Under the anti terrorist legislation adopted in Western countries, a person can be arrested for visiting an “anti-American” or “Islamist” website on the internet. In the US, habeas corpus has been scrapped, the police can arrest a citizen on mere suspicion of “terror activities” without a warrant. Moreover, under Obama, the practice of “extrajudicial killing” applies to suspected US citizens.
In Canada, under the clauses of Canada’s proposed C-51 “Anti-terrorism” Bill, Canadian citizens can be arrested on a mere suspicion:
Six Muslim young adults stand in front of a mosque late at night in heated discussion in some foreign language. … They may be talking about video games, or sports, or girls, or advocating the overthrow of the Harper government. Who knows? … But the new standard for arrest and detention—reason to suspect that they may commit an act—is so low that an officer may be inclined to arrest and detain them in order to investigate further. … They could act on mere suspicion that an arrest is likely to prevent any terrorist activity. Yesterday, the Muslim men were freely exercising constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Today they are to be arrested. (Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, February 15, 2015)
Anti-Terrorism Double Standards
Ironically, the anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to politicians in high office, namely to the “State sponsors of terrorism”; nor does it apply to U.S. or Canadian diplomats, intelligence officials, who are routinely in liaison with terrorist organizations in the Middle East.
Individuals can be arrested but presidents and prime ministers are allowed to mingle and socialize with family members of the World’s most renowned terrorist and alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks: Osama bin Laden.
Lest we forget, one day before the 9/11 attacks, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafig bin Laden, the brother of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. It was a routine business meeting on September 10-11, no conflict of interest, no relationship to the 9/11 attacks which allegedly were carried out on the orders of Shafiq’s brother Osama.
Confirmed by the Washington Post, “fellow investors” of the Carlyle Group including Osama’s brother Shafiq bin Laden and Dubya’s dad former President George H. W. Bush met in the plush surroundings of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 10-11, 2001. Their business encounter under the auspices of the Carlyle Group was unfortunately interrupted on September 11 by the 9/11 attacks.
It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush [senior], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (Greg Schneider, Pairing the Powerful With the Rich, Washington Post, March 16, 2003)
A timely business meeting on September 10-11 at the Ritz Carlton with Osama’s brother disrupted by the 9/11 attacks: pure coincidence, totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.
A day later, on the evening of September 11, 2001, president George W. Bush pronounced a historic speech in which he defined the relationship between “terrorists’ and “state sponsors of terrorism”:
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
Also in attendance at the Ritz Carlton meetings were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and other unnamed members of the bin Laden family.
The bin Laden – Bush Carlyle Group meeting was also confirmed by The Economist in a June 2003 article entitled C- for Capitalism:
ON the day Osama bin Laden’s men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya’s move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs Bush and Baker.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defence spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group’s investments in defence companies. (emphasis added)
The Carlyle Group is embroiled with the defense and intelligence establishment. “It is widely regarded as an extension of the US government, or at least the National Security Agency, the CIA, and the Pentagon.”
Double standards in anti-terrorism legislation? Double standards in police and law enforcement? No questions asked. No police investigation or interrogation of Osama’s brother Shafig.
Normally, under established rules of police investigation, both Shafig bin Laden and the president’s dad George Herbert Walker Bush should have been remanded in custody for police questioning and in all likelihood, Shafig bin Laden would have been arrested as a potential suspect. But that did not happen.
The presence of members of the bin Laden family meeting up with the father of the president of the United States was hushed up and 13 members of the bin Ladens including Shafig were flown out of the US on September 19, 2001 in a plane chartered by the White House. Meanwhile, suspected Muslims are arrested on a mere suspicion, –e.g. that they have an old school friend, who’s cousin’s 86 year old grandmother is an alleged sympathizer of the “jihad”.
Timely departure of Shafig et al: On the day following the departure of the bin Ladens, President Bush delivered an address to a joint session of the House and the Senate (September 20, 2001), in which he stated unequivocally his administration’s intent to “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism”, with no exceptions (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)
“We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.)
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime [state sponsor of terrorism]. President George W. Bush, 20 September 2001 (emphasis added)
Osama behind 9/11?
According to CIA Director George Tenet in a late morning statement on September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda under the helm of Osama bin Laden was “behind these evil acts”.
The alleged responsibility of Osama bin Laden in carrying out the 9/11 attacks was later confirmed by Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair in a statement to the the House of Commons on October 4, 2001. This did not, however, prevent Tony Blair from socializing with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who prior to 9/11 had allegedly provided millions of dollars of financial assistance to the Al Qaeda terror network:
In testimony [accused hijacker] Moussawi said he created a database of al-Qaeda donors, including members of the royal family such as former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was Saudi ambassador to the United States for 22 years until 2005. Mint Press, February 14, 2015)
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, right receives Mideast envoy Tony Blair, the ex-prime minister of Britain after his arrival in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. Bandar bin Sultan, was accused of direct support for al-Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks (undated). (Mint Press, February 15, 2015)
Known and documented, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Pakistan have been harboring Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists for more than twenty years.
In accordance with George W. Bush’s September 2001 address to the House and the Senate, America’s staunchest allies –which routinely provide support to terrorists– should have been categorized as “hostile regimes”. Yet in practice, these “nations that provide a safe haven to terrorism” are acting on behalf of the US. They are in permanent and close liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
“You are either with us or with the terrorists”, said George W. in the wake of 9/11. In fact the US government is both “with us” and “with the terrorists”. The United States is the ultimate “state sponsor of terrorism” which has entrusted its allies (Saudi Arabia, et al) with the tasks of recruitment and training of terrorists.
Flash Forward: NATO and The Islamic State (ISIS)
State sponsorship of terrorism prevails, with NATO playing a central role in the process of financing, training and recruitment of terrorists. According to Israeli intelligence sources, NATO and the Turkish High Command have been involved in the recruitment of ISIS and Al Nusrah mercenaries from the outset of the Syrian insurgency in March 2011.
“a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011.)
Similarly, Western Special Forces and Western intelligence operatives had integrated the ranks of the ISIS. British Special Forces and MI6 have been involved in training jihadist rebels in Syria. In turn, US, Canada embassy officials are in liaison with terrorist entities.
Update (March 18, 2015)
What should be clear to Western public opinion is that “the war on terrorism” is a lie. The architects of terrorism are the Western governments and their intelligence services. The anti-terrorism legislation serves the following objectives:
1. It conveys the illusion that Western society is threatened by Muslim terrorists and that Western governments are committed to the security of their citizens. This in itself constitutes the basis of the demonization campaign directed against Muslims;
2. It presents the “Global War on Terrorism” against an outside enemy as a legitimate undertaking, thereby providing a justification for US-NATO’s wars of aggression;
3. It protects the political and intelligence architects of terrorism. It upholds the legitimacy of the “State sponsors of terrorism” (State officials in high office) and their intelligence services involved in the covert financing, recruitment and training of terrorists on behalf of the Western military alliance;
4. “The Global War on Terrorism” is a criminal undertaking. Those who uphold the truth will be targeted. The Anti-terrorism legislation will be used against those who question the validity of the “Global War on Terrorism” consensus. That campaign has already commenced through the targeting of so-called “conspiracy theorists”.
These issues have been amply documented, see:
Canada, State Sponsor of Terrorism? Role of Canadian Embassy in Jordan in ISIS Recruitment?By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 15, 2015
The Ultimate War Crime: America’s “Global War on Terrorism”By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2015