The Good Prof Jones Now Tells Us What To Think and Even What to Say?

by Scott Creighton

***UPDATE*** Apparently Prof Jones thinks so highly of the importance of the comment that he left on a thread at 911 Blogger, he has now posted it to the main page so that everyone is sure to see his valuable instructions on how to think and what to say about… his work.

I just found this little gem in forum over at WTCDemolition. Apparently Prof Jones is telling “truthers” at 911 Blogger how they should think, what they should consider as “valid”, and what the ultimate criteria for consideration of evidence should be.  “Peer Review” acceptance is apparently the end-all/be-all “truth meter” now.  And anything else isn’t “peer reviewed” isn’t “serious” according to Prof Jones.

Isn’t that the same thing the debunkers used to try and discredit us with years ago?

He goes on to say that his paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review” and that NOW we are no longer in the realm of “Big Foot and Elvis sightings”.  Well, that is according to Prof Jones,  his “active thermitic material” theory… is not in that realm, that is to say.  What does that bode for the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Is that where everyone else’s hard work in the 911 movement dwells Prof Jones?  With “Big Foot” and Elvis?

Continue reading

New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ

(The Obama DOJ claims Cheney’s “state secrets” clauses and now the new “sovereign immunity” claim. The rogue empire rolls onward...)

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon

When Congress immunized telecoms last August for their illegal participation in Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program, Senate Democratic apologists for telecom immunity repeatedly justified that action by pointing out that Bush officials who broke the law were not immunized — only the telecoms.  Here, for instance, is how Sen. Jay Rockefeller justified telecom immunity in a Washington Post Op-Ed:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House’s year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Taking them at their word, EFF — which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms — thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans.  They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats:  namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government’s first response to EFF’s lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush’s NSA program.  But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the “state secrets” privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new “sovereign immunity” claim of breathtaking scope — never before advanced even by the Bush administration — that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is “willful disclosure” of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad “state secrets” privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and — even if what they’re doing is blatantly illegal and they know it’s illegal — you are barred from suing them unless they “willfully disclose” to the public what they have learned.

Continue reading