Martin Luther King Day 2016

Originally published by Washington Blog and Global Research in January 2013.

 Very few Americans are aware of this historical 1999 civil law suit of the King Family against the US Government. (Shelby County Court), Tennessee

Coretta Scott King: “We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience.” – King Family Press Conference, Dec. 9, 1999.

From the King Center on the family’s civil trial that found the US government guilty in Martin’s assassination:

After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. In a press statement held the following day in Atlanta, Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict, saying ,

There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court’s unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation.

The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law… My husband once said, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” To-day, almost 32 years after my husband and the father of my four children was assassinated, I feel that the jury’s verdict clearly affirms this principle. With this faith, we can begin the 21st century and the new millennium with a new spirit of hope and healing.”


View Full Trial Transcript>

View Transcript of King Family Press Conference on the Verdict


The King family stands firmly behind the civil trial verdict reached by twelve jurors in the Memphis, Tennessee courtroom on December 8, 1999.

An excerpt from remarks made by Mr. Dexter Scott King, Chairman, President, and CEO of The King Center, during the December 9, 1999 press conference regarding the verdict that may be used in support of this family decision:

“We can say that because of the evidence and information obtained in Memphis we believe that this case is over. This is a period in the chapter. We constantly hear reports, which trouble me, that this verdict creates more questions than answers. That is totally false. Anyone who sat in on almost four weeks of testimony, with over seventy witnesses, credible witnesses I might add, from several judges to other very credible witnesses, would know that the truth is here.”

The question now is, “What will you do with that?” We as a family have done our part. We have carried this mantle for as long as we can carry it. We know what happened. It is on public record. The transcripts will be available; we will make them available on the Web at some point. Any serious researcher who wants to know what happened can find out.”

The King family feels that the jury’s verdict, the transcripts of the conspiracy trial, and the transcripts of the King family’s press conference following the trial — all of which can be found on The King Center’s website — include everything that that family members have to say about the assassination.

Therefore, the King family shares the conviction that there is nothing more to add to their comments on record and will respectfully decline all further requests for comment.

Related Downloads

Assassination Trial – Family Press Conference.pdf

Assassination Trial – Full Transcript.pdf

Excerpt from Verdict  [Global Research Editor, emphasis added, for further details see full transcript]

(Verdict form passed to the Court.)

THE COURT: I have authorized
this gentleman here to take one picture of
you which I’m going to have developed and
make copies and send to you as I promised.
Okay. All right, ladies and
gentlemen. Let me ask you, do all of you
agree with this verdict?
THE JURY: Yes (In unison).
THE COURT: In answer to the
question did Loyd Jowers participate in a
conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther
King, your answer is yes. Do you also find
that others, including governmental agencies,
were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by
the defendant? Your answer to that one is
also yes. And the total amount of damages
you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is
one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?
THE JURY: Yes (In unison).
THE COURT: All right. I want
to thank you ladies and gentlemen for your
participation. It lasted a lot longer than
we had originally predicted. In spite of
that, you hung in there and you took your
notes and you were alert all during the
trial. And we appreciate it. We want you to
note that our courts cannot function if we
don’t have jurors who accept their
responsibility such as you have.
I hope it has been a pleasant
experience for you and that when you go back
home you’ll tend tell your friends and
neighbors when they get that letter saying
they’ve been summoned for jury duty, don’t
try to think of up those little old lies,
just come on down and it is not so bad after
I know how much you regret the fact
that you won’t be able to come back for the
next ten years. I don’t know, I may or may
not recognize you if I see you on the street
some day, but if you would see me and
recognize me, I sure would appreciate you
coming up and reminding me of your service
To remind you of your service, we
have some certificates that we have prepared
for you. They look real good in a frame.
Not only will they remind you of your service
here, but they will remind you also of that
wonderful judge who presided over this. We
do thank you very much on behalf of everyone
who has participated in this trial.
You were directed not to discuss the
case when you were first sworn. Now that
your verdict has been reached, I’m going to
relieve you of that oath, meaning that you
may or may not discuss it. It is up to you.

No one can force you to. And if you discuss
it, it will only be because you decide that
you wanted to.
I guess that’s about all except that
I want to come around there and personally
shake your hand. You are what I would call
Having said that, as soon as I get
around there and get a chance to shake your
hands, you’ll be dismissed.
(Judge Swearengen left the bench
to shake the jurors hands.)
THE COURT: Those of you who
would like to retain your notes, you may do
so if you want to.
I guess that’s about it. So
consider yourselves dismissed and we thank
you again.
Ladies and gentlemen, Court is
(The proceedings were concluded
at 3:10 p.m. on December 8th, 1999.)

(901) 529-1999
SHERYL WEATHERFORD, Reporters and Notaries
Public, Shelby County, Tennessee, CERTIFY:
1. The foregoing proceedings were
taken before us at the time and place stated
in the foregoing styled cause with the
appearances as noted;
2. Being Court Reporters, we then
reported the proceedings in Stenotype to the
best of our skill and ability, and the
foregoing pages contain a full, true and
correct transcript of our said Stenotype
notes then and there taken;
3. We am not in the employ of and
are not related to any of the parties or
their counsel, and we have no interest in the
matter involved.
____ day of ___________, 2000.
Certificate of Merit
Holder; Registered
Professional Reporter,
Notary Public for
the State of Tennessee at
Large ***
(901) 529-1999
Professional Reporter,
Notary Public for
the State of Tennessee at
Large ***

The assassination of Sen. Paul Wellstone — October 25, 2002

By Stephen Lendman
Posted on War is a Crime, October 28, 2012

October 25 [2012] marked the 10th anniversary of Wellstone’s death. Was it accidental or an assassination to silence a sadly missed principled voice? Convincing evidence suggests foul play. More on that below.

On October 25, 2002, The New York Times headlined “Minnesota Senator Is Among 8 Dead in Crash,” saying:

Wellstone “was killed today when his campaign plane crashed approaching a small airport in a wooded region in the northern part of his state.”

Campaigning for a third term, he “perished along with seven other people when the chartered King Air A100 went down near Eveleth around 10:20 a.m. Central Time, the Federal Aviation Administration reported.”

Weather conditions weren’t abnormal. Light rain mixed with snow was reported. Flights without incident occur normally under these and harsher conditions. Wellstone perished with his wife, one child, three staff members, and two highly experienced pilots.

From the time the news broke, suspicions arose that perhaps what happened wasn’t accidental. Professors James Fetzer and Don “Four Arrows” Jacobs examined the tragedy. They concluded that Wellstone was assassinated.

In 2004, they published “American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone.” More on what they said below.

Like former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Wellstone was a rare exception that proves the rule. He was uncorrupted by money and power ambitions. He left academia to run for office. Explaining why, he said:

“I don’t represent the big oil companies, the big pharmaceuticals, or the big insurance industry. They already have great representation in Washington. It’s the rest of the people that need representation.”

His voting record explained why he was called “the conscience of the Senate.” He opposed the Gulf War and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.

He was also against NAFTA, oil drilling in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge, sending troops to Haiti in 1994 without congressional approval, and bankruptcy legislation benefitting financial giants at the expense of working people.

He supported labor rights, children’s and women’s rights, universal healthcare, public and higher education, good jobs with livable wages, small farmers, campaign finance and lobbying reforms, and retirement security.

He once told his students, “Never separate the lives you live from the words you speak.” He stood for saying what you believe and doing what you say. At a time destructive neoliberalism took hold, he was a living, breathing antidote. His voting record showed it.

He supported progressive activism. He believed in backing principles with action. He battled hardliners supporting anti-populist measures he opposed.

At a fall 1990 White House reception for newly elected congressional members, he urged GHW Bush to spend more time on education and other social issues.

He also advised him against attacking Iraq. Not at all pleased, Bush privately asked an aide, “Who is this chickenshit?” His activism and outspokenness cursed him with the mark of Cain. He’d learn later how hard it stings.

Project Vote Smart covered his voting record from April 1992 – October 2002. Many progressive ones included:

  • yea for family and medical leave;
  •  yea for homosexuals in the military;
  • yea for ending military operations in Somalia;
  • nay on the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act;
  • nay on space-based lasers;
  • nay on the Telecommunications Bill letting media giants consolidate to greater size;
  • nay on harmful welfare reform hurting poor people when they most need help;
  • nay on Cuba sanctions;
  • yea on helpful immigration reform;
  • nay against reconfirming Alan Greenspan;
  • yea for campaign finance reform;
  • yea for increasing the minimum wage;
  • nay for the partial/birth abortion ban;
  • yea for the Chemical Weapons Convention; it prohibits development, production, stockpiling, and use of these weapons; it also mandates their destruction;
  • yea for family tax relief;
  • yea for aiding higher education programs;
  • nay for banning Cuban travel;
  • nay for confirming John Ashcroft;
  • yea for a patients’ bill of rights; and
  • nay for No Child Left Behind.

His book titled “The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda” explained his passion for economic and social justice.

In 2002, he ran for a third term. Doing so reneged on a pledge to serve two and leave. He had unfinished business on his mind. He also faced long knives wanting him gone.

Big money was marshaled against him. An aide to his Republican opponent, Norm Coleman, said, “There are people in the (George W. Bush) White House who wake up in the morning thinking about how they will defeat Paul Wellstone. This one is political and personal for them.”

Polls showed him ahead. Reelection looked likely. Potentially controlling the Senate was at stake. Eleven days before November 5, he tragically died on route to a funeral and campaign event in rural Minnesota.

Fetzer and Jacobs say Wellstone’s death was no accident. It wasn’t weather, plane trouble, or pilot error connected. Evidence they uncovered explains otherwise.

Confirmation of the tragedy didn’t come from Wellstone’s office, state police, or Minnesota’s governor. It first came from GW Bush’s ranch. Why was it known there before anywhere else?

FBI agents arrived with suspicious speed. Perhaps they knew in advance and positioned themselves nearby. They prevented fire teams, journalists, and others at the crash site from taking photos.

An AP photographer said he was intimidated, delayed and monitored. Was vital evidence removed or destroyed? NTSB investigators didn’t show up for 10 hours. Why did FBI agents try having things both ways?

On the one hand, they declared the site a “crime scene.” They also said no crime took place. How could anyone know without careful forensic examination?

Fetzer and Jacobs believe Wellstone was killed for political reasons. Coverup followed his assassination. The official story is rife with inconsistencies and willful omissions of key facts. They explained how, why, and who was responsible.

Besides eliminating a powerful progressive voice, Wellstone’s enemies wanted Republican Coleman’s win to help Republicans gain Senate control.

Fetzer and Jacobs explained the following:

Former CIA official Carol Carmody handled NTSB’s crash investigation. She’s a damage-control expert. Coverup is her game. She was also in charge of investigating Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan’s suspicious aircraft crash during his senatorial race against John Ashcroft two years earlier.

NTSB is legally mandated to investigate transportation accidents. Yet it let FBI agents control things. Why it didn’t explain. Mention of the FBI’s involvement was excluded from their final report.

Ahead of the crash, neither Wellstone pilot signaled distress. Why not since they were going down in a remote area perhaps with no help nearby.

Some witnesses heard what sounded like the engines cutting out or stalling. Others reported odd cell phone and automatic garage door phenomena coincidental with the crash.

They included electronic interference and strange noises never before experienced. The auditory pattern appeared consistent with electromagnetic (EM) weapons use.

They were developed to knock out computer systems and harm human subjects. Most Americans know nothing about them. They can disable radio communications and warning systems.

They can alter an aircraft’s flight pattern and cause pilots to lose control. They can make them lose consciousness, incapacitate them in other ways, or kill them.

Fetzer says they can “literally fry the electronic components in an aircraft” the way microwaves heat meals or lightening bolts affect objects struck.

NTSB’s simulations replicated weather conditions, the flight pattern, and overall conditions at the time. Even at abnormally low speeds, they couldn’t down the plane.

NTSB member Richard Healing said he had no idea what caused the crash. Yet he signed the official report giving reasons that didn’t wash. They included pilot error, bad weather, and other preposterous claims. Instead of investigating responsibly, they made stuff up.

Fetzer and Jacobs established compelling prima facie and conclusive evidence to prove Wellstone’s death was no accident.

They called his Beech King-Air A100 the “Rolls-Royce” of small aircraft. Pilot Richard Conry had 5,200 hours of flight experience. His rating was the highest civilian one possible. Two days before the crash, he passed his FAA flight check. He was highly qualified to fly the Beech aircraft.

Co-pilot Michael Guess was also instrument qualified. He was very able to fly the plane on his own under adverse weather conditions. It’s inconceivable that either pilot alone or together fouled up.

According to NTSB’s report, the “airplane descended through the trees wings level and upright on about a 26 degree downward flight path angle on a ground track of about 180 degrees.”

Fetzer called this angle “too steep to suggest anything but a very serious dive, not likely to result from a low altitude stall but from a plane completely out of control very abruptly or all of a sudden.”

NTSB should have stressed this. It didn’t. Why was never explained. If electromagnetic weapons were used, evidence would have clearly showed it. For example, digital clocks would have failed immediately, not at impact.

FBI agents arriving quickly did nothing to stop the fuselage from burning. It continued for hours. By the time NTSB investigators arrived, bodies were charred beyond recognition. Other forensic evidence was destroyed or concealed.

According to Fetzer:

“Dennis Ciminio, a pilot and expert on devices of this kind, has confirmed that the technology to take out the plane has been around for decades and that the intense fire – which burned the fuselage but not the wings, in which the plane’s fuel was stored – was almost certainly intended to destroy the evidence of how it was done.”

“He has explained to me the most likely culprit here to put that kind of power directly onto the plane itself to cause such widespread mayhem would have been an electronically beam-steered-system, such as Raytheon’s BFL (Beam Forming Lens) equipped Army jamming system.”

“That is especially plausible, since Raytheon owns Beechcraft, which makes the Air King A-100 and would know exactly how it could be taken down.”

More than electromagnetic weapons may have been involved. At about the time the plane crashed, “a white van” was seen departing the area at high speed.

“The melted area at the altitude where ice forms, moreover, strongly suggests that the Wellstone plane was taken out using a satellite-mounted laser, which would have had the effect of melting the ice at that level.”

Dick Cheney was running “an executive assassination ring” out of the White House at that time. He did then what Obama is doing now. Wellstone was perhaps one of Cheney’s targets.

He, “Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld may not have executed this hit personally, but they were in a position to make it happen.” Eventually perhaps the full truth will be known. Enough already is clear to say Wellstone’s death was no accident.

Anyone with a powerful public voice supporting principles he embraced could end up targeted for elimination and killed. That’s how rogue states operate. Bucking the system risks life and limb. Wellstone paid the ultimate price.

David Ray Griffin calls Fetzer and Jacob’s book compelling and vitally important. It’s hard not believing that Wellstone was assassinated. Bush administration officials likely ordered it.

Based on all relevant evidence, “we must conclude that the theory that Wellstone was assassinated is far more probable that the official story” that doesn’t wash.

Fetzer and Jacobs agree that “evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Wellstone was assassinated. They have, in my view, made a convincing case.”

In November 2002, investigative journalist Michael Ruppert asked, “Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?” He wrote:

“The day after the crash I received a message from a former CIA operative who has proven extremely reliable in the past and who is personally familiar with these kinds of assassinations.”

“The message read, ‘As I said earlier, having played ball (and still playing in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw around with. There will be a few more strategic accidents. You can be certain of that.’ ”

Everyone challenging the system is vulnerable. Wellstone paid with his life.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”




Former CIA official on the secret wars of the CIA — Part 1

From The Other Americas Radio:

Our ambassador to the United Nations, Patrick Moynihan, he read continuous statements of our position to the Security Council, the general assembly, and the press conferences, saying the Russians and Cubans were responsible for the conflict, and that we were staying out, and that we deplored the militarization of the conflict.

And every statement he made was false. And every statement he made was originated in the sub-committee of the [National Security Council] that I sat on as we managed this thing. The state department press person read these position papers daily to the press. We would write papers for him. Four paragraphs. We would call him on the phone and say, `call us 10 minutes before you go on, the situation could change overnight, we’ll tell you which paragraph to read. And all four paragraphs would be false. Nothing to do with the truth. Designed to play on events, to create this impression of Soviet and Cuban aggression in Angola. When they were in fact responding to our initiatives.

And the CIA director was required by law to brief the Congress. This CIA director Bill Colby – the same one that dumped our people in Vietnam – he gave 36 briefings of the Congress, the oversight committees, about what we were doing in Angola. And he lied. At 36 formal briefings. And such lies are perjury, and it’s a felony to lie to the Congress.
— John Stockwell, former CIA official
October 1987


by John Stockwell

A lecture given in October, 1987

Audio: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article4068.htm

Part I – Part II

John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public. He ran a CIA intelligence-gathering post in Vietnam, was the task-force commander of the CIA’s secret war in Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before he resigned. Stockwell’s book In Search of Enemies, published by W.W. Norton 1978, is an international best-seller.

“I did 13 years in the CIA altogether. I sat on a subcommittee of the NSC, so I was like a chief of staff, with the GS-18s (like 3-star generals) Henry Kissinger, Bill Colby (the CIA director), the GS-18s and the CIA, making the important decisions and my job was to put it all together and make it happen and run it, an interesting place from which to watch a covert action being done…

I testified for days before the Congress, giving them chapter and verse, date and detail, proving specific lies. They were asking if we had to do with S. Africa, that was fighting in the country. In fact we were coordinating this operation so closely that our airplanes, full of arms from the states, would meet their airplanes in Kinshasa and they would take our arms into Angola to distribute to our forces for us….

What I found with all of this study is that the subject, the problem, if you will, for the world, for the U.S. is much, much, much graver, astronomically graver, than just Angola and Vietnam. I found that the Senate Church committee has reported, in their study of covert actions, that the CIA ran several thousand covert actions since 1961, and that the heyday of covert action was before 1961; that we have run several hundred covert actions a year, and the CIA has been in business for a total of 37 years.

What we’re going to talk about tonight is the United States national security syndrome. We’re going to talk about how and why the U.S. manipulates the press. We’re going to talk about how and why the U.S. is pouring money into El Salvador, and preparing to invade Nicaragua; how all of this concerns us so directly. I’m going to try to explain to you the other side of terrorism; that is, the other side of what Secretary of State Shultz talks about. In doing this, we’ll talk about the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and the Central American war.

Continue reading

April 4, 1968 — the execution of Martin Luther King

Today marks the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee.

This amazing man, whose legacy continues in his words and deeds, was murdered as he prepared to lead a march on Washington, DC.

In 1999, the King Family finally succeeded in having the evidence heard in court which showed King was assassinated by a collaboration of the United States government with Mafia members. James Earl Ray was a “patsy” – set up to take the blame. He had nothing to do with it. He was not a racist.

Many of the American perpetrators are still with us. Certainly, the US government and the agencies that committed this deed thrive and continue working domestically and in other countries.

Daylight exposes. Tell people. Don’t rely on the internet. Talk to people, face to face. Tell your officials. Demand public recognition and response to these crimes by the U.S. government.

The transcript of the trial is here: http://www.thekingcenter.org/civil-case-king-family-versus-jowers It is also available in book form: The 13th Juror – The Official Transcript of the Martin Luther King Assassination Conspiracy Trial (ISBN 978-1442112155)

Dr. William Pepper, the attorney for the King family, wrote An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (ISBN 978-1844672851) It includes additional and updated evidence.

This is the speech that Martin Luther King gave opposing the Vietnam War and American foreign policy, which set the clock ticking against him. He delivered it exactly one year before he was murdered:
Beyond Vietnam

Dr. King said:
“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.”

Don’t be silent. Be a friend to peace, equality, harmony, and to people everywhere.

Excerpt from “Beyond Vietnam”:

… They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China-for whom the Vietnamese have no great love-but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call “fortified hamlets.” The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

… The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality, and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

The Western connection in the assassination of Serbia’s Prime Minister Djindjic on March 14, 2003

Posted on the Saker, March 20, 2015

by Nikola Vrzic

Several days ago, on March 12th, Serbia marked another – twelfth – anniversary of the assassination of Serbia’s prime minister Zoran Djindjic. The official narrative of Djindjic, as a reformer who was killed by criminals and Serbian nationalists, this year was confronted with evidence revealing the story as much more complex, with a strong presence of Western, primarily British and US secret services…

The official version of Djindjic’s death, established on a day of his assassination in 2003 and later confirmed by the court, says that Djindjic, pro-Western reformer, “the quisling of Belgrade” as Neil Clark called him in The Guardian on March 14 2003, was killed by members of (Belgrade suburb) Zemun criminal clan and “red berets”, Serbian secret police unit for special operations which had fought in wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Criminals, the story goes, wanted Djindjic dead as they wanted to avoid their imminent arrest, while the “red berets”, allegedly supported by nationalistic circles in Serbian society (in the army, in political parties, Serbian orthodox church…), wanted Djindjic dead for his cooperation with The Hague Tribunal and, broadly speaking, betraying Serbian national interests by collaborating with the West.

Djindjic was killed as his motorcade came to the building of Serbian government. According to the official version, he got out of his car, walked (on crutches, he previously injured his left leg playing football) to the door which was closed, turned against the door in an attempt to open it himself by pushing it with his back, and at that point he was shot with a single bullet (which was never recovered). After Djindjic was shot, there was a second shot which injured Djindjic’s bodyguard Milan Veruovic and, piercing his body, ended in a stone wall next to the door where Djindjic was shot.

That is the official version.

This is where our investigation started.

In a recently published book “The Third Bullet. The Political Background of the Assassination of Zoran Djindjic” by Milan Veruovic, Djindjic’s wounded bodyguard, and the author of this article, journalist Nikola Vrzic, the official version of Serbian PM’s assassination is scrutinized through comprehensive analysis of all the evidence presented to the court, testimonies, police documents…, and, as a result, the book refuted the official version of Djindjic’s assassination both in terms of what really happened on March 12 2003, as well as regarding the political motives that led to his death. In short, conspiracy seems to be much, much wider, going beyond Serbia’s borders.

Both witnesses’ testimonies and material evidence show there were three, not just two bullets fired on that day, which means – to make a longer story short – there was another sniper; again, both witnesses and all the material evidence prove that Djindjic was shot by that other sniper, as he did not turn his back to the government building trying to open the door himself (with nine bodyguards around him) – the door, in fact, was open – but he was shot facing the government building, meaning, from exactly the opposite direction than officially acknowledged; Djindjic’s entry wound (33×20 mm), consistent with damages on his clothes, is significantly larger than Veruovic’s entry wound (6×7 mm), which also proves that they were shot from two different rifles of different calibers, with Veruovic’s wound being consistent with the caliber (diameter of a bullet) 7,62 mm of the only rifle that was, officially, used on March 12 2003; as far as that rifle is concerned, the comparison of Serbian police’s documentation with the documentation of German police (which examined the rifle afterwards) show strong indications that different rifle was planted instead of the one originally found; in a days after Djindjic was shot, a man from Croatia, with criminal contacts, was identified as possibly being one of the assassins, however, Serbian police did not even present his photograph to the witnesses and did not follow up on this lead, but, instead, directed the public attention to an innocent Belgrade man in order to divert the attention from the Croatian trail; furthermore, the police concealed the automobile used by the Croatian man, and this automobile – black “Volvo” 240 – belonged to one of Serbian security services…

To cut a long story short, the official version proved to be the official lie about Djindjic’s assassination.

Which leads to the crucial question – who is guilty for this lie? One answer is obvious: police who investigated the crime, prosecutors and judges who confirmed the false official version, despite all the evidence and testimonies suggesting the opposite. Above them, Djindjic’s successors in his party and Serbian government, who had provided strong political support for the false official version, actively participating in establishing this, i.e. their version of Djindjic’s assassination.

These successors of Zoran Djindjic, it should be noted, are among the most pro-Western political forces in Serbia.

And this brings us to the, possibly, crucial aspect of the story. West’s involvement in the events preceding Djindjic’s assassination, as well as after it, in the establishment of the false official version, is profound.

Based on public documents, Serbian police and secret service documents, court testimonies, US diplomatic cables revealed by the WikiLeaks, we can be certain that:

– CIA’s agents in Hungary helped in arranging the protection of the crucial “protected witness” Ljubisa Buha Cume, former boss of Zemun criminal clan, who started the chain of events that led to Djindjic’s murder. British intelligence service also played its part in protecting this man, by arranging his transfer from Turkey to Slovakia when Zemun clan’s hitmen were after Buha.

– CIA had its agent inside the Zemun clan, Cedomir Mihajlovic (alias Igor Baruh). British service, according to court testimonies, also had the clan under the surveillance, and even had the information they were about to assassinate Djindjic – this according to Vladimir Popovic, former Djindjic’s associate with whom Djindjic parted in the fall of 2002.

– This man, Vladimir Popovic, who came to the government building exactly 5 minutes after Djindjic’s assassination and who can be regarded as the creator of the official version, was accused by former Serbian secret police chief Jovica Stanisic for being recruited by the British intelligence. Stanisic said this in the statement to the Serbian police when he was arrested. Popovic himself, in his court testimony, spoke about his contacts with British intelligence.

– UBPOK, Serbian police unit that conducted the investigation, was created shortly beforehand under the British auspice.

– Anthony Monckton, who was revealed as the MI6 agent in Serbia, also participated in the investigation, according to The Sunday Times and The Guardian.

– Special prosecutor Jovan Prijic, the author of the indictment based on the false official version, enjoyed political protection from then US ambassador in Belgrade Michael Polt, EU high representative Javier Solana and other Western diplomats, which was revealed when the government of Vojislav Kostunica tried to remove Prijic from the office. Eventually he was removed, however, on a condition to remain leading prosecutor in Djindjic’s case.

– US diplomatic cables, revealed by WikiLeaks, showed that US embassy in Belgrade, supervising the trial, was in constant contact with the presiding judge in Djindjic case, even consulting with him about who will, among Zemun clan members, become a protected witness, i.e. collaborator of the prosecution.

– Finally, German intelligence, during Djindjic’s lifetime, conducted a security check of his places of work and residence, which could mean that they knew exactly from which locations his life could be threatened. Their report was never presented to the Serbian authorities. Germans also officially participated in the investigation of Djindjic’s assassination.

And then, there is also Djindjic’s policy. Even though he was brought to power in Serbia with Western help, by the beginning of 2003, from being part of the solution when he was removing Slobodan Milosevic, he became part of the problem, endangering pax Americana in the Balkans by demanding Kosovo to remain part of Serbia and to immediately start negotiations on Kosovo’s final status, which was strongly opposed by both the US and the EU. He demanded Serbian police to return to Kosovo, according to the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1244. He threatened with the independence of Serbian republic in Bosnia in the case of Kosovo’s independence sponsored by Western powers. He refused to hand over the archives of Serbian police and army to The Hague Tribunal, refusing also to extradite Serbian generals which were about to be indicted by the Tribunal.

Before he was killed, Zoran Djindjic had been labeled as a “new Slobodan Milosevic” for his confronting the West.

After his death, this Djindjic’s policy of confronting the West was completely overturned by his successors, who made every attempt to make the public forget about Djindjic’s clash with the West prior to his assassination. Furthermore, Western engineering of Serbian political scene accelerated in the years following Djindjic’s death, eventually resulting in total consensus in Serbia’s parliament on country’s EU integrations.

Last, but not the least, after Djindjic’s death every party in Serbia held the power at some point. During this turmoil, everything could change but two things: Serbia continued to approach NATO – this also started after Djindjic’s assassination – and nobody dared to publicly question the official version of the murder of Zoran Djindjic. There must be a strong reason for this.


Nemtsov spent his last day under close surveillance by the killers

Posted on Fort Russ

The investigators have reconstructed the big picture ofNemtsov’s murder

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

While the investigators are working on theories concerning possible organizers of the murder, the investigation was able to reconstruct the full picture of the murder. The preparations took an entire day, during which Nemtsov was trailed by several cars. Nemtsov was likely able to see the face of the killer, who came out of hiding in front of both Nemtsov and Duritskaya, then turned around and opened fire once the two passed him.

Law enforcement sources say that the surveillance was conducted by three cars who have exchanged places six times during the day at various stages of Nemtsov’s and Duritskaya’s travel. The investigation was able to establish this using the Potok surveillance camera system video.

Nemtsov picked up Duritskaya at the Sheremetyevo airport around 11 a.m. on February 27. Already then their Range Rover was being followed by a Chevrolet. It followed Nemtsov’s car almost until Moscow, where it was replaced by the next car. The second car followed Nemtsov almost to his home on Malaya Ordinka.

In the evening, the criminals “accompanied” Nemtsov to the GUM where they saw him dismiss his chauffeur. Then it became clear that he would be returning on foot to his apartment on Malaya Ordynka. The external surveillance established over Nemtsov then gave the killer group to occupy their positions when Boris and Anna left Bosco Café around 23:22.

The car in which both the killer and his driver were sitting was parked on a side street. It made a U-turn around 23:29 under the Bolshoy Moskvoretskiy bridge, slowly approached the stairs, where the killer got out of the car. By that time Nemtsov and Duritskaya were already on the bridge. The killer waited for them on the stairs. He came out in front of them, pass them, then turned around and at 23:31 he shot Nemtsov in the back six times. Four of the bullets struck him, one of them struck Nemtsov’s heart and killed him.

By that time the car which was supposed to pick up the killer had already reached the crime scene. The killer only had to run out into the street and sit in the front passenger seat. Part of the killer’s vehicle route after departing the crime scene was reconstructed using video surveillance recordings.

J.Hawk’s Comment: So it would seem the operation involved at least three cars and at least six individuals (counting the surveillance team that kept tabs on Nemtsov at the GUM).  It really seems like too much of a coincidence that Duritskaya came to see him just when he was clearly being targeted for assassination which evidently was supposed to have happened on that or next day, and preferably somewhere close to the Kremlin. The description of the surveillance does suggest the people in question knew what they were doing.

Since Nemtsov was theoretically able to see who the killer was, so was presumably Duritskaya who after all walked right next to him all this time. The description of the events above contradicts what Duritskaya is reported to have said, namely that she did not see the killer because he shot Nemtsov from behind. At no point did Duritskaya indicate the shooter was ever in front of them.