Jason Ross: Lyn, there are also some very important legal-judicial decisions made this week regarding the NSA, the agency that would have made J. Edgar Hoover, the famous head of the FBI who tapped the phone of Dr. Martin Luther King, green with envy, had he lived to see them.
This Monday, on the 16th, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon issued a judgment on a case that was challenging the NSA. In his ruling, the judge said that James Madison would have been aghast at what the NSA has been doing. He said, "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.... Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."
He further said the government had not revealed a single instance where that data collection had "actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature."
In another major development, the White House-appointed panel that was to review the NSA's programs, which was expected by most observers to propose cosmetic changes to the NSA, because of the climate was forced to make real calls. The recommendations included an end to the NSA holding of bulk meta-data, and that actual suspicion had to exist before collecting information. The panel also found that the bulk collection policies were not essential to preventing terrorist attacks, as emphasized by one member of that panel, Geoffrey Stone. They said that
"There has been no instance in which the NSA could say with confidence that the outcome [of a terror investigation] would have been any different" without that program. ...
So, the question I'd like to ask you is: Given the context of what you just discussed around Saudi Arabia and the 28 pages, what is the implication of what's occurring with this blow-back on the NSA, for Obama?
LaRouche: Well, the setup is now there for throwing Obama out of office. That's what this amounts to, because Obama is complicit in this operation, that the previous Bush is also complicitousthe Devil. For example, they knew the facts of what the courts have responded to in the recent court hearing on this issue. There was no justification for concealing the evidence of what had happened, in terms of 9/11. In other words, the entire coverup of 9/11, which has been decreed by two Presidentsboth Presidents have committed really a fraud, or it's now being discussed as a fraud. But in point of fact, from any layman, any citizen of the United States who's got a brain still left in his head, both of them were guiltyboth were guilty as Hell. Both young Bush and Obama were both guilty of high crimes against the United States, as the courts have implicitly ruled: that the people had the right to the information. It can no longer be suppressed.
The next step is: Do we go to the next step? And the next step is considering penalties and charges against the President of the United States Bush, for having concealed the information, concealed the evidence, that this was a criminal action by the Saudi government against the United States. And as it was a criminal action, they had no right to protection. And both Presidencies involved knew these facts, and therefore implicitly they lied, or committed a fraud in another sense.
And therefore what this has done, is open the gates for the immediate impeachment of the current President, Obama. And I don't know how that can be avoided. Obama has resorted to terrorist methods, together with the British monarchy, in this matter. So therefore there's going to be a lot of heat in this matter among international powers.
But I think what we're seeing here, when you think about what this means: Here we are, we're talking about 9/11. How long has that been? How long has the truth been concealed? And what does it mean that the relevant courts suddenly declassify the cover that has been given by Bush and by Obama? Everything is sitting there, saying some penalty ought to be applied to President Bush, certainly. And more than that, above all, great penalties are obliged to be applied against Obama. The conditions now exist for the instant, or rapid ousting of President Obama. That's the first implication, and the minimal implication; there are other ones to go on.
And this goes to a whole set of legislation which was done under these auspices, and that has to be reviewed, too. And a lot of things can change suddenly, and a lot of people, including Wall Street, can find themselves not in comfortable situations, as a result of this. Because you're going to get the threat of the rage of the U.S. population, when people realize what was done to them, and to their nation, by the Saudi kingdom, and also, as we know, the British monarchy were in cahoots on this assault on the United Statesa murderous assault, a virtual act of war against the United States by the British monarchy and the Saudi monarchy. And that's what the fact of the matter is, and all that's necessary is for people to come up with the right explanation of the fact, and then somebody's going to go down.