In 2002, a Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigated U.S. intelligence service failures leading to the September 11, 2001 “terrorist” attacks. The Congressional report totaled 836 pages, of which the final chapter — 28 pages in length — was and still is completely classified. For over a decade, family members of the 9/11 victims, the co-chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation itself former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), a majority of the members of the 9/11 Commission and other individuals and organizations have urged declassification of these pages, arguing that what is known about them from members of Congress who have read them and gone public indicates that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and possibly also Israel are named as having been involved in organizing, financing and protecting at least some of the “hijackers” of the September 11 plot. High level calls for the declassification and release of the 28 pages took a quantum leap on April 10, 2016, with a special edition of CBS News’ award-winning investigative journalism program 60 Minutes dedicated to the topic as well as Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the longest-serving Democrat on the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, calling for their release in an official statement. However, no American politician wants to bell the cat. And few influential citizens do, either. The cries we hear are for President Barack Obama to “declassify” the 28 Pages, and before leaving for his recent trip to Saudi Arabia he did say that he “favored” their release. Unspoken in this statement, however, are two important facts:1) if the pages from an executive branch document, President Obama himself is the highest declassification authority in the executive branch and could – and should – declassify and release them immediately; but 2) the pages are part of a Congressional branch document and so are “owned” by Congress, which has the sole authority to declassify and release them, which has been unequivocally stated in writing on CIA letterhead; and as Congress as a body has delegated such decisions to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the very Committees who wrote the report containing the 28 Pages have the sole authority to declassify and release them at any time – and the president, as the head of the executive branch, does not. The executive and congressional branches are therefore playing a cynical game of ‘good fed, bad fed’ with the 9/11 victims’ family members and the American people. But even if President Obama had the authority to declassify and release the 28 pages, we don’t believe he would do so. Campaigning on ending the war in Iraq, he has, instead, continued it. He has also warred against Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and, by Saudi proxy, Yemen. So, there is little reason to expect that he will let American citizens and the world see how he and the George W. Bush administration have protected countries which have supported international terrorism.BUT … There really is a better way, and one that Congress has used before.1. Senators and Representatives can read the contents of the 28 Pages in camera in the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) and then openly recite from memory and discus their contents and meaning on the floor of either House. In 1971, then-Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) placed 4,100 of the 7,000 pages of The Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, partially by reading from some of them on the Senate Floor and, later, by inserting the remainder through an aide into the record of a meeting of his Senate Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. (The Pentagon Papers was the informal name given to a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.)There is constitutional and legal justification for this.2. Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. [emphasis added] 3. In Gravel v. United States, 408 US 606 (1972), the U. S. Supreme Court rejected the executive branch’s argument and those of lower courts that Senator Gravel and his aides had broken the law. In upholding the immunity of members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause, the court clearly stated that the clause “… was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer —either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution—for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.” And, in fact, for almost a year now former Senator Mike Gravel has been calling for just one courageous member of Congress to step forward and become “The Mike Gravel for the 28 Pages.” He has personally meeting with Representatives and Senators who have already read the pages asking them to step forward and do what he did, and has sent a law review article detailing how Gravel v. United States and the multiple subsequent court rulings upholding it continue to ensure members of Congress near-absolute immunity should they recite from memory what they have read of the 28 pages on the floor of the House or the Senate.It’s time to end the “good fed, bad fed” game that’s been going for almost 15 years over whether to, and who can, declassify the 28 pages of the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the Sept. 11 attacks. Let’s not hear any more calls to “Let George do it” — for the President to declassify the pages which he doesn’t have the authority to do. Let’s have Rep. Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Rand Paul or any other member of Congress read the 28 Pages and summarize them from memory on the floor of either House into the Congressional Record. Let’s finally hear some common sense, truth and wisdom from the courageous member of Congress who steps forward to be “The Mike Gravel for the 28 Pages”. Biographic Note: ***J. Michael Springmann served in the United States government as a diplomat with the State Department’s Foreign Service, with postings in Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. He left federal service and currently practices law in the Washington, DC, area.Springmann has been published in numerous foreign policy publications, including Covert Action Quarterly, Unclassified, Global Outlook, the Public Record, OpEdNews, and Foreign Policy Journal. He holds a JD from American University, in Washington, DC, as well as undergraduate and graduate degrees in international relations from Georgetown University and the Catholic University of America. In 2004, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee recognized Springmann as one of its Pro Bono Attorneys of the Year.***Barbara Honegger is a leading researcher, author and public speaker on the 9/11 Pentagon attack and the anthrax attacks.She has served in high-level positions in the U.S. Federal Government, including White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President.From 2000 to 2011, Ms. Honegger served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the premiere science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense.Ms. Honegger has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree from Stanford University; a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Experimental Psychology from John F. Kennedy University; and Masters level certification in National Security Decision-making from the Naval War College, all in the U.S.
The Federal Republic of Germany like the United States, once guaranteed freedom of speech. According to the official translation of Germany’s constitution, its Basic Law (Das Grundgesetz):
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
Every person shall have the right freely to express and dis-
seminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and
to inform himself without hindrance from generally acces-
sible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of report-
ing by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.
There shall be no censorship
That ain’t so no more. Chancellor Angela Merkel seems to have made executive changes to Germany’s basic law. According to the Washington Post of January 7, 2016, “…prosecutors are launching investigations into inflammatory comments as judges dole out fines, even probation time, to the worst offenders.” Then, the Post continued, “German authorities, meanwhile, have reached a deal with Facebook, Google, and Twitter to get tougher on offensive content, with the outlets agreeing to apply domestic laws, rather than their own corporate policies, to review of posts.” The paper omitted just how and who would be “reviewing” the posts. The companies themselves? Or the German federal and State security services? Or, both?
And the terrible crimes under investigation and the punishments doled out? The Washington, D.C. paper noted that the German state had fined a man €300 and sentenced him to five months’ probation for daring to post on his Facebook page that refugees should “burn alive” or “drown” in the sea. A Berlin woman also got five months’ probation for posting remarks on her Facebook page about asylum seekers raping a German woman. She called the rapists “Filth” and pressed for stronger measures against the migrants, writing that if this is not done, “more asylum seekers’ homes will burn”. The newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported the most extreme case: a Bavarian court sentenced a man to 27 months’ imprisonment for posting a suggestion that Chancellor Merkel and her helpers be stood up against a wall and shot for betraying the German people [i.e., supporting unrestricted immigration].
What’s behind this attack on freedom?
The answer is the flood of alleged asylum seekers driven out of the Middle East by American. Gulf States, Israeli, Saudi, Turkish actions. To which we can now add German, French, and British efforts. And it was Angela Merkel who invited the million-man march into Europe. (See: Hausfrauleaks, January 1, 2016; Global Research Canada December 7, 2015). (Some, such as CNN, link her and her family to the old East German security service, the Stasi. Merkel’s codename was said to be Erika.)
Initially, the Migration of Peoples caused what appeared to be minor culture clashes: defecation in the streets, brawls with drunken Oktoberfest-goers, and conservative Muslim outrage against revealingly-clad (to them) German teenagers.
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
On New Year’s Eve 2015, things changed drastically. Once, just a few years ago, the event, called Sylvester in German, was an evening of parties, fireworks, and plenty of champagne. It had been a fine and safe occasion. (While assigned to the U.S. Consulate General in Stuttgart, the author went every year with friends to the Bismarckturm, a tower overlooking the city. He always had a clutch of skyrockets in one hand and a bottle of champagne in the other. The view was spectacular, the participants gleeful, and it was a wonder that the Swabian metropole didn’t burn to the ground.)
But, this year, things, just like Germany, changed—for the worse.
According to the Washington Post, “About 1,000 men described by officials as being largely of ‘Arab or North African origin’ [meaning migrants] had congregated in the square outside Cologne’s main train station that night [New Year’s Eve], with groups reportedly breaking off and assaulting women.” Continuing, the paper commented that women reported a sense of “lawlessness”. One woman told BBC News that “They grabbed our arms…pushed our clothes away and tried to get between our legs or I don’t know where.”
An observant German contact remarked that women had also been celebrating outside Cologne’s impressive cathedral. They tried to flee their attackers but, owing to the press of people, couldn’t. Besides being sexually molested, they had their cell phones and money stolen.
Our source added that Cologne’s Lord Mayor, Henriette Reker, who ran as an independent aligned with the leftist Green Party, had caused a massive outpouring of scorn and contempt, when she would not criticize the migrants. Instead, she advised women to keep an “arm’s length” from strange men. People wanted to know just what is an “arm’s length” and how can you keep an arm’s length away from anyone in a huge crowd. Reker, once a member of Merkel’s CDU party, had been elected from a hospital bed after an alleged throat-slashing by a man ostensibly opposed to migrants,. She is now the subject of mocking Facebook posts. One such came from a German Jew who shared a Junge Alternative fṻr Deutschland (youth group of the Alternative für Deutschland AfD) poster. (AfD is a right-wing party critical of the German Chancellor’s efforts to bring in one million migrants.) The picture (below) shows a woman sighting along the barrel of a large revolver held at arm’s length, with the caption We’ve checked it out, an arm’s length is security. Reker is right.
The Lord Mayor seems to be in denial. Reker, in a later public statement, said that the migrants didn’t come from asylee shelters in the city and that any reports of such were entirely unreliable. Her statement about her attack also seems unreliable. Her assailant used what looked like a bowie knife which should have proved fatal and which should have left a brutal scar—but didn’t, Indeed, the affair was so suspicious that several leftist members of the Bundestag (German parliament) requested an investigation into alleged long-standing ties the assailant had with German domestic intelligence.
The knife used on Reker
Cologne was not an anomaly.
German journalist, Manuel Ochsenreiter, posted a video of migrant assaults in Berlin, with the caption “This is not April/May 1945—this is New Year’s Eve.” The disquieting film clip showed Merkel’s “invitees”, her “children” firing strictly-controlled handguns in the air and loosing rockets and other explosive fireworks horizontally into the crowd which packed the streets. Fire trucks, which I had never seen in operation during my five years in Germany, were roaring through the streets, sirens howling.
In Hamburg, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported January 5 that the situation there resembled Cologne. Young women between the ages of 18 and 24 were verbally and sexually molested, then robbed of money and cell phones. The attackers, migrants in various-sized groups, surrounded the women who sought to flee the scene. The paper quoted Rainer Wendt, federal chairman of the German police union, as saying that the attacks weren’t organized. The migrants simply used the crowd, the darkness, and the shock effect for their actions.
Another interlocutor told us that there were Sylvester outbreaks in Stuttgart, on a smaller scale than Cologne, yet also with sexual gropings, robberies, and theft of cell phones. The Stuttgart attacks took place in the town square, the picturesque Schloßplatz, according to the FAZ. It added that two 18 year old females were set upon by a group of 15 men. The Stuttgarter Zeitung announced a second attack by a similar group wherein a 20 year old male migrant groped two girls, one 15, the other 18.
In Weil am Rhein, a town in the far southwest of Baden-Württemberg, four Syrians, including two asylum-seekers, between the ages of 14 and 21 raped two German girls, 14 and 15 years old. SWR (Southwest Radio), in reporting the New Year’s Eve crime, noted that the police downplayed any connection with the Cologne events and quoted the State Police and the State’s Attorney’s office as saying that a group of underage girls had willingly gone to the home of the underage boys and had engaged in “an exchange of tendernesses”, implying they had voluntarily participated in sex.
In Singen, in the south of Baden-Wurttemberg, the local paper wrote that, on the late afternoon of January 4, 2016, two dark-skinned men attacked and attempted to strip naked a 30-year old woman sitting on a park bench behind City Hall. She fought them off and they ran.
In Munich, principal city of relaxed Bavaria in Germany’s southeast, Rosenheim24, an online news service, reported that 10 to 15 men swarmed two women who were taking a cigarette break outside a disco at 2 a.m. One was groped and the other held fast. Both eventually broke free and fled into the disco.
The foregoing accounts may well be only the ones reported. There is a sense, according to some contacts, that the German federal government was pressing news outlets around the country to downplay the events of Sylvester 2015.
What’s the real background to this?
One German contact, who always voted Left, noted that police positions in the last few years had been cut. Additionally, others have suggested that the police simply didn’t exert themselves. News outlets commented that the Cologne police were slow to act but quick to hide their reasons for doing so. One individual we know asked why the police didn’t use water cannons on the 1,000 or so migrants attacking women. Yes, it was cold, but was there a quicker way to disperse those criminals?, she asked. She emphasized that the Cologne police routinely used water cannon to break up street protests and wondered how it was that the police “forgot” about their crowd-control weapon that night. Indeed, a quick check of the Internet showed that other cities in Germany, such as Hamburg and Leipzig, routinely employed them as well. In Stuttgart, in the Fall of 2010, according to another long-time contact, the police, under the direction of Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union, were plenty fast in using water cannon. They sprayed women, children, and pensioners in protests against redeveloping the city’s main railroad station. While the police were clearly slow, and, perhaps, unwilling to act in Cologne against migrants, it was another story when the German right mounted a massive demonstration against Merkel’s pro-asylum policy. The British newspaper, the Independent, reported January 9, 2016:
Water cannons and pepper spray have been used to push back more than a thousand anti-immigration protesters in Cologne as anger mounted in a demonstration following attacks on New Year’s Eve.
One knowledgeable source, from what was once Yugoslavia, asks how it was possible to coordinate thousands of migrant attacks on women all over Germany in towns both large and small (as well as in Austria and Finland).
The general feeling seems to be that it was synchronized and stage-managed just as the ISIL attacks in the Middle East are: with U.S. and European intelligence service cooperation. The earlier propaganda campaign in Germany in favor of the migrant wave is now morphing into a movement targeting opposition to that wave. The Good Man (Gutmensch) now opposes the Wutbürger (someone who is old, stubborn, and angry—Wut=Anger). Others might define the Wutbürger as someone fed up with political actions at the expense of the citizenry, such as the Stuttgarters who opposed the station redevelopment or those appalled at Merkel’s Migration of Peoples.
COMMENT: A social engineering pattern is beginning to emerge from the New Europe’s migrant travails. Just as in the United States, unrestricted immigration, legal and otherwise, is becoming a major political goal. Whether the refugees, from overseas political, economic, and military failures, are wanted or not, some governments require them. They’re a source of cheap labor, they can be exploited politically, and they can be used to divide the native population. Besides America, this occurred in what used to be Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. (cf. “Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World”.) It’s now taking place in Germany.
Remember the chief goal of the Roman and British Empires: divide et impera (divide and rule). That seems to hold true in the new America Empire (but without the benefits of the Pax Romana, with one administration, one law, one language for most of the known world).
A divided people, suspicious of groupings comprising it, can be more easily manipulated into accepting genetically-modified foods, Frankenfoods. They can be directed to move from one borderless region to another at the whim of the capitalists who need a workforce elsewhere.
With jobs moving from country to country, it is easier to control the workers. In the United States, companies first moved from the industrial cities of the Northeast to the South because wages were lower there. Then, they moved to Mexico, China, and India, where people were grateful for a pittance. Now, whether it’s a humidifier, television set, or customer service, the companies in control have “outsourced” their employment. It’s no joke in the U.S. that employment is so insecure that a family is only two paychecks away from living on the street.
This looks like what Angela Merkel and the corporations supporting mass migration to Germany would like to have in Europe. And, from events over the past year, with migrants shouting they are her children, it will likely happen. The Gutmensch is clearly superior to the Wutbürger by design.
Whether the mood will change, whether the asylum law will alter, whether the German government will adjust its attitude, as both a good contact and the newspaper, Die Welt suggest, is happening remains to be seen. Time will tell.