Judge Andrew Napolitano: The US Government is Creating Terror Plots In America!!!!!!

Yeah.... as great as I think it is that we can all have a general consensus of distrust for the mainstream media, we have to be able to recognize truth when we see it, no matter where it comes from.

Be glad that moments like this still do happen on national TV. It might not be long before Anderson Pooper is on every channel at all times

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by ignant
CIA is mostly behind creating terror plots, and CIA is not officially part of the USA at all. they are independent and answer to no government but their own.

You couldn't be more wrong. The D/CIA is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. He reports to the DNI, who is also appointed and confirmed. The CIA is funded by Congressional appropriations and is subject to Congressional oversight. They don't do anything unless it's approved in the budget, and they don't do any covert action without a direct order from the President. Those orders are also communicated to the Congressional intelligence committees, so they have to answer for their conduct there, too. You grossly overestimate the CIA's independence.

I agree with you on how the CIA is supposed to perform, but you don't really think they're held to it do you? They operate above and around the law when they see fit.

Don't you think it's a little odd that we're not hearing about the CIA's involvement in Operation Fast & Furious? I found one little article that mentioned it. I bet we don't hear about it again.

www.washingtontimes.com...

and let's not forget all the MANY resources out there about the CIA's history of drugs and arms trafficking. Just an example:

www.capitolhillblue.com...

So, when need be, they don't need our taxpayer dollars, they can just use their drug money to accomplish what they want.

Originally posted by Deetermined
I agree with you on how the CIA is supposed to perform, but you don't really think they're held to it do you? They operate above and around the law when they see fit.

Generally, yes, they operate in accordance with the law as interpreted by the executive branch. As we saw in the detainee interrogation saga, they won't even rough up a terrorist without a memo from Washington telling them it's okay. I've never seen anything to suggest they are completely separate from the US like ignant said. Washington would like us to think they're out of control, so they can blame the Agency every time there's a flap, but they're not.

Don't you think it's a little odd that we're not hearing about the CIA's involvement in Operation Fast & Furious? I found one little article that mentioned it. I bet we don't hear about it again.

When the scandal first really broke, I did wonder if it might have been a cover for a Title 50 operation. But this kind of multi-agency covert action would take a lot of coordination above the Agency level, it's not the kind of thing the CIA can just do. This kind of coordination is strong evidence that the CIA is not a rogue agency. We might have a rogue President and a rogue AG and rogue oversight committees, but the Agency, at least, is following the law as interpreted by the executive branch.

The Washington Times story is neat, but half the story hinges on an unnamed CIA "insider" . Why would a CIA whistleblower give such a big scoop to the editor of a gun blog? Not exactly Daniel Ellsberg passing documents to the Times. I'm not accusing Farrago of deception, but with such a mysterious source we must be mindful of the possibility of disinformation. It is SOP in the game to plant stories making your opponents look bad.

The other half is based on and an alleged drug smuggler's defense strategy. Why should I believe a Sinaloa cartel member is telling the truth about a deal with the DEA, when I can think of half a dozen reasons for him to lie?

The story works, but I can't buy it on this guy's word. I can't evaluate the credibility of one of his sources at all, and the other is a bad guy with a good reason to lie. Maybe I'll file a FOIA, then I'll know for sure in three or four years or never.

is it just me or is anyone else wondering why all there dirty laundry is coming out now. the truth is coming out faster than the lies they expose us to and this new lie about iran cmon we see what they are trying to do come up with an excuse to invade iran this next election will have to be based on truth this madness must end. we may live on prison planet earth but we all deserve a parole. it almost feels like they want a revolt. why else would they allow these truths to come out they have lied so well up to now. either that or they really dont know what they are doing anymore. the big one is just around the corner I can feel it. the truth we all know but they deny...............................................................DISCLOSURE NOW

reply to post by Drew99GT


Interesting you should bring up blindly following Glenn Beck, because anyone who has listened to him for any amount of time, will know that he tells you over and over and over again not to blindly follow him and to do your own research to verify what he is saying.

----
Interesting also that so many are willing to claim Fox is fake news while defending CNN, MSNBC and not saying a word about their obvious leanings and agenda's. Their staged attacks they performed during Gulf War I, comes to mind.
I just don't see how you can be willing to say Fox is fake and ignore the others altogether.

---
The judge is probably more correct on this issue then he is wrong, but still, he makes some heavy accusations that need to be heavily backed up with more the hearsay.

Edit: Evidence, not hearsay.

reply to post by Drew99GT


Yeah, I've got a buddy who believes every bit of the red white and blue puke on the boob tube.
If the politician says this person is dangerous, there must be a good reason for it!
For the greater part it seems the public is waking up though.
There may still be hope.

So is he filing charges?
If I had proof of this going on, I sure would.
If he isn't, why not?

reply to post by Charizard


Someday I'm a gonna have to pull out the book Catch-22 and read it. This is one of those interesting catch-22 situations, eh? Sort of like voting for Ron Paul in a on-line poll. They put it up so we can vote but if we do we are acting like children by spamming the polls.

Just because he's on Fox Business(not Fox News, BTW) does not make him inherently evil.They have Lou Dobbs on there also and occasionally he does some good journalism(occasionally). Wherever it comes from, take that semblance of the truth and run with it. Like a broken clock, even Faux News gets things right once in a while.

Originally posted by Krystian

Originally posted by Bixxi3
Your suppose to write a description of the video.
Untill then no comment

LOL...human conditioning on full display...

Cmon, honestly If you have an opinion regarding the video, why wouldnt you just reply regardless of the OP's conformity or sheer ignorance to the rules.

LOL... human selfishness on full display...

Cmon, honestly if you would think a little about some poor unlucky guys around the world reading ATS from a remote area of a remote exotic country with (and still thanks for it) an incredible

128 kbps

EDGE mobile connection (when it works) maybe you wouldn't give such comment.

Not everybody has the same opportunities in this world (and I can assure you there is much worse then a slow internet connection) but few ever think about it if not when explicitly asked about... that's why this world is going on like it is and getting worse on many aspects.

Thanks for your understanding.

Stay Human

Originally posted by gladtobehere
The dream ticket: Ron Paul / Judge Andrew Napolitano 2012.

I agree with that. Would be a great team.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Once upon a time what the Federal government is doing was called Entrapment.

Entrapment

So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

How do you prove otherwise?

This is nothing new. Such political games exists in pretty much every country across the globe. We do not see or hear about it except when it is publicized or when we're in touch with the residents of those countries.

These days however, such news catches the attention globally and definitely the Geopolitics affiliated with it

It would be interesting to see the outcome for the next few years in the US and European politics. A lot is riding on them economically that could affect the global economy.

We need an ATS poll of how many folks believe that the governments claims of an Iranian assasination attempt are real or lies.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Regarding Operation Fast & Furious:

When the scandal first really broke, I did wonder if it might have been a cover for a Title 50 operation. But this kind of multi-agency covert action would take a lot of coordination above the Agency level, it's not the kind of thing the CIA can just do. This kind of coordination is strong evidence that the CIA is not a rogue agency. We might have a rogue President and a rogue AG and rogue oversight committees, but the Agency, at least, is following the law as interpreted by the executive branch.

It did take a lot of coordination and now all of the blame is going to ATF for wrongdoing. Why is that?

The Washington Times story is neat, but half the story hinges on an unnamed CIA "insider" . Why would a CIA whistleblower give such a big scoop to the editor of a gun blog? Not exactly Daniel Ellsberg passing documents to the Times. I'm not accusing Farrago of deception, but with such a mysterious source we must be mindful of the possibility of disinformation. It is SOP in the game to plant stories making your opponents look bad.

Except for the fact that the CIA has such a long history for doing such things.

The other half is based on and an alleged drug smuggler's defense strategy. Why should I believe a Sinaloa cartel member is telling the truth about a deal with the DEA, when I can think of half a dozen reasons for him to lie?

Won't it be interesting when we see the outcome of the case against Zambada Niebla? According to this attached article, there might be several reasons for why the CIA would lie.

"Zambada Niebla, as the US government-described “logistics coordinator” for the Sinaloa organization, is linked to alleged Sinaloa organization money-launderer Pedro Alfonso Alatorre Damy via a Gulfstream II jet (tail number N987SA) that crashed in Mexico in late 2007 with some four tons of coc aine onboard. That aircraft was allegedly purchased with Sinaloa organization drug money laundered through Alatorre Damy’s casa de cambio business and a U.S. bank. And that same aircraft was reportedly suspected of being used previously as part of the CIA’s “terrorist” rendition program and allegedly made a number of trips to Guantanamo Bay between 2003 and 2005, according to media reports and an investigation spearheaded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In addition, the Gulfstream II was purchased less than two weeks before it crashed in Mexico by a duo that included a U.S. government operative who allegedly had done past contract work for a variety of US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, according to a known CIA asset (Baruch Vega) who is identified as such in public court records."

narcosphere.narconews.com...

The main reason I point all of this out is because I know someone personally who claimed they were pulled into a "drug deal" while they were in the military approx. 25 years ago. This prompted me to read "Drugging America", which was shocking to say the least.

edit on 14-10-2011 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Drew99GT
reply to post by DieBravely

 

The Judge is a fairly rouge journalist.

Originally posted by Drew99GT
Judge Napolitano going extreme rouge!

I watch the video you posted expecting his cheeks to start turning red or something - quickly realizing his complexion would probably not even make this possible. I then realized you meant 'rogue'.

With that slight linguistic misunderstanding out of the way, I will say that the judge is right on. I'm surprised Fox news doesn't force him to tone down the amount of truth that he let's out. It might wake some people up, even those asleep enough to watch Fox news for anything other than curiosity as to how the 'machine' wants you to think.

Its incredible the people who are speaking out lately.

The judge is probably more correct on this issue then he is wrong, but still, he makes some heavy accusations that need to be heavily backed up with more the hearsay.

Edit: Evidence, not hearsay.

edit on 14-10-2011 by arcnaver because: (no reason given)

You can go read EVERY indictment from the last 20 foiled terror plots since 9/11; the 17 he mentions ALL involve undercover FBI agents finding disgruntled Arab men and prodding them to conduct terror plots.

It's not hearsay, it's a FACT.

We've been trying to assassinate ole innocent Gaddafi.

That guy hides in holes better than ole innocent Sadam Hussein did.

Saddam was innocent.

Sure he killed some Kurds we were funding to create trouble for him. We've killed more Kurds than Saddam dreamed of. Plus we gave Turkey the green light to annihilate the kurds in Northern Iraq.

We came up with cross drilling and were drilling into Iraq's oil fields from Kuwait. Muslims don't like thieves. They chop their hands off...So when Saddam found out his oil was being stolen...he called the Kuwait's "dogs", which is a common term they use over their for thieves.

So ole Saddam went after the thieves as we expected...and we went on to exterminate the Iraqi's, killing millions over the years. And really stealing their oil.

Now that the few living Iraqi's finally figured out what we did to them....they are not only regretting hanging Saddam...they want the US out of Iraq.

You're going to see statues of Saddam put back up down the road...guy truly was innocent.

Only WMD's in Iraq were the Chemical weapons WE sold them. Which were DECLARED to the Chemical Weapons Convention by Iraq and controlled by that Convention.

America was supposed to foot the bill to get rid of them. To save money we BOMBED them in place.

Violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, they were safely disposed of per the Treaty.

IRAN filed a protest at the Chemical Weapons Convention over the US violating the Treaty and bombing those chemical weapons in Iraq, not safely disposing of them. Plus they filed a Protest saying we flew some surviving chemical weapons out and never declared them to the Chemical Weapons Convention.


WE'RE in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention....and Obama's Administration recently filed a paper at the Convention reply to the Iranian protest.....that we did indeed bomb those chemical weapons.

You see Bush knew where the WMD's in Iraq were all along. He ordered them bombed so America wouldn't have to foot the bill to dispose of them. They were ours.

Go to the Chemical Weapons Convention and start reading the documents. BUSH committed a crime against humanity. Our military breathed in those chemical weapons....and they aren't being treated or compensated for it.

this is great!

being on ATS for a long time we know it isn't enough that all the truths and research are freely available on this site and many others
WE know it's all Wag The Dog! but the truth never trickles up to the top of the Ivory tower

first they say a terror attack is inevitable because we have to be 100% in our vigilance
then they 'thwart' 20 attacks in 11 years!!!??? and not one involving a bladder cancer patient at a TSA checkpoint

and of course we just have to believe them,like ...yeah we killed Osama Bin Laden and buried him at sea
we killed him at his house while he was watching porn.

thank you Judge Napolitano!! it' s about time someone in the media connected the dots

reply to post by Drew99GT


I greatly respect Andrew Napolitano. He represents clear thought and free thinking. I don't always agree with him because of his libertarian views but I come close to almost agreeing with him like I do with Ron Paul. It's nice to see him pointing this stuff out in MSM. None of the other networks will touch it with a100 foot pole. Thanks for sharing. Star for you.