Thirst for oil poses threat to US national security, says military adviser

Democratic senators today pivoted from the economy to national security in push for climate change bill


America's thirst for oil is a gathering threat to its national security – and the risk will grow further as the world's population touches 7 billion, a military adviser to the Pentagon told the Senate today.

In a second day of debate on energy, Democratic senators today pivoted from the economy to national security to try to make the case for a climate change bill.

The threat to Americans' security ranged from the here and now – with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq tied down by their reliance on gas-guzzling equipment – to years into the future when extreme temperatures and rising sea levels could lead to a widespread social breakdown.

"We have never before on this planet had close to 7 billion people which we will have in 2011. We have never had the unprecedented level of per capita energy use multiplied by that 7 billion people," Dennis McGinn, a member of the Military Advisory Board, composed of senior retired admirals and generals, told the Senate. "We have a whole host of indicators, warnings and trends that tells us climate change is bad for national security."

He said the country would face risks on multiple fronts. "America's current energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security – militarily, diplomatically and economically."

The Pentagon is already beginning to focus more acutely on the threat posed by climate change.

Military research labs are exploring new energy-saving devices, and other ways of conserving fuel in the battlefield. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have made planners acutely conscious that fuel dependence is putting US forces at risk. The US marines corps recently ordered an energy audit of its operations in Afghanistan, in a bid to reduce enormous fuel costs.

"We are tied down by fuel. Fuel is a real day-today concern for our forces in the field who are tethered to that fossil fuel tail," said Kathleen Hicks, the deputy undersecretary of defence for strategy.

The US military is beginning to focus more intensely on the threat posed by climate change.

Hicks also told the Senate that global warming was emerging as a dangerous "accelerant" – fuelling conflicts and speeding the breakdown of fragile states.

It also created opportunities for extremist groups such as al-Qaida.

Progress on the climate change bill is seen as essential a to a successful outcome at the international meeting on carbon reduction in Copenhagen in December.

The White House has also stepped up its efforts to shepherd the bill through the Senate. This week's hearings, the formal start of the legislative process, were carefully coordinated with the White House.

Obama yesterday toured a solar facility in Florida and announced the award of some $3.5bn (£2.1bn) in grants to modernise America's electrical grid. Today, the White House sponsored a public forum on energy.

The White House and Democratic leaders are also trying to rally support around the climate change bill in the Senate – in part by bowing to Republican demands for a larger place for nuclear power.

Barbara Boxer, the co-author of the proposed legislation, said today she would press ahead to get her environment and public works committee for early approval of the draft – despite opposition from Republicans and even a powerful Democrat.

"I think there will be good news out of the committee this week, so stay tuned," she said.

http://dailyreckoning.com/

don't forget to vote

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/sequoia/

November 1, 2009
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... opic=18300
Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed

For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

[1] http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.a ... ntAirspeed, http://www.csgnetwork.com/machonecalc.html (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/in ... 0251.shtml

What do you say we hold a bake sale to keep the arts program alive in the High School?
Love the way your tax dime is spent by FBI agents.


a species that hires bodyguards to protect them looses the ability to protect themselves especially when they are sodomized by their
bodyguards.Did I mention they are doomed to extinction?


FBI agent admits to racking up $41,000 in fraudulent expenses
By: Scott McCabe
Examiner Staff Writer
November 4, 2009

An FBI agent temporarily assigned to headquarters in downtown Washington faces up to five years in prison for forging bogus housing documents to collect more than $41,000.

Jeffrey B. Shim, 40, pleaded guilty Tuesday to a single count of making a false statement. His sentencing is set for Feb. 5, when in addition to the time behind bars, he faces three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.

Shim has agreed to pay back the FBI $41,658.

Shim, who was based at the FBI's Newark, N.J., office, resigned last week as part of his plea agreement. He had been with the bureau since 2002. In May 2008, he was sent to work at the FBI headquarters on a temporary assignment.

In U.S. District Court in D.C. on Tuesday, Shim admitted that he lied when he claimed to be renting an apartment in Beltsville from May 2008 to July 2009, when he was actually staying at his home in the Paladin Terrace area in Olney. He and his wife bought that house in 2006, court document said.

Shim admitted that he drew up and submitted two fabricated rental agreements, according to court documents. Over a 15-month period, Shim said he forged the signature of a fictitious landlord on rental receipts for lodging reimbursement.

In all, Shim turned in 20 rental receipts with weekly rents of $1,400 or monthly amounts of $3,100. He received $41,700 from the false receipts, prosecutors said.

The irregularities of Shim's expenses were discovered by FBI internal controls that eventually led to a joint investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and members of the FBI, prosecutors said.
Top

click on link for full story
http://www.courant.com/community/new-ha ... 2044.story
Lawsuit: Trooper, FBI Agent Didn't Stop Arrest



By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN November 3, 2009



NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A Connecticut man claims in a federal lawsuit that an FBI agent and a state trooper failed to help him after New Haven police falsely arrested him on drug charges.

Norval Falconer says Trooper Blake Stine and FBI agent James McGoey failed to tell prosecutors that New Haven police planted drugs on him three years ago. Falconer said he was forced to plead guilty to the drug charges to avoid spending Christmas in prison.

The lawsuit filed Monday in New Haven says the charges were eventually dropped, but Falconer spent a month in prison, was evicted from his apartment and lost his job.

It seeks unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

"They let this guy rot in jail for a month and plead guilty to something they knew he didn't do," Diane Polan, Falconer's attorney, said Tuesday.

Polan said Stine and McGoey could have asked prosecutors to reduce Falconer's bond so he could get out of prison without revealing they were involved in an ongoing federal corruption investigation of New Haven police.

Stine, a sergeant assigned to the Statewide Narcotics Task Force before he retired, said he had not seen the lawsuit yet.

"All the proper steps were taken to remedy the situation," Stine said.


Falconer filed a $10 million federal lawsuit last year against former New Haven detectives William White, Justen Kasperzyk and Jose Silva. White, Silva and Kasperzyk were sentenced to prison for corruption.

Stine was in the bedroom of an apartment Falconer was visiting when Kasperzyk moved drugs he found in a basement of the apartment building, according to the lawsuit. Stine told McGoey that Kasperzyk put his hands in and out of a closet so quickly that the detective could not take anything out of the closet, yet held up a bag of drugs and said "Look what I found!"

Stine heard the detective tell Falconer, "I saw you throw it into the closet. I'll swear to it," according to the lawsuit.

When Stine asked White where Kasperzyk got the drugs, White said he didn't know and "I guess it came out of there now" and laughed, the lawsuit alleges.

White, the former head of the narcotics unit, is serving a 38-month prison sentence, while Kasperzyk was sentenced to 15 months in prison for planting drug evidence and stealing money from a crime scene and Silva received a 90-day sentence for an unlawful drug arrest.

White pleaded guilty in 2007 to conspiracy to commit bribery and theft of government property.

White admitted taking $10,000 from bondsmen in return for capturing certain fugitives and admitted stealing $27,500 planted by the FBI in the trunk of a car and another $1,000 planted at a house.

Honduras: A Victory for “Smart Power”

by Eva Golinger


chavezcode.com/ - 2009-11-02


Henry Kissinger said that diplomacy is the “art of restraining power”. Obviously, the most influential ideologue on US foreign policy of the twenty first century was refering to the necesity to “restrain the power” of other countries and goverments in order to maintain the dominant world power of the United States. Presidents in the style of George W. Bush employed “Hard Power” to achieve this goal: weapons, bombs, threats and military invasions. Others, like Bill Clinton, used “Soft Power”: cultural warfare, Hollywood, ideals, diplomacy, moral authority and campaigns to “win the hearts and minds” of those in enemy nations. The Obama administration has opted for a mutation of these two concepts, fusioning military power with diplomacy, political and economic influence with cultural penetration and legal manuvering. They call this “Smart Power”. It’s first application is the coup d’etat in Honduras, and as of today, it’s worked to perfection.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that “we should use what has been called “smart power”, the complete range of tools that are at our disposal – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural – choosing the correct tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With “smart power”, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy.” Clinton later reinforced this concept affirming that the “wisest path will be to first use persuasion.”

So, what is intelligent about this concept? It’s a form of politics that is difficult to classify, difficult to detect and difficult to deconstruct. Honduras is a clear example. On one hand, President Obama condemned the coup against President Zelaya while his ambassador in Tegucigalpa held regular meetings with the coup leaders. Secretary of State Clinton repeated over and over again during the past four months that Washington didn’t want to “influence” the situation in Honduras – that Hondurans needed to resolve their crisis, without outside interference. But it was Washington that imposed the mediation process “led” by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and Washington that kept funding the coup regime and its supporters via USAID, and Washington that controlled and commanded the Honduran armed forces, involved in repressing the people and imposing a brutal regime, through its massive military presence in the Soto Cano military base.

Washington lobbyists also wrote the San José “agreement”, and in the end, it was the high level State Department and White House delegation that “persuaded” the Hondurans to accept the agreement. Despite the constant US interference in the coup d’etat in Honduras – funding, design, and political and military support – Washington’s “smart power” approach was able to distort public opinion and make the Obama administration come out as the grand victor of “multilateralism”.

What “smart power” achieved was a way to disguise Washington’s unilateralism as multilateralism. From day one, Washington imposed its agenda. On July 1st, spokespeople for the Department of State admitted in a press briefing that they had prior knowledge of the coup in Honduras. They also admitted that two high level State Department officials, Thomas Shannon and James Steinberg, were in Honduras the week before the coup meeting with the civil and military groups involved. They said their purpose was to “impede the coup”, but how, therefore, can they explain that the airplane that forcefully exiled President Zelaya left from the Soto Cano military base in the presence of US military officers?

The facts demonstrate the truth about Washington and the coup in Honduras, and the subsequent successful experiment with “smart power”. Washington knew about the coup before it happened, yet continued to fund those involved via USAID and NED. The Pentagon aided in the illegal forced exile of President Zelaya, and later, the Obama administration used the Organization of American States (OAS) – during a moment at which it was on the border of extinction – as a façade to impose its agenda. The discourse of the Department of State always legitimated the coup leaders, calling on “both parts…to resolve the political dispute in a peaceful way through dialogue.” Since when is an illegal usurper of power considered a “legitimate part” capable of dialogue? Obviously, a criminal actor who takes power by force is not interested in dialoguing. Based on this Washington logic, the world should call on the Obama administration to “resolve its political dispute with Al Qaeda in a peaceful way through dialogue, and not war”.

The Obama/Clinton “smart power” achieved its first victory during the initial days of the coup, persuading the member states of the OAS to accept a 72-hour wait period to allow the coup regime in Honduras to “think through its actions”. Soon after, Secretary of State Clinton imposed the mediation efforts, led by Arias, and by then, so much space had been ceded to Washington, that the US just stepped in and took the reigns. When President Zelaya went to Washington and met with Clinton, it was obvious who was in control. And that’s how they played it out, buying more and more time up until the last minute, so that even if Zelaya returns to power now he will have no space or time to govern.

The people were left out, excluded. Months of repression, violence, persecution, human rights violations, curfews, media closures, tortures and political assasinations have been forgotten. What a relief, as Subsecretary of State Thomas Shannon remarked upon achieving the signature of Micheletti and Zelaya on the final “agreement”, that the situation in Honduras was resolved “without violence”.

Upon signature of the “agreement” this past October 30th, Washington immediately lifted the few restrictions it had imposed on the coup regime as a pressure tactic. Now they can get visas again and travel north, they don’t have to worry about the millions of dollars from USAID, which hadn’t even been suspended in the first place. The US military in presence in Soto Cano can reinitiate all their activities – oh wait, they never stopped in the first place. The Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) of the Pentagon affirmed just days after the coup that “everything is normal with our armed forces in Honduras, they are engaging in their usual activities with their Honduran counterparts.” And Washington is already preparing its delegation of elections observors for the November 29th presidential elections – they are already on their way.

Forget about Cold War torturer Billy Joya who was scheming with the coup regime against the resistance; or the Colombian paramilitary forces sent in to help the coup regime “control” the population. Don’t worry anymore about the sonic warfare LRAD weapon used to torture those inside the Brazilian embassy in an attempt to oust Zelaya from the building. Nothing happened. As Thomas Shannon said, “we congratulate two great men for reaching this historic agreement”. And Secretary of State Clinton commented that “this agreement is a tremendous achievement for the Hondurans.” Wait, for who?

In the end, the celebrated “agreement” imposed by Washington only calls upon the Honduran Congress – the same Congress that falsified Zelaya’s resignation letter in order to justify the coup, and the same Congress that supported the illegal installation of Micheletti in the presidency – to determine whether or not it wants to reinstate Zelaya as president. And only after receiving a legal opinion from the Honduran Supreme Court – the same one that said Zelaya was a traitor for calling for a non-binding poll vote on potential future constitutional reform, and the same one that ordered his violent capture. Even if the Congress’ answer is positive, Zelaya would not have any power. The “agreement” stipulates that the members of his cabinet will be imposed by those political parties involved in the coup, the armed forces will be under the control of the Supreme Court that supported the coup, and Zelaya could be tried for his alleged “crime” of “treason” because he wanted to have a non-binding poll on constitutional reform.

Per the “agreement” a truth commission would supervise its implementation. Today, Ricardo Lagos, ex president of Chile and staunch Washington ally, was announced as the leader of the Honduran Truth Commission. Lagos is co-director of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Dialogue, a right wing think tank that influences Washington’s policies on Latin America. Lagos also was charged with creating a Chilean version of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), la Fundación Democracia y Desarrollo, to “promote democracy” in Latin America, US-style. Upon leaving the presidency in 2006, Lagos was named President of the Club of Madrid – an exclusive club of ex presidents dedicated to “promoting democracy” around the world. Several key figures involved in currently destabilizing left-leaning Latin American governments are members of this “club”, including Jorge Quiroga and Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (ex presidents of Bolivia), Felipe González (ex prime minister of Spain), Václav Havel (ex president of the Chech Republic) and José María Aznar (ex prime minister of Spain), amongst many others.

In the end, “smart power” was sufficiently intelligent to deceive those who today celebrate an “end to the crisis” in Honduras. But for a majority of people in Latin America, the victory of Obama’s “smart power” in Honduras is a dark and dangerous shadow closing in on us. Initiatives such as ALBA have just begun to achieve a level of Latin American independence from the dominant northern power. For the first time in history, the nations and peoples of Latin America have been collectively standing strong with dignity and sovereignty, building their futures. And then along came Obama with his “smart power”, and ALBA was hit by the coup in Honduras, Latin American integration has been weakened by the US military expansion in Colombia, and the struggle for independence and sovereignty in Washington’s backyard is being squashed by a sinister smile and insincere handshake.

Bowing before Washington, the crisis in Honduras “was resolved”. Ironically, the same crisis was fomented by the US in the first place. There is talk of similar coups in Paraguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela, where subversion, counterinsurgency and destabilization increase daily. The people of Honduras remain in resistance, despite the “agreement” reached by those in power. Their determined insurrection and commitment to justice is a symbol of dignity. The only way to defeat imperialist agression – soft, hard or smart - is through the union and integration of the people.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer.” – Henry Kissinger


Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney from New York, living in Caracas, Venezuela since 2005 and author of the best-selling books, “The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela” (2006 Olive Branch Press) and “Bush vs. Chávez: Washington’s War on Venezuela” (2007, Monthly Review Press). Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the US Government’s efforts to destabilize progressive movements in Latin America.

November 4, 2009
Economic Conscription
Of Veterans and Volunteers

By SUSAN GALLEYMORE

Veteran's Day 2009 coming up November 11 and the United States economy founders on rocky shoals after decades of deregulation. It's messy out there...and, by most accounts, the unemployed flotsam and jetsam will only increase.

According to low ball calculations, unemployment hit a 26-year-high of 9.8 percent. Associated Press reports nearly 6 million Americans volunteered for something in 2008, the largest total in the past four years. “As the economy worsens, the number of Americans trying to make a difference is going sky-high.”

Lou Reda, executive director of the HandsOn network says, “It's absolutely stunning...It's getting harder to put together enough projects for all the volunteers.”

Organizations with tight budgets rely on volunteers – or unpaid interns. Fundraising is the top volunteer activity followed by collecting and distributing food, general labor, and teaching. Even internships, the “in” to competitive careers for recent college graduates of a certain class are hard to come by as someone, a parent or family member, must pays the bills.

Then there's the US military. The Pentagon accounts for more than half of U.S. discretionary spending; the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. In fiscal year 2009, the regular defense budget totaled $518; tax payers are not privy to the hidden black budget. Accordingly, as the economy worsens and the pool of under- or unemployed grows, young Americans “volunteer” for the military.

Curtis Gilroy, a senior Pentagon official, said a 10 percent increase in the national unemployment rate generally translates into a 4 per cent to 6 per cent “improvement in high-quality Army enlistments.”

Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary for defense for military personnel policy, states, “We're pleased to report that, for the first time since the advent of the all-volunteer force, all of the military components, active and reserve, met their number as well as their quality goals.” Another Pentagon spokesperson reports a “banner year for recruitment”...the military is meeting “all its goals for the first time since creating an all-volunteer force in 1973.”

The spirit of volunteerism, according to Webster's, is to offer oneself for service of one's own free will, to render a service or take part in a transaction while having no legal concern or interest.

But what does it mean to volunteer when few generative alternatives exist?

I met a volunteer in Sea-Tac Airport recently. Amir, a Muslim and first generation Arab-American, was heading to Ft. Worth, then Kuwait, then Afghanistan. His battle dress uniform was neat, his boots replaced after his most recent tour of duty in Baghdad. He was involuntarily extended three months beyond the one year he – and his family – expected. His fourth child was born while he was gone. This time, his wife and his ten-, eight-, and six-year-old children wish he was redeploying to Iraq. “They think I have a better shot at surviving in Baghdad since I already know how things work there.”

We agreed this is a bad time to deploy to Afghanistan. Amir said if he wasn't married with children, if his buddies didn't need him, he'd consider going AWOL.

I asked, “But aren't you a volunteer?”

He laughed. “Yeah, right. What a joke. When is a volunteer not a volunteer? When he's deployed to combat three, and four, and five times. Americans can't get real jobs anymore. We're forced by circumstances to sign up – or re-up – to feed our families. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; I can't afford a declaration of independence.”

Indeed, a more accurate definition of Amir's relationship to the military is indenture: a person who binds himself to work for another for a specified time, in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.

Yes, the US military has young people who more accurately fit the definition of volunteer; my own son is one. He enlisted with a goal, fulfilled that goal, then discharged to earn the formal college education that he was unable to earn as a volunteer (despite his recruiter's promises that he would attend college while in the military). But hundreds of thousands of Amirs in the military indenture themselves to keep families afloat. More than 6,000 American volunteers are dead and tens of thousands have lost limbs or suffered brain injury.

Surely if risking one's life for one's country is the noble cause George Bush promoted – and Barak Obama echoes – recruiting volunteers would be a cakewalk? Yet the military spends, on average, between $9,000 and $10,000 per recruit including the cost of advertising and employing thousands of recruiters across the country. The US Army spends about $22,000 per recruit.

This Veteran's Day remember that President Eisenhower signed the 1954 bill as a call to We, the People to dedicate ourselves to peace.

This Veterans Day look into a veteran's face, shake his or her hand, sincerely ask about, and deeply listen to, stories from the combat zones.

Then ask yourself, isn't it time to ensure that none of our people bare the burden of false volunteerism? Isn't it time you, and I, and our nation reexamine our priorities, dedicate ourselves to people over profit, and ensure a truly secure future?

Susan Galleymore is author of Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak about War and Terror, host of Stanford University's Raising Sand Radio, and a former “military mom” and GI Rights Counselor.

WHO KILLED MARTIN LUTHER KING?:
The Cover-up of the Century


"The United States government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world."
- Martin Luther King


On December 8, 1999, a jury in Memphis, Tennessee, reached the verdict that Martin Luther King Jr. was killed as a result of a conspiracy involving the FBI, CIA, U.S. Army, Memphis police and the Mafia. After a five week trial which presented 70 witnesses, the jury (made up of six blacks and six whites) rejected the official position that the civil rights titan was shot by a lone assassin, James Earl Ray, who was jailed for 99 years for the crime and died in 1998. The verdict concluded a wrongful death civil lawsuit brought by the King family against Loyd Jowers, owner of Jim‚s Grill, a Memphis cafe located next to the scene of the shooting when it took place on April 4, 1968. The jury found Jowers guilty as one part of a large conspiracy created by government agencies. Jowers admitted his role but insisted that he did not know the identity of the target.

Coretta Scott King, Martin's widow, hailed the verdict as "a great victory for justice and truth." She added: "there is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband and the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief." Dexter King, one of Martin's four children, said that his father was killed "because he challenged the establishment." He called the official investigation into Martin's murder, "the most incredible cover-up of the century."

The case for conspiracy and the inadequacy of the lone assassin theory seem obvious. The state had no significant evidence implicating Ray. According to the official version, Ray shot King from the bathroom window of a rooming house located next to the Lorraine Motel where the civil rights leader was staying. King was on the motel's second floor balcony at 6:01 pm on April 4, 1968, when a bullet struck his chin, knocking him to the ground. He died in hospital an hour later. The authorities never matched the bullet that killed King to the rifle they claim Ray used. Charles Stephens, the state's only eye witness who claimed to have seen Ray leave the rooming house soon after the shot, was too drunk to even stand up at the time. There was a tree branch between the bathroom window and the balcony that made a clear shot impossible. Ray was not a trained marksman and the scope on the rifle was not sighted which means that it could not have hit any target. Six witnesses claimed that the shot came from bushes behind the rooming house. Jim's Grill was located under the rooming house and its back door opened on to the bushes. Ray was jailed not due to evidence but because he pleaded guilty. He recanted 3 days later and spent the rest of his life trying to get a trial. Under Tennessee law Ray had the right to a trial but this was consistently denied. Ray claimed that his guilty plea was coerced by Percy Foreman, his lawyer at the time, who threatened him with the death penalty.

Ray was a petty criminal who had bungled almost every robbery he committed. In the King murder, he claimed to have been set up by a man named Raul (of Portuguese origin) who, he said, directed his movements after Ray escaped from prison in April 1967. Ray first met Raul in Montreal in August and agreed to work for him after he was promised travel papers. Raul was a gunrunner with links to Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss of New Orleans. Raul had Ray smuggling contraband across the U.S.-Canadian border and going to different U.S. cities to make deliveries. On April 3, 1968, Raul met Ray in Memphis. Raul had already asked Ray to buy a Remington 30.06 rifle with a telescopic sight. Ray was then told to get accomodation at the rooming house next to the Lorraine Motel and leave the rifle there. On the afternoon of April 4, Raul asked Ray to "go to the movies" for three hours. After 6:01 pm, Ray heard on his car radio that King had been shot and the police were looking for a white man in a white Mustang (the make of his car). Ray escaped to Toronto and then flew to London (England) where he was caught. Sidney Carthew, a seaman, testified that he met Ray and Raul together in Montreal's Neptune Bar in the summer of 1967.

Jowers also identified Raul. According to him, King's assassination was planned by three Memphis Police Department (MPD) officers in Jim's Grill over 2 days. The officers were Earl Clark, Johnny Barger and Marrell McCollough. Jowers was asked to help in the plot by Frank Liberto, a produce dealer with Mafia connections to whom he owed money. Liberto told Jowers to hold $100,000 for him. Minutes after the bullet hit King on April 4, Jowers was handed a smoking rifle at the back door of Jim's Grill by Earl Clark, the MPD's best marksman. Jowers believes Clark killed King. Raul picked up the rifle and the money the next day, according to Jowers. William Pepper, the King family's lawyer, actually found Raul living in Yonkers, New York. He was asked to appear in court but refused. Barbara Reis, journalist for "Publico", the main newspaper in Portugal, testified that a source connected to Raul's family told her that agents of the U.S. government had visited them three times. The source added that the government was "protecting" the family and monitoring their phone.

One of the main indicators of conspiracy was the removal of all security for King in Memphis during April 3- 4. A detail made up of black police officers assigned to King on previous visits to Memphis was not deployed this time. Similarly, two black firemen were removed from the fire station overlooking the Lorraine Motel on April 3, as was black detective Ed Redditt who was surveilling King from there. Police emergency tactical units were also pulled back from around the motel giving the assassin lots of room to escape. All police personnel disappeared from the motel an hour before the murder. After the shooting, no All Points Bulletin describing the suspect was issued nor was a "Signal Y" which would block off exits from the city. Both of these are standard police procedures. A door-to-door investigation in the Lorraine Motel area was never carried out by authorities and many witnesses were not questioned. By order of the police the bush area from where, according to six witnesses, the shot came, was cut down the next day. This destroyed the crime scene.

The state also claimed that Ray was driven by racism to kill King but there is no record of Ray displaying racist or violent behaviour. He had no motive to kill King. There is lots of evidence, however, to indicate that U.S. federal government agencies were out to get King. He was extensively surveilled by the FBI, CIA and Army Intelligence, as a dangerous radical who threatened national security. All three agencies believed that King had communist ties. J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director, hated King intensely and wanted him "neutralized" by almost any means. When King won the Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover publicly called him, "the most notorious liar in the country." A Senate report stated in 1976 that the FBI tried "to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King." William Sullivan, FBI assistant director, considered King "the most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country." King's phones were tapped, his movements watched, his rooms bugged and his entourage infiltrated. The FBI threatened him, blackmailed him, launched a media disinformation campaign to discredit him, and sent him a letter suggesting that he commit suicide. A main goal of the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) which was aimed at eliminating black nationalist groups, was to prevent the rise of a black "messiah." FBI memoes also discussed finding a black leader to replace King. The final obscenity of U.S. "justice" was that the FBI which clearly wanted King dead was given the task of investigating his murder. Hence the official devotion to the baseless lone assassin theory for the last thirty two years. Judge Joe Brown who presided over one of Ray's appeals, called the FBI's investigation into King's killing, "inept and incapable if not downright incompetent."

In its surveillance of King, the FBI collaborated with Army Intelligence which had been spying on the King family for three generations, since 1917. There were seven U.S. Army Military Intelligence Groups (MIGs) spread out over the U.S., and six of them surveilled King as he toured the country. The Army maintained a massive domestic spy system which included 304 intelligence offices in the U.S. and national security dossiers on 7 million Americans. In a series of articles in the "Memphis Commercial Appeal" in March 1993, reporter Steve Tompkins detailed the "increasing hysteria"of Army intelligence chiefs over the national security threat they thought King posed. Tompkins stated that army intelligence was "...desperately searching for a way to stop him..." Particularly alarming was King's opposition to the Vietnam War which he denounced as On April 4, 1967, as an "imperialist assault on Third World peasants." He equated the use of new weapons against the Vietnamese to the testing of "new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe" by the Nazis. King's condemnation of the Vietnam War made him the leader who could merge the anti-war and civil rights movements. He announced his intention to lead a Poor Peoples' March (of all races) to Washington D.C. in the spring of 1968 and shut down the government if it did not stop the war in Vietnam and take steps to end poverty in the U.S. The Army received reports stating that "King will create massive civil disobedience in [Washington] and in ten to fifteen major cities in the U.S. in the spring of 1968." The Army was not prepared for such upheaval. According to Major General William Yarborough, assistant chief of staff for army intelligence, there were "too few reliable troops to fight in Vietnam and hold the line at home."

Army surveillance of King continued until his assassination. Carthel Weeden, a former captain with the Memphis Fire Department, testified at the Jowers trial that on the afternoon of April 4, 1968, two men approached him at the fire station across from the Lorraine Motel, and showed the identification of U.S. Army officers. The men carried photographic equipment and positioned themselves on the rooftop of the fire station which gave them a clear view of King and the assassin. Any photographs could be in Pentagon archives. According to former National Security Council operative, Jack Terrell, the army went beyond surveillance. Terrell testified that his close friend J.D. Hill who was part of the 20th Special Forces Group confessed to him that he had been a member of an Army sniper team in Memphis ordered to shoot an "unknown" target on April 4. The snipers were being transported to Memphis when their mission was suddenly cancelled. Hill stated that upon learning of King's murder the next day, he realized that the team must have been part of a backup operation to kill King if another sniper failed.

The U.S. government's murder of arguably "the greatest American who ever lived" signified that in violently propping up vicious right-wing dictatorships all over the Third World (as in Vietnam), the U.S. itself had become one of the biggest banana republics with no possibility for peaceful social change. Martin Luther King was a leader of international stature who spoke for the poor of the world and militantly confronted a system based on their slaughter. This pitted him against the most genocidal establishment on Earth. The state murder such a great man only increased the power of his example.