Tag Archives: British Columbia

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

http://libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

Canadian Censorship has gone much further in prosecuting controversial statements as “Hate Crimes” than is YET Possible in the USA—YET….I have visited Quesnel, in British Columbia…a lovely spot…

From: Radical Press <radical@radicalpress.com>
To: Radical@smtp10.hushmail.com; “Press <radical”@radicalpress.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:42:10 PM
Subject: [Anti-ZionistCanada] Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13 by Arthur Topham

Dear Reader,
Here is the latest report on my case with Canada’s censorship commissars (B’nai Brith Canada) and the Canadian court system. Please try to pass it along to all concerned with the issue of Freedom of Speech in Canada.
Also, as a special bonus treat for Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the leader of BC’s “Hate Crime Team”, I’m enclosing here a political cartoon featuring Terry’s mugshot and mindset, a grim reminder of where our national police force’s heads are at these days. Please feel free to pass that along to your sources on the net. I know that Terry just loves to have his picture in the media. 🙂
Sincerely

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

_____________________________________
Screen Shot
 2012-12-14 at 11.52.30 AM.png
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13
Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a “direct indictment” rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a “preliminary inquiry” in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial.
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th.
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be “hatred”.  After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, “There is no case law anywhere” that says they are bound to do so. 
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism.
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger (this was not stated but inferred in her comments) using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging.
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their “direct indictment” decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary enquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying.
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
—-
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 
 
I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
 
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
 
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
 
Sincerely,
 
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

If Zero Dark Thirty Gets An Academy Award—Terrorists Might Want to Consider Bombing the Academy Next…..

Five Oscar Nominations!?!?!?!   They don’t even have a category for cardboard actors speaking cartoonish lampoon stereotyped lines.  

OK, I went to see Zero Dark Thirty at Canal Place last night.  I had not expected to be impressed but I had not expected such a completely mangy dog of a movie could have gotten such glowing reviews.  Oh well, I should have remembered—it’s hard to tell a lie that is so incoherent you almost laugh while telling it with a straight face, much less with an extremely long two hour movie.  NO character development, NO realistic dialog, NO insight, nothing.  I felt I had to give the movie a chance, but basically…..if the American people really believe this story, so devoid of factual plausibility and with NO new details of any kind (and a lot of the same details, such as how they identified Osama bin Laden’s body, completely omitted), well…..the American people deserve the government they’ve got I guess.  “Nobody EVER went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public” as P.T. Barnum is alleged to have said….

I would not rate Zero Dark Thirty a C-.  It was all lies and propaganda designed to bolster the government’s completely unbelievable story.  Reviews in the New Yorker and New York Times describe it as tense and suspenseful—they either saw a different movie or they were playing propagandistic caricature roles themselves—I suspect the latter.  EVERYTHING I would have written about Zero Dark Thirty (aside from my criticisms of the acting, scriptwriting, continuity, total lack of plot integration–the superficially similar Ben Afleck movie—Argo—was a real masterpiece in all those departments) has to do with my complete disbelief of the government lies.  So I will refer my readers simply to a different source: “Zero Dark Thirty”: The deeper, darker truths | Veterans Today.  I have often referred to my extremely educational but all too brief association and involvement with the 9-11 investigative and study group that met near my flat on Denman near Stanley Park in the west end of Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2007, but they have without any doubt one of the finest organizations anywhere, a far larger attendance, for whatever reason, than you can get in Los Angeles on the same topics—and they recently produced a true masterpiece which should be required reading in every American High School, College, and Sunday School: 911 Vancouver Hearings.

Of course the media has been full of a totally off-target debate and discussion concerning this effectively content-free movie.  The “public controversy” of Zero Dark Thirty is itself a just another major distraction: “Was torture effective in obtaining information leading to Bin Laden’s Death?”  This issue is now being manically revisited everywhere from the floor of the United States Senate to horribly dull pre-Oscar parties all over Southern California.  But this debate is intended to draw attention away from the complete lack of plot continuity or explanatory power in the government story or the movie.  The plot is RIDICULOUS and the images of torture are so sanitized as to shock absolutely nobody.  I have personally witnessed worse treatment of prisoners in Williamson County, Texas, and in fact all over California, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma than was shown on the screen in Zero Dark Thirty.  None of the prisoners in the movie were bleeding or bruised even, none were drugged, none appeared to have been genuinely broken—but these things DO happen in the jails and detention centers of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave…..EVERY DAY.

Still, I don’t know—was torture ever effective in revealing the truth?  Did torture help fanatically dogged CIA agents to find and corner Osama bin Laden (finally!) in May of 2011 so that Obama could take credit and thereby advance the confusing similarity between his two names (Hussein Obama) and the Bush administration’s intentionally selected “great enemies” for the first decade of the 21st century: Saddam Hussein and Osama.  (I was always fond of the bumper stickers and campaign slogans: Hail to the de facto 44th President: “Obama’s been Lyin'”).

Perhaps we should convene a seance and ask the spirit of my dear old Harvard condiscipula, the late great Benazir (“B.B.” or “Pinkie” Bhutto…whom I had the privilege of meeting and getting to know even though she was technically several years ahead of me in school and was returning from Oxford when I knew her.  The history was that we met when she effectively saved my pet coatimundi’s life and even played with us around Harvard Yard and North Yard and Law Yard after “Theresa” bit “Pinkie’s” bodyguard and the Pakistani ambassador in a single episode on Everett Street where I used to live….international incident avoided by fairly massive girl-power, I guess you’d say…).  

As a result, I came to believe that Benazir Bhutto was one of the foremost leaders of the modern Islamic world, and I think it’s very significant that she (either inadvertently or purposely) on November 2, 2007, told David Frost (or someone very much like him) that Bin Laden had died in December 2001, and been buried just after Christmas that year…..  But Pinkie was not the only one who believed that Osama was dead, as a matter of fact, only the Bush-Cheney propaganda machine kept him alive (for Obama’s ultimate benefit).  Here is the reality of the situation: There are a few reports from around the world that I found that indicated that Osama bin-Laden had indeed died when Pinkie Bhutto said he died.  Omar Sheikh has been in Pakistani police custody since February 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl.

However, some other reports, which seem to make some sense, indicated that Osama bin-Laden died in December 2001. An Egyptian newspaper called al-Wafd published the following article (Volume 15 No 4633) on December 26th, 2001:

A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.

If you look at a timeline of events involving Osama bin-Laden, ignoring the questionable videotapes, there is a noticeable shift in the type of communication Osama bin-Laden has with the world and the rhetoric used by Bush Administration and Pakistani officials in regards to the threat Osama bin-Laden poses starting in the middle of December 2001. Some highlights:

September 15, 2001 – 
President Bush said of bin-Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”

September 17, 2001 – President Bush proclaimed loudly and vigorously (and as about as articulately as he ever got), “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”

November 7, 2001 – Pakistani reporter Hamid Mir interviewed Osama bin-Laden in person.

November 16, 2001 – Battle of Tora Bora began.

November 25, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden gave his last known public speech to his followers in Milawa, Afghanistan, a village located on the route from Tora Bora to the Pakistani border.

November 28, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden reportedly escaped from Tora Bora.

December 15, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden’s (authenticated) voice was reportedly intercepted for the last time communicating with his fighters in Tora Bora via his shortwave radio.

December 17, 2001 – US Intelligence and Pentagon officials admitted that they had “lost Osama bin-Laden.”

December 17, 2001 – United States declared victory at Tora Bora

December 26, 2001 – An article about Osama bin-Laden’s funeral was published in Pakistan and Egypt. The funeral allegedly had taken place about 10 days earlier. The article was also discussed by Fox News.

December 28, 2001 – President Bush said (for the first time), “Our objective is more than bin-Laden”

January 18, 2002 – Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf told CNN that he believes Osama bin-Laden to be dead

January 27, 2002 – Vice President Dick Cheney said that Osama bin-Laden “isn’t that big of a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat.”

January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told CNN, “”I do not know for a fact that he’s alive. I happen to believe he’s probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden.”

January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivered his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.

March 13, 2002 – President Bush said, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”

April 4, 2002 – Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers said, “The goal has never been to get bin-Laden”

October 14, 2002 – President Bush said, “I don’t know whether bin-Laden is alive or dead”

October 16, 2002 – Middle East Newsline reported that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States both believed Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.

This timeline, with Osama bin-Laden’s death allegedly occurring in the middle of December 2001, makes it possible that Omar Sheikh could have committed the murder. From October 2001 through January 19, 2002, Omar Sheikh was living openly in his home in Lahore, Pakistan. His positions as leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (a Taliban and Osama bin-Laden partner) and ISI agent (the source of funds for Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) would also have given him means for access to Osama bin-Laden.

While it was disturbing that Benazir Bhutto may have revealed that our government has been (and continues to be) lying to us about Osama The Big Bad Wolf, his life, death, now only awaiting his resurrection, the revelation that his supposed killer was Omar Sheikh raises even more questions than the obvious ‘Who the hell was making and releasing all those Osama bin-Laden videos and for what purpose?’.

Here are some interesting facts:

  • Daniel Pearl was investigating, among other things, connections between the Pakistani ISI and terrorist groups when he was kidnapped and killed.
  • On February 5, 2002, before Daniel Pearl’s body was found, Omar Sheikh turned himself in to ISI officials. ISI kept Omar Sheikh (one of their agents) in custody for a week before turning him over to Pakistani police. What happened during that week is unknown as Omar Sheikh wouldn’t discuss the details fearing his family will be killed.
  • The trial of Omar Sheikh in Pakistan, the result of which was a death sentence, was held entirely in secret and with questionable evidence. According to The Guardian, both US officials and Marianne Pearl (Daniel Pearl’s wife) have concluded that Omar Sheikh is not guilty.
  • Before Omar Sheikh’s trial had concluded, Pervez Musharraf publicly declared that he wanted the trial to result in a death sentence, leading many to believe he effectively ordered the courts to render that verdict.
  • Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales told Marianne Pearl (Daniel Pearl’s wife) that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad confessed to the murder of Daniel Pearl. Daniel Pearl’s family and former CIA investigators doubt that the confession, received only after Mohammad was tortured, is true.
  • Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is the so-called “9/11 mastermind” whose identity was supposedly provided by the interrogations of Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The tapes of these interrogations were the ones famously destroyed by the CIA in 2005.
  • On October 7, 2001 General Mahmood Ahmad was replaced as the head of the ISI at the request of the United States due to numerous reports that he had ordered Omar Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta before 9/11.
  • ISI director General Mahmood Ahmad was in the United States during 9/11. In the days preceding the attacks, he met with CIA director George Tenet and US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Mark Grossman. During the attacks, we was meeting with Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss (who will take over as CIA director after George Tenet leaves). After the attacks, Graham and Goss will co-head the House-Senate investigation  into the 9/11 attacks.
  • The previous time the director of the ISI, Ziauddin Butt, came to the United States was a few days before Pervez Musharraf took over control of Pakistan in a 1999 military coup (Benazir’s Zulfikar was assassinated and his government overthrown a full two decades earlier in 1979, derailing modernization in Pakistan at exactly the same time as the Islamic Revolution in Iran did the same to the Shah’s ambitious programs of Westernization.  Coincidence????
  • General Mahmood Ahmad received his position as the director of the ISI after helping dictator Pervez Musharraf claim power.
  • Benazir Bhutto said that a “key figure in security” (ISI?) would be on the list of people who would want her dead.
  • The ISI has been in existence since the 1980’s due to the financing of the CIA and according to The Guardian “it has long been established that the ISI has acted as go-between in intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA.”

I don’t really know what to make of these facts and don’t even know if all of them are now or ever were relevant. But I do have some questions to which I for one demand (if not answers then at least) serious discussion:

  • Is it possible that Daniel Pearl had found out that Osama bin-Laden had been killed during the course of his investigation, leading him to be kidnapped one month after the alleged murder?
  • If Omar Sheikh did kill Osama bin-Laden, could that explain why he was falsely accused and convicted of the murder of Daniel Pearl? (Another movie was made to promote this fraud). To shut him up? Is he still alive, as believed, because of his ties to Pakistan’s ISI?
  • (One uncomfortable question) How much do CIA and Bush Administration officials know about the murder of Daniel Pearl? Did they have an interest in the silence of both Daniel Pearl and Omar Sheikh? Why hasn’t the Bush Administration demanded that Pervez Musharraf allow the United States to question Omar Sheikh, since he was still alive and in their custody?
  • (Some much more uncomfortable questions, damning in fact): How deep and how sinister was the alliance of the Bush government and the Musharraf government? How interconnected were (are?) the ISI and CIA and could the ISI have assisted Osama bin-Laden, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Taliban without the knowledge of the CIA?
  • (But above all else:) Did the Bush CIA want Benazir Bhutto gone?  Pinkie was useless to the Bush Administration—she was not playing her role to justify interventionism and imperial expansion.  Benazir Bhutto presented the west with the totally wrong image for Pakistan (from the Bush administration’s imperial perspective)—she was so lively, so articulate in English, so completely modern, such an uncompromising advocate for the sovereignty of her homeland.
  • Why did the Bush Administration want us to think Osama bin-Laden was still alive? How did they personally benefit from this deception more than they would benefit by publicly taking credit for catching Osama bin-Laden?  I think they were saving a moment of glory for Barack Hussein Obama, their hand-picked stealth-bomb of a successor (who looked so different, he was the obvious choice to continue all the same policies…it’s called “hiding in plain sight”)

I understand how some people might think or feel that Benazir Bhutto’s statement in November 2007 was largely uncorroborated and might not be immediately believable or subject to unquestioning acceptance.  But what was her motive to lie?  I can imagine none. The lively woman I once  knew who liked to hang around the Peabody and Semitic Museums on Divinity Avenue, play with my coatimundi, hop on the train and go to New York every other weekend, and drink café au lait by the gallon in Harvard Square was by then the Prime Minister of Pakistan twice.  She was a glorious symbol of Islam in the modern world—a fearless female leader against both the reactionary Imams and the invading oil companies.  

And given her position and family heritage, she was unquestionably privy to more information than any reporter, especially reporters working for the American press. Also, it’s the word of a dead heroine of genuine, civilized, modernization and progress in the Islamic world against those of the hopelessly corrupt and discredited Bush Administration, the CIA, Pervez Musharraf’s government, and the American and British mainstream press. Who was more deserving of our trust in 2007?  Who is more deserving now?  Let’s have that seance….