zIFBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to The Great Deception. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 

 ** Fort Hood Shooting - Aka False Flag Most Likely, Another disarmament stunt by patsy?
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 7 2009, 11:53 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-...-President.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hiw8iXdMM




This shows you how seriously your President took this situation! He should have talked about the incident FIRST, not LAST when he got to this podium. THIS MAN IS TOTALLY DISCONNECTED AS IS MOST OF CONGRESS IT SEEMS THESE DAYS! rolleyes.gif


He says they are working with Homeland Security to make sure Ft Hood is secure. Since when is the military not able to take care of its own?

THIS ONE STINKS TO HIGH HEAVENS. THIS APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER FALSE FLAG DESIGNED TO HELP WITH THEIR DISARMAMENT PLANS FOR AMERICA, WHILE DEMONIZING OUR SOLDIERS! (REMEMBER THE MIAC REPORT THAT STATED VETS WERE THE #1 THREAT?) WHO THEY NEED TO BE DEMONIZING ARE THE ELITE AND THEIR MIND CONTROL OPERATIVES WHO SCREW UP OUR SOLDIERS AND CREATE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PATSIES WHO GO OUT ON SHOOTING RAMPAGING UNDER THEIR INFLUENCE!
angry.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 7 2009, 12:08 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



MIAC Report - READ THIS!
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6348


Other Shooting Incidents - Suspicious - Were they patsies also?
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...?showtopic=6332

Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 15 2009, 11:25 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



NIDAL MALIK HASAN OF VIRGINIA TECH, BETHESDA, AND FORT HOOD: A MAJOR PATSY IN A DRILL GONE LIVE? - Webster Tarpley
http://actindependent.org/HasanPatsy.pdf
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?to...cseen#msg872920

Is he just another patsy used by the NWO to try to engage the people in the illicit and wrongheaded wars again? Tarpley thinks so.

You see, the NWO punks pull stunts of all kinds to get what they want. It matters not to them if people die during their stunts. THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK BASTARDS AND MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE ONE DAY FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!
angry.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 15 2009, 12:03 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



FT. HOOD TERRORIST ON BUSH PRESTIGIOUS HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSITION TEAM - HASAN TIES TO GOP SUBJECT TO MASSIVE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND COVERUP:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...rticle&sid=9315




Just another needless shooting used for an agenda, it appears! DISGUSTING!

There is no way you can tell me this guy was a nut they knew nothing about. This man worked all through the government and to do that he had to have clearances and evaluation to the tee. He was unstable, and they used him for their objectives. THIS IS A FALSE FLAG MEANT FOR ONE REASON - GETTING PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THEIR EXPANSION OF THE WAR AND MAYBE EVEN A NEW WAR based on more lies!

THIS ISN'T LEADERSHIP. IT'S INSANITY AND THE PEOPLE DOING THIS CRAP NEED TO BE PROSECUTED!
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 20 2009, 02:12 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre by Chuck Baldwin - Nov 20, 2009
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbar...e_20091120.html


QUOTE
By now, virtually everyone has read and reread the copious news accounts of the terrible shooting a few weeks ago at Fort Hood, Texas. This column will not attempt to add new details to what is already a highly scrutinized tragedy. However, I do want to pose three basic questions that, to me, are extremely glaring and, for the most part, absent from the discussion.

Question 1: Why were the soldiers not armed?

After all, this is a military base; more than that, it is an Army base that emphasizes the training and equipping of frontline, combat-ready soldiers. For the most part, these were not clerks or cooks; these were combat troops. Fort Hood is home to the 1st Cavalry Division (the largest Division in the Army). Troops stationed at Fort Hood have engaged the enemy in virtually every hot theater of war to which American forces have been deployed. In recent conflicts that means Somalia, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Without a doubt, these are among America's bravest and best.

So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers.

Question 2: If the federal government--including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons? Or is it that, because Hasan was a Muslim, the politically correct nincompoops in charge gave him a pass?

Consider: we have learned that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, had attempted to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda; that numerous classmates of Hasan had reported his anti-American views, which, according to a column written by Dennis Prager, "included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution"; and that Hasan had a long history of pro-Islamic, anti-American activity. All of which begs an answer to the question, How could such an individual not only be allowed in the US military, but also be allowed to advance to the rank of Major?

I think most of my readers have the answer to this question figured out: we have an out-of-control, politically correct federal government that only senses danger from conservatives, libertarians, Christians, pro-lifers, Tea Party protesters, and anti-UN, anti-IRS, pro-Second Amendment activists--and supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, of course. To this politically correct federal leviathan today, anti-American jihadists, militant Black Panthers, or illegal aliens who have committed felonious crimes in Mexico pose no risk to anyone, and must be "understood."

As Prager quotes NPR's Tom Gjelten: since Hasan had never been in combat, he must have suffered from "pre-traumatic stress disorder." No, I'm not kidding. That's what he said. (I'll pause while you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing.)

To the politically correct crowd running things in Washington, D.C., anyone coming from a socialistic, Big Government, or anti-American point of view is harmless, and anyone coming from a conservative, Christian, constitutional, or pro-American point of view is dangerous. Can one imagine how the mainstream media, federal police agencies, and the Southern Poverty Law Center would have reacted had Hasan shouted "Jesus is greatest!" instead of what he really said, "Allah is greatest!" right before opening fire?

If one rejects the notion that political correctness favoring Muslims (and every other minority in the United States) had anything to do with the Fort Hood shooting, then we are back to the original question: If the federal government--including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?

Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights--and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives--are actually doing anything to make us safer? You've got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that.

Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times) into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America's finest warriors for at least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30--and was finally taken out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I've got to tell you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been subdued--and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes absolutely no sense to me. None.

Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from various vantage points--especially if they had rifles--it would have made unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The "one shooter with two handguns" explanation makes no sense.

I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course, some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking--a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building--tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which, after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven't believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves only to further fuel my skepticism.

P.S. And one more time: we are shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now: 50 of America's great historical documents in one volume. Our supply will last only a couple of weeks. These make terrific Christmas gifts and can be found only here:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html

Or, to read my initial column that describes THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go to:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbar...e_20091113.html
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 21 2009, 03:12 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 21 2009, 03:23 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



So, Lieberman, as expected, sets the direction of their investigation, which forces those investigating to go down this specific path thus missing some other vital issues they should also be investigating.

They don't consider how FALSE FLAGS have been used for other agendas, nor do they address the PSYOP MIND CONTROL real possibility of Hasan. Why don't they? Because they don't want to address an issue that is an EVEN MORE POSSIBLE REALITY! THEY JUST WANT TO CONTINUE THE ISLAMOPHOBIA which the elite contrived for the joke of a War on Terror!

It's also interesting that this is coming up at the same time as the trial in NYC of the patsies of 911! They are also blaming the INTERNET for this. This is not a coincidence! teach.gif

THEY DID THE SAME THING IN THE 911 COMMISSION. THAT COMMISSION WAS TOLD ITS MANDATE WAS NOT TO AFFIX BLAME! NOT AFFIX BLAME, FOR THE WORST ATTACK IN AMERICAN HISTORY? THIS IS THE FIRST RED FLAG AMERICANS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN FROM THE 911 COMMISSION SETUP!


teach.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 21 2009, 05:27 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Obama Urges Congress to Put Off Ft Hood Probe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/14/o...864.html?page=6




Sounds like what Bush did with 911. He stalled the investigation for as long as he could after 911.

This should tell you something is probably once again being hidden from the public! THIS SMELLS! Same old story, new event probably PRECIPITATED TO KEEP THE BOGUS WAR GOING!
angry.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Dec 1 2009, 06:33 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
Nov 26, 2009 by Mark Steyn
Macleans.ca
Canada's only national weekly current affairs magazine.

Ever since this magazine attracted the attention of Canada’s “human rights” regime, defenders of the system have clung to a familiar argument. In a letter to Maclean’s, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s chief censor, put it this way:
“Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.”

“Hateful words” can lead to “unspeakable crimes.” The problem with this line is that it’s ahistorical twaddle, as I’ve pointed out. Yet still it comes up. It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.

“That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.”

And a fat lot of good it all did.


But still the old refrain echoes through the corridors of power: vigorous honest free speech will lead to mass murder unless we subject it to “reasonable limits.”

Actually, the opposite is true: a constrained and regulated culture policed by politically correct enforcers leads to slaughter. I’m not being speculative here, as Commissar Lynch is about my murderous prose style. It’s already happened, just a couple of weeks back. Thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the U.S. Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. In the days that followed, the near parodically absurd revelations piled up like an overripe satire, but a two-panel cartoon at the Toronto blogger Scaramouche’s website provided the pithiest distillation:
“This is your brain. This is your brain on political correctness”—a small and shrivelled thing.

Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA”—i.e., “Soldier of Allah”—on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda,” but, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

This is your brain on political correctness.

As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in U.S. history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave the presentation to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors. Some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then-Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic,” the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents.”

This is your brain on political correctness.
So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favour of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression.
This is your brain on political correctness.

“You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel.

But, of course, he didn’t. He could pretty much say what he wanted—infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any “need to lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and now 14 people are dead.

And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the U.S. military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. The Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the knuckledragging bozo citizenry she has the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check. This is the Jennifer Lynch argument: the priority is always some hypothetical atrocity waiting to happen, no matter how many times we ace that test: there was no “anti-Muslim backlash” after 3,000 corpses on Sept. 11, or after Bali, Madrid or London. Muslims have certainly been murdered in New York and London but by their co-religionists on 9/11 and 7/7 rather than by any “Islamophobes.”

As for the military, well, obviously, they’re a bunch of Bush-scarred psychos who could snap at any moment. Newsweek called the mass murder “A Symptom of a Military on the Brink”: “A psychiatrist who was set to deploy to Iraq at the end of the month, Hasan reportedly opened fire around the Fort Hood Readiness Center,” wrote Andrew Bast. “It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad.” No mention of the words “Islam” or “Muslim,” but Mr. Bast was concerned to “get at the root causes of soldier stresses.” As in post-traumatic stress disorder. Operative word “post”: you get it after you’ve been in combat. Major Hasan had never been in combat.

Until Nov. 5, PTSD was something you got when you returned from battle overseas and manifested itself in sleeplessness, nightmares, or, in extreme circumstances, suicide. After Nov. 5, PTSD was apparently spread by shaking hands and manifested itself in gunning down large numbers of people while yelling “Allahu akbar!”
This is your brain on political correctness.

Major Hasan sent fortnightly emails to Anwar al-Awlaki, sometime spiritual adviser to both the Fort Hood shooter and three of the 9/11 terrorists and an imam so radical he’s banned from Britain, a land with an otherwise all but boundless tolerance for radical imams. In his leisure hours, he adopted the Pushtun dress of those Arabs who journeyed to Afghanistan to sign up with Osama. And eventually the sheer accumulation of such revelations rendered the PTSD thesis so absurd that even Frank Rich of the New York Times was willing to muse tentatively on whether the major’s years of jihadist exhibitionism were “ignored because of political correctness, bureaucratic dysfunction, sheer incompetence or some hybrid thereof.” My italics, but I’m impressed it made the list.

Oh, well. If U.S. military personnel make insufficiently appealing victims, consider the three sisters and an “aunt” drowned in their car in the Rideau Canal in Kingston in what a remarkably uncurious media reported as a midnight driving lesson gone wrong. And even when their parents were arrested, there was little appetite to discuss “honour killing.” When 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled, allegedly by her father with her brother’s help, for refusing to wear a hijab, Citytv ran a lunchtime call-in poll:

“Do you think society discriminates against women who wear a hijab?”

This is your brain on political correctness: dead. But not as dead as poor Aqsa Parvez and the ever swelling ranks of Western “honour killing” victims.

Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (with its Potemkin membership but lots of foreign funding) want a world where Islam is beyond discussion—where “red flags” are ignored because to do anything about them would risk career-ruining accusations of “Islamophobia,” or six months of “sensitivity training,” or a complaint to the “human rights” commission where Jennifer Lynch’s enforcers will spay you into a docile eunuch of the PC state. Pace Commissar Lynch, words “should be given free rein,” because they are the first and least worst line of defence in a free society.

Instead, asked “Who ya gonna believe—The Celebrate Diversity Handbook or your lyin’ eyes?”, more and more of us plump for the former, if only for a quiet life. Commissar Lynch has it exactly backwards: it’s the craven submission to political correctness, the willingness to leave your marbles with the Diversity Café hat-check girl, that leads to death—real death, with real corpses, from Texas to Ontario. And when the guy’s on the table firing wildly and screaming “Allahu akbar!”, the PC enforcers won’t be there for you.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: May 1 2010, 03:47 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



QUOTE
Craig Whitlock
Washington Post
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Obama administration said Tuesday it would provide more information to Congress about the Fort Hood shootings but continued to defy a subpoena request for witness statements and other documents.

After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., which killed 13 people. The agencies said that divulging the material could jeopardize their prosecution of Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the accused gunman.

The Pentagon did budge in other areas, however, saying it had agreed to give the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs access to Hasan’s personnel file, as well as part of an Army report that scrutinized why superiors failed to intervene in Hasan’s career as an Army psychiatrist, despite signs of his religious radicalization and shortcomings as a soldier.

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the Senate committee, called the refusal by the Pentagon and the Justice Department to hand over all the requested material “an affront to Congress’s constitutional obligation to conduct independent oversight of the executive branch.”


So, what are they hiding now? We think we know! Just another false flag to move their sick NWO disarmament agenda forward! Remember, Obama works for the bankers and they are pillaging the whole world and America at the current time! THEY WILL HAVE THEIR NWO AND THEY WILL KILL AND DESTROY TO GET IT! THESE BASTARDS ARE SOME SICK PUPPIES!

nonono.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Nov 22 2010, 11:54 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Gov't Blocks 'Sensitive' Fort Hood Report
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?pag....fma&pageNum=-1


QUOTE
Nov 19, 2010

EXCLUSIVE: A key intelligence report that could aid accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan's defense is being withheld by the Obama administration, according to a letter obtained by Fox News as part of its ongoing investigation of a radical American cleric.

Intelligence officials do not deny that the report contains information about the cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who is the first American on the CIAs kill or capture list.

The letter, dated Oct. 19, 2010, was sent by the general counsel for the national intelligence director the nations top intelligence official - to the chief Army prosecutor, Col. Michael Mulligan. It states that the intelligence review requested by President Obama immediately after the shooting last year is not reasonably available.

Robert S. Litt, general counsel for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, cites highly classified, compartmented, and sensitive information originating with a number of different executive branch agencies as justification for withholding the document on the shooting, which left 13 dead and more than 30 injured.

In what may be a slight to the defense, the letter states a review of the material would be complicated and the DNI letter strongly hints it will never be produced for Hasans defense.

The document you requested is an interagency joint response. ... Accordingly, we cannot produce the document (if ever) until after a detailed and time-consuming interagency coordination and consultation regarding the report and the underlying highly sensitive information it contains. ... As a result, we have determined that this report is not reasonably available

Fox News Specials Unit reported earlier this year, as part of an hourlong documentary on Anwar al-Awlaki, that at least 18 e-mails were exchanged between Hasan and the cleric. In one e-mail exchange, two sources who have reviewed the e-mails confirm, Hasan asked Awlaki to appear as a guest presenter at a fundraising/scholarship event in the U.S. The cleric declined, adding that he doesnt visit the U.S. anymore.

John Galligan, Hasan's defense attorney, told Fox News that he requested the White House intelligence report nearly a year ago, and it is only now that he has officially been told the information will not be available. Despite repeated requests, Galligan said other documents are being blocked, including the full accountability review of Hasans supervisors at Walter Reed, a classified annex to the Fort Hood report by former Army Secretary Togo West and retired Admiral Vern Clark, completed in January, as well as all of the e-mails exchanged between Hasan and Awlaki. Galligan told Fox News he has only 9 e-mails and characterized them as benign.

How do you put a guy on trial for his life without giving his defense full discovery? Galligan told Fox. No one in their right mind would dispute that the report (the White House report) is relevant. Galligan said some news reports suggest that the disclosure of some classified information relating to case would hurt the prosecution.

I read that as being potentially beneficial to the defense, he said.

An Article 32 hearing, where an army investigator determines whether Hasans case proceeds to a general court-martial and whether the death penalty will be in play, has just concluded. Sources tell Fox News that the investigating officer has recommended the court martial and death penalty because of aggravating factors. A final decision has yet to be made.

A transcript from the Article 32 hearing shows that the Army was notified of the DNIs decision to block the report on or before October 21, 2010.

Maybe Colonel Mulligan could give us an update on the other aspects of discovery that we addressed when we first started? Galligan asked. That was his communication concerning the White House materials. If he could just let us know where we stand?

Col Mulligan responded. Sir, yesterday I received from DNI a letter from their general counsel saying theyll not provide the presidents 45-day intelligence report. I was waiting until the conclusion of the hearing to inform the defense; I have not yet searched all my e-mails.

But the DNI letter was not provided to the defense until this week, on Monday, and 10 minutes before the Article 32 hearing continued.

Fox News asked the office of the DNI for comment specifically why it had taken nearly a year to answer the request by Hasans defense team, whether there was a delay with the DNI or the Army and whether blocking the document, which the defense says maybe critical to the Army psychiatrists defense, is consistent with the Obama administrations stated goal of transparency.

A spokesman for the DNI told Fox News, We are not going to comment on ongoing criminal matters.

Fox News Reporting's Pamela Browne, Cyd Upson and Gregory Johnson contributed to this report.
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Feb 6 2011, 04:15 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



"Painful Conclusion": Senators Say FBI & DOD Could Have Prevented Ft. Hood Shooting
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/p...d-shooting.html



Well, since they knew about this guy long before he did what he did, of course it could have been prevented. But once again, someone LOOKED THE OTHER WAY and allowed it to just happen!

What is the use of having Intelligence officials (we taxpayers spend billions keeping in business), if they aren't very intelligent, or even worse, are complicit in attacks on our nation?

The question intelligence agents need to be asked is "WHO DO YOU REALLY WORK FOR?" The Bankers? The Elite? or The American People?

The good intelligence officers know who the bad guys are among their ranks, and it's time for you to expose them and get them kicked out of your organization. If you don't, you will ALL be seen as complicit and/or complete idiots incapable of doing your jobs!


angry.gif
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Feb 13 2013, 10:24 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Fort Hood Hero Says Obama Betrayed her and other Victims:
http://www.infowars.com/fort-hood-hero-say...-other-victims/


QUOTE
Three years after the White House arranged a hero’s welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

“Betrayed is a good word,” former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline.”

“Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,” she said. “In fact they’ve been neglected.”



The White House loves those PHOTO OPS at State of the Union addresses, or other lamestream media press conferences. However, when it comes to being honest and truly keeping their word, well that's not important to them. Just another example of how their "Words" don't match their "Actions".

PERCEPTION IS ALL OBAMA CARES ABOUT. TRUTH TO THIS ADMINISTRATION IS IRRELEVANT. THEY HAVE AN AGENDA, AND TO THEM, "LIES" WORK BEST TO CON THE UNAWARE PUBLIC WHO BLINDLY TRUSTS AND WHO NEVER CHECKS ANYTHING OUT FOR THEMSELVES.

FOLKS, YOU ARE BEING SCREWED WITH EVERY "WORD" AND "DEED" COMING OUT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE! THEY ARE ALL GLOBALISTS INVOKING THE GLOBALIST AGENDA. THEY LIE!

IT'S NO WONDER THAT MILITARY PERSONNEL ARE TREATED LIKE CRAP OVER THERE, AND WHEN THEY RETURN TO AMERICA THEY GET THE SAME TREATMENT. SHAMEFUL!

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!
Top
jofortruth
Posted: Apr 3 2014, 08:12 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
jofortruth
Posted: Apr 3 2014, 05:00 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Senior Leaders Address Fort Hood Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjw9iu49xvY#t=18





Top
jofortruth
Posted: Apr 7 2014, 08:02 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 34,801
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07



Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | False Flags & Questionable Incidents | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now

Topic Options



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1999 seconds | Archive